HR-9824-119
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, and Homeland Security, 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 Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
What it does
This bill would appropriate $70 billion in supplemental funding for four federal early childhood programs — $25.5 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $20 billion for the Child Care Entitlement to States, $24 billion for Head Start, and $500 million for Preschool Development Grants — all available through fiscal year 2029. To offset this spending, the bill would simultaneously rescind $70 billion in unobligated funds previously appropriated to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under the Secure America Act (P.L. 119-98).
Who benefits
Low- and moderate-income families with young children who rely on subsidized child care. Children ages 0–5 enrolled in or eligible for Head Start and Early Head Start programs. Child care providers and their workers, who may see increased demand and funding stability. State governments that administer block grants and would receive increased federal dollars. Preschool-age children in states that receive Preschool Development Grants. Employers whose workers may gain more reliable access to child care.
Who is hurt
CBP and ICE, which would lose $70 billion in previously appropriated but unobligated funds, potentially reducing capacity for border security operations, detention facilities, personnel, and technology. Border communities that depend on federal enforcement infrastructure. Contractors and vendors currently under or anticipating contracts with CBP and ICE. Taxpayers who supported the original Secure America Act appropriations. Child care providers in states with complex block grant administration may face delays in receiving funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the United States faces a severe child care shortage — the Center for American Progress estimates that 51% of Americans live in "child care deserts" — and that the existing federal investment is far below the level needed to make care affordable and accessible. They contend that redirecting unobligated border enforcement funds, which have not yet been spent, is a fiscally responsible way to address a documented workforce and family crisis without adding to the deficit, while also scaling back what they characterize as an oversized detention and enforcement apparatus.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that rescinding $70 billion from CBP and ICE would gut the operational capacity of agencies responsible for national security and border management at a time of elevated migration pressures, potentially reversing enforcement gains made under the Secure America Act. They contend that child care funding, while a legitimate policy goal, should be debated and funded on its own merits through the normal appropriations process rather than by defunding law enforcement agencies, and that the rescission could leave border infrastructure projects, personnel contracts, and detention operations without necessary resources mid-execution.
Constitutional context
Congress holds the power of the purse under Article I, and supplemental appropriations and rescissions are well-established legislative tools. No active constitutional tension arises from the child care spending provisions, which fund existing programs under the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause. The rescission of unobligated funds from a prior appropriation (P.L. 119-98) is a standard congressional prerogative, though the executive branch retains some discretion over the timing and manner of implementing rescissions under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Checks and balances
Congress gains direct control over spending priorities by simultaneously appropriating and rescinding funds; the executive branch (HHS, DHS) retains administrative discretion in implementing the new appropriations, and the Office of Management and Budget oversees the rescission process under the Impoundment Control Act.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously used rescissions to offset new spending, most notably in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and various reconciliation bills, though rescissions of this scale from a single law targeting a specific agency are uncommon.