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 (CCDBG) Act through fiscal year 2030, updating its purposes, definitions, and funding structures. It would require states to develop cost estimation models for setting provider payment rates, expand eligible activities for which parents can receive child care assistance (including family leave and health treatment), and create a new grant program for child care facility construction, renovation, and startup costs. It would also add new state reporting requirements on child care affordability and program progress benchmarks.
Who benefits
Low-income working parents who would gain access to more child care options and more stable subsidies. Children in underserved areas, homeless children, children in foster or kinship care, and children with disabilities who are designated as priority populations. Child care providers — including family-based, faith-based, and center-based — who would receive more accurate payment rates and access to new facility and startup grants. Child care workers who may see improved wages and benefits as a result of workforce retention requirements. Employers whose workers depend on reliable child care. Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations that would receive direct grant access. Rural communities that are explicitly prioritized for supply expansion.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would bear the cost of increased federal appropriations, though the bill uses open-ended "such sums as may be necessary" language rather than fixed dollar amounts. States that currently use lower payment rate methodologies may face administrative and fiscal pressure to adopt cost estimation models. Child care providers who do not serve CCDBG-eligible children would not qualify for the new facility grants. Families above the income eligibility threshold — even those struggling with child care costs — would not directly benefit. Competing federal programs or discretionary spending priorities that may be crowded out by increased CCDBG appropriations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the CCDBG has not been comprehensively reauthorized since 2014 and that the child care market has deteriorated significantly — with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimating that child care shortages cost the economy $122 billion annually in lost productivity. They contend that requiring states to use cost estimation models will correct chronically low provider payment rates that have driven providers out of the market, and that the new facility grant program directly addresses the physical shortage of licensed child care slots, particularly in rural and underserved 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 an undefined and potentially large spending obligation at a time of significant deficit pressure. They contend that mandating cost estimation models and payment rate sufficiency requirements — even with a "no federal control" clause — effectively sets a federal floor on state spending decisions, undermining the block grant's core principle of state flexibility and potentially displacing state and local funding with federal dollars.