HR-4418-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Robert Scott (D-VA)
What it does
This bill would establish a new federal entitlement program guaranteeing child care assistance to eligible children under 6, funded through payments to states, territories, and tribes covering 90% of direct child care service costs. It would require states to implement sliding-fee-scale copayments (capped at 7% of family income), set minimum wages for child care staff comparable to elementary educators, establish tiered quality standards, and expand licensing pathways for providers, with mandatory appropriations of unspecified "such sums as necessary" for fiscal years 2026-2031 plus $21.3 billion in specified grant funding.
Who benefits
Low- and middle-income families with children under 6, particularly those below 85% of state median income who receive free care; child care workers who would receive wage increases tied to elementary educator pay scales; child care providers who receive grants for startup, facilities, and quality improvements; children with disabilities, in foster care, or experiencing homelessness who receive priority access; and Head Start agencies and local governments receiving direct grants.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers who would bear the cost of an open-ended entitlement with unspecified total spending; state governments required to develop cost-estimation models, licensing systems, and administrative infrastructure within tight statutory deadlines; smaller or informal child care providers who may struggle to meet new licensing, wage, and tiered-quality requirements within 2.5-4 year windows; and religious child care providers, who may use certificates but cannot use facilities grants for buildings used primarily for religious worship or instruction.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that child care costs have outpaced wages for decades, forcing many parents—especially mothers—to reduce work hours or leave the workforce entirely, and that a federal entitlement guarantees consistent access regardless of state budget cycles. They contend that raising child care worker wages to match elementary educators addresses chronic underpayment in a field with an overwhelmingly female workforce, and that sliding-scale copayments capped at 7% of income make care affordable for working families who currently spend 10-20% of income on care.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates an open-ended federal entitlement with "such sums as necessary" appropriations, meaning total costs are unbounded and could reach hundreds of billions of dollars over the six-year window, straining federal finances. They contend that mandating specific wage floors, licensing timelines, and quality-tier requirements imposes rigid federal standards on a traditionally state-regulated sector, potentially forcing smaller family-based and religious-affiliated providers out of business if they cannot meet compliance deadlines and cost structures.
Constitutional context
Congress's spending power under Article I, Section 8 allows conditional grants to states, with South Dakota v. Dole (1987) governing how much coercion such conditions may impose before becoming unconstitutionally compulsory; the bill's exclusion of religious-worship facilities from facilities grants while permitting certificate use for sectarian care implicates the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, an area shaped by Trinity Lutheran v. Comer (2017) and Carson v. Makin (2022).
Checks and balances
Congress creates the entitlement and appropriates funds while delegating substantial rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to set eligibility standards, cost models, and compliance rules, with states retaining plan-design discretion subject to federal approval.
Historical precedent
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 established the existing federal-state child care subsidy framework this bill would significantly expand into a mandatory entitlement, and proposals for universal child care funding were also debated during the Build Back Better Act negotiations in 2021.