Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)".
- Sponsor
- Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1]
- Committees
- Education and Workforce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 10, 2026
Bottom line
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to block an HHS rule aimed at increasing flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund, effectively preserving existing federal standards and requirements for child care programs.
What it actually does
This joint resolution seeks to nullify a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) titled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)", which was published on May 12, 2026. If enacted, the resolution would prevent the HHS rule from taking effect, thereby maintaining the prior regulatory framework for the Child Care and Development Fund program. This action is taken under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which allows Congress to disapprove federal agency rules.
Proponents argue
Proponents of this resolution argue that the HHS rule, by 'restoring flexibility,' might weaken essential federal standards for child care quality, safety, and access, potentially compromising the well-being of children and the stability of the child care system. They contend that maintaining existing regulations ensures accountability for federal funds, protects vulnerable families, and upholds a baseline of quality across states. They believe that the rule could lead to a race to the bottom, where states might reduce investments or standards, negatively impacting children and providers.
Opponents contend
Opponents of this resolution (and thus proponents of the HHS rule) would argue that the rule is necessary to reduce burdensome administrative requirements on states and child care providers, allowing for greater innovation and responsiveness to local needs. They contend that increased flexibility can help states streamline operations, reduce costs, and potentially expand access to child care by making it easier for providers to participate in the CCDF program. They believe that federal overreach stifles state-level solutions and that states are best positioned to determine appropriate child care policies for their communities.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, requiring minimal time to read and understand its direct action.
Section 1
Disapproval of HHS Rule on Child Care and Development Fund
This provision explicitly states that Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) titled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)", which was published on May 12, 2026. It further declares that this rule shall have no force or effect. This action is taken pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), which provides Congress with a mechanism to overturn federal agency regulations.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that disapproving this rule is crucial for maintaining robust federal oversight and ensuring high standards in child care programs across the nation. They believe that the 'flexibility' offered by the HHS rule could lead to states lowering quality standards or reducing services, ultimately harming children and families who rely on CCDF. This resolution ensures that federal funds are used in a manner consistent with established quality and safety benchmarks.
Critics contend
Opponents argue that blocking the HHS rule undermines efforts to modernize and streamline child care regulations, which they contend are often overly prescriptive and burdensome for states and providers. They believe that 'restoring flexibility' would empower states to innovate and tailor programs more effectively to their unique demographics and needs, potentially increasing the availability and affordability of child care without compromising essential quality.
Tradeoffs
The provision navigates the tension between federal oversight and state flexibility in administering critical social programs. It reflects a debate over whether national standards are necessary to ensure quality and equity, or if states should have greater autonomy to adapt programs to local conditions and reduce administrative burdens.