HR-9224-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act through fiscal year 2031, updating its purposes, definitions, and requirements. It would require states to develop cost estimation models to set provider payment rates that cover actual service delivery costs, expand the definition of eligible activities that qualify families for child care assistance, and create a new grant program for child care facility construction, renovation, and startup expansion. It would also add new state reporting requirements on child care affordability and program benchmarks, and direct the USDA to remove child care businesses from certain loan restrictions.
Who benefits
Low-income working families with children under 13 who would gain access to more child care options and potentially lower copayments. Children experiencing homelessness, children in foster or kinship care, and children receiving child protective services, who are designated as priority populations. Child care providers — including family child care homes, centers, faith-based providers, and Head Start agencies — who would receive higher, cost-reflective payment rates and access to new startup and facilities subgrants. Child care workers who may see improved wages and benefits as states are required to factor workforce compensation into payment rate models. Parents in nontraditional work schedules who would gain access to extended-hours child care. Children with disabilities, who are explicitly prioritized for supply expansion. Rural and underserved communities targeted for new provider capacity. Employers whose workers depend on reliable child care. Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, who are included as eligible grant recipients.
Who is hurt
Federal and state taxpayers who would bear the cost of increased appropriations, though the bill uses open-ended "such sums as may be necessary" authorization language rather than fixed dollar amounts. Existing child care providers who do not meet updated quality, health, and safety standards may face compliance costs or lose eligibility. Higher-income families just above the income eligibility threshold who would not qualify for assistance. Competing uses of discretionary federal spending that could be crowded out by new appropriations. States that currently set lower payment rates may face administrative and fiscal pressure to develop and implement new cost estimation models within the bill's timelines. Private lenders to child care businesses may face indirect competitive effects from new USDA loan access for providers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing CCDBG payment rate structure is chronically underfunded — a 2023 HHS study found that most state reimbursement rates fall below the actual cost of care, causing providers to turn away subsidized children or close entirely. They contend that requiring states to use statistically valid cost estimation models would stabilize the child care market, expand supply in underserved areas, and reduce the workforce shortage that leaves millions of eligible children without access to assistance. The new facilities grant program, they argue, directly addresses the physical infrastructure gap that prevents providers from expanding capacity, particularly in rural and high-poverty communities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's open-ended "such sums as may be necessary" authorization language provides no fiscal discipline and could commit the federal government to substantial, uncapped spending obligations at a time of significant deficit pressure. They contend that mandating cost estimation models and requiring payment rates to cover full provider costs effectively shifts pricing authority from states to a federally prescribed methodology, undermining the block grant's core principle of state flexibility — and that states with tighter budgets may be unable to meet the new rate requirements without reducing the number of children served overall.
Constitutional context
The CCDBG is grounded in Congress's spending power (Art. I, §8), which permits conditional grants to states. No active constitutional tension is raised by this bill's structure; the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amend.) is tangentially relevant to the bill's priority population provisions, but those provisions expand access rather than restrict it, and would face only rational basis review. The bill's inclusion of faith-based providers in the mixed delivery system definition could implicate the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, though the Supreme Court's decisions in Trinity Lutheran (2017) and Espinoza v. Montana (2020) — outside the provided case set — have generally permitted faith-based participation in neutral public benefit programs.
Checks and balances
Congress sets program requirements and authorizes appropriations; the Secretary of HHS implements grant conditions and may offer — but not mandate — specific cost estimation models; states retain flexibility in designing their mixed delivery systems and setting specific rate levels within federal parameters; the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to revise a specific regulatory provision, subject to standard notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Historical precedent
The CCDBG was last comprehensively reauthorized by the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 2014, which similarly updated quality standards, health and safety requirements, and state reporting obligations.