S-2828-119
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.
Sponsored by Deb Fischer (R-NE)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act through fiscal year 2030 and make numerous changes to how states administer child care subsidies, including new cost-estimation models for provider payment rates, updated eligibility definitions, expanded reporting requirements, and a new grant program for child care facility construction and provider supply expansion. It would also direct the Department of Agriculture to revise loan regulations to exclude licensed child care businesses from certain restrictions.
Who benefits
Low- and moderate-income working parents who rely on subsidized child care, particularly those in underserved, rural, or high-poverty areas; child care providers (including family child care homes, faith-based providers, and Head Start agencies) who would receive higher, cost-based payment rates and new startup/facilities grants; child care workers who would benefit from workforce development funding; and states seeking flexibility through income-eligibility waivers.
Who is hurt
States and local lead agencies would face new administrative burdens from cost-estimation modeling, biennial rate reviews, and expanded reporting requirements; federal taxpayers would bear costs from increased authorized appropriations; families with incomes above the 85% state median threshold (absent a waiver) who remain ineligible for subsidies; and some existing providers who fail to meet new health, safety, or licensing conditions attached to subgrants could lose access to funding.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill modernizes a program that hasn't been substantially updated since 2014, addressing a documented shortage of affordable, high-quality child care that keeps parents out of the workforce. They contend that requiring states to use statistically valid cost-estimation models for provider payments would ensure rates actually cover the cost of care, and that new facilities and supply grants target the "child care deserts" that leave rural and underserved families without options.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill imposes significant new administrative mandates on states—cost estimation models, biennial rate reviews, expanded feasibility studies—without guaranteeing commensurate federal funding, since appropriations are set at "such sums as necessary" rather than fixed amounts. They contend the open-ended authorization could allow costs to grow substantially over time while giving the federal government increased leverage over state child care policy through conditions attached to funding.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority here rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), which permits conditions on federal grants to states as long as they are not coercive; South Dakota v. Dole (1987) established the framework for evaluating such conditions. The bill's provisions allowing faith-based providers to participate in a mixed delivery system also implicate the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause concerns addressed in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017), which limited exclusion of religious organizations from generally available public benefits.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes appropriations and sets statutory conditions; the executive branch (HHS Secretary) implements the program through regulations and grant administration, with states retaining plan-design discretion subject to federal approval and audit oversight.
Historical precedent
This bill reauthorizes and amends the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, which was last substantially reauthorized in 2014.