H.R. 10815House bill · 119th CongressIn committee

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to establish a credit for amounts paid or incurred by child care providers to advance innovation and access for developmentally disabled individuals.

Sponsored byJ. Luis CorreaD-CA-46Introduced Oct 15, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Oct 15, 2026) — on Ways and Means.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as introduced
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

10 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
asha.ferreiraDemoMN-6voted Nay11h ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
9
steelcityscribeDemoMI-7voted Nay2d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
6
granite_machinistDemoFL-15voted Nay4h ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. None of that is settled by the summary.
3
mfitzhughDemoGA-96h ago
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
5
pinecommuterDemoME-1voted Yea19h ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
5
greta.vasquezDemoFL-3voted Yea1d ago
The pilot-programme framing is the part I'd watch. Pilots have a way of becoming permanent at the next reauthorisation. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
4
hollow_porchDemoHI-1voted Nay3d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
cedarprecinctDemoTX-33voted Nay2d ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other.
3
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea4d ago
The summary reads clearly enough, but the enforcement mechanism is doing all the work and it's the part with the least detail. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
2
deltalibrarianDemoDC-ALvoted Nay2d ago
Worth reading the sponsor list before deciding — it's less partisan than the framing suggests. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
Your position on H.R. 10815No positions yet