Rise Up for Child Care Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4]
- Committees
- Ways and Means Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill transforms federal child care funding into an open-ended entitlement, guaranteeing care for vulnerable families and significantly boosting support for home-based providers.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally alters federal child care assistance by guaranteeing child care services for recipients and recent former recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It eliminates federal funding caps for states and converts the program into an open-ended entitlement, meaning the federal government would pay 'such sums as are necessary.' Additionally, it increases the federal matching rate to 75% for state expenditures aimed at supplementing wages and benefits for home-based child care providers and mandates a study on the effects of this investment, appropriating $20 million annually for the study.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a critical step towards addressing the national child care crisis by ensuring that low-income families have guaranteed access to essential child care services, which is vital for parental workforce participation and child development. They contend that eliminating state caps and creating an open-ended entitlement will provide states with the necessary resources to meet demand, while the enhanced investment in home-based care will stabilize a crucial segment of the child care workforce and expand supply.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that converting federal child care funding into an open-ended entitlement represents an unsustainable expansion of federal spending with potentially massive, unpredictable costs that would exacerbate the national debt. They might also raise concerns about federal overreach into state-level programs, the potential for market distortions by heavily subsidizing one type of care over others, and the administrative challenges states would face in implementing a universal guarantee without clear fiscal guardrails.
The bill is short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions.
Section 2(a)
Child Care Guarantee for Certain Populations
This provision amends the Social Security Act to require states, as a condition of receiving federal child care funds, to guarantee child care services. This guarantee applies to all recipients of state TANF assistance and individuals who were former TANF recipients for a 24-month period after leaving the program. This replaces a previous requirement that only a portion of funds be used for these populations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this guarantee is crucial for ensuring that vulnerable families can maintain employment and stability, as lack of child care is a significant barrier to economic self-sufficiency. It provides a safety net that supports both parents and children.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that while the goal is laudable, mandating a guarantee without fully understanding the capacity and cost implications for states could lead to significant strain on state resources and potential service quality issues if demand outstrips supply.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of universal access for specific vulnerable populations against the potential administrative and fiscal burdens on state governments to meet this new guarantee.
Section 2(b)
Elimination of State Allotment Caps
This section removes existing language in the Social Security Act that limits the amount of federal child care funds a state can receive. Specifically, it strikes subparagraphs that defined state allotments and removed the phrase 'the lesser of the State's allotment under subparagraph (B) or' from the calculation of federal payments to states. This change effectively removes a ceiling on federal contributions to state child care programs.
Section 2(c)
Conversion to Open-Ended Entitlement
This section transforms the federal child care program from a capped appropriation to an open-ended entitlement. It strikes the specific annual appropriation amount of '$3,550,000,000' and replaces it with 'such sums as are necessary to carry out this section for each fiscal year.' This means the federal government would be obligated to provide whatever funds are required to meet the program's needs, rather than a fixed amount.
Section 2(d)
Enhanced Federal Match for Home-Based Child Care Wages and Study
This provision establishes a separate, higher federal matching rate of 75% for state expenditures used to supplement the wages and benefits of home-based child care providers. This is an increase from the standard matching rate. Additionally, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a study on the effects of this amendment, prioritizing personnel with relevant experience, and mandates annual reports to Congress. It appropriates $20 million for each fiscal year to fund this study.
A conforming amendment clarifies that existing requirements or limitations in the Social Security Act cannot interfere with the new child care guarantee established in Section 2(a)(1).
Section 2(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that new, overarching mandates take precedence over potentially conflicting existing rules, rather than an attempt to obscure its impact.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a necessary technical fix to ensure the child care guarantee is fully enforceable and cannot be undermined by other statutory provisions, thereby strengthening the bill's core intent.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against such conforming amendments, as they are generally seen as technical clarifications rather than substantive policy changes.
Estimated impact: Ensures the legal enforceability and priority of the child care guarantee, preventing legal challenges or administrative loopholes.
The bill specifies that in employing and retaining career civil servants for the study on home-based child care, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall give priority to persons with prior work experience at HHS, experience with discretionary grant programs, or experience administering federal grants, child care programs, or means-tested public assistance programs.
Section 2(d)(2)(B)
Why it matters:This level of detail on personnel qualifications is common in legislative text for specific programs or studies, reflecting an intent to ensure expertise. It is not necessarily evasive but rather a technical directive.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures the study is conducted by highly qualified and experienced individuals who understand the complexities of federal programs and child care policy, leading to more robust and relevant research findings.
Case against: Some might argue that such specific hiring directives could limit the pool of candidates or potentially lead to an overly narrow perspective if it discourages new talent or diverse academic backgrounds from contributing to the research.
Estimated impact: Influences the composition and expertise of the research team conducting the study on home-based child care, potentially impacting the quality and focus of the research outcomes.