Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)
47 Yea52 Nay1 Not voting1/2 required
SJRES-199-119
Motion to proceed to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 52. Record Vote Number: 215.
Sponsored by Patty Murray (D-WA)
What it does
This joint resolution would use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on May 12, 2026, titled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)." If enacted, the resolution would void the HHS rule and prevent HHS from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future without new congressional authorization. The CCDF is the primary federal program funding child care subsidies for low-income families.
Who benefits
Child care providers who preferred the stricter pre-rule standards, including those who may have invested in meeting higher quality benchmarks. Child care workers whose wages or working conditions may have been protected under the original regulations. Advocacy organizations focused on child care quality standards. States that had already aligned their systems with the prior, more prescriptive federal rules and would face disruption from the new flexibility.
Who is hurt
States and territories that preferred the additional flexibility granted by the HHS rule to tailor CCDF programs to local conditions. Low-income families whose access to subsidized child care could be affected if the flexibility rule had expanded provider eligibility or reduced administrative barriers. Child care providers in rural or underserved areas who may have benefited from loosened requirements. HHS, which would be barred from reissuing a substantially similar rule without new legislation.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the HHS rule weakens hard-won federal quality and health standards that protect children in subsidized care, potentially exposing low-income children — who have no alternative — to lower-quality settings. They contend that "flexibility" in this context means fewer guardrails on how states spend federal dollars, undermining accountability for a program serving millions of vulnerable children and eroding progress made under the 2014 Child Care and Development Block Grant Act reauthorization.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the HHS rule appropriately returns decision-making authority to states, which are better positioned than federal regulators to understand local child care markets, workforce shortages, and family needs. They contend that overly rigid federal mandates have reduced the supply of eligible providers, leaving low-income families with fewer choices and longer waiting lists, and that blocking the rule would lock in a one-size-fits-all approach that has demonstrably failed to expand access in rural and underserved communities.
Motion to Proceed Rejected (47-52)