H.R. 7726House bill · 119th CongressIn the SenateFamilies

Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026

Sponsored byMary E. MillerR-IL-15Introduced Feb 26, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jun 4, 2026) Received in the Senate and Read twice and on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Apr 6, 2026

No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act of 2026

This bill subjects states to additional sanctions for improperly using funds under the Child Care and Development Block Grant program. The program provides grants to states to support child care programs for low-income working families.

Specifically, if the Office of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) finds that a state has failed to comply substantially with the requirements of the program, the ACF must impose additional sanctions, which include disqualifying the state from receiving funds under the program.

Under current law, the ACF is permitted, but not required, to take such actions for a state's noncompliance.

Face Value

as passed the House
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

What Congress did

2 recorded
  • decisive vote

    House · Jun 3, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the House. This is the vote most people mean.

    217207

    Passed

    Every vote →
  • On

    House · Jun 3, 2026

    The minority party's last attempt to change the bill by sending it back to committee. It usually fails and is usually about forcing an awkward vote.

    210213

    Failed

    Every vote →

Discussion

10 comments

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

Sort
23
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay28d ago
Against. I've seen this pattern before: a pilot programme with an authorisation that quietly becomes permanent at the next reauthorisation.
7
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay25d ago
Same conclusion, different reasoning. I'm less worried about scope and more about who administers it.
0
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay19d ago
That's the part I can't get past either. The authority is broad and the guardrails are thin.
16
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay18d ago
No. Unfunded mandates are still mandates, and this pushes the cost down to states and localities without saying so out loud.
2
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay18d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
10
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay19d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
-1
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay25d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
9
aviva_sternDemoMO-2voted Nay18d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
2
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Nay17d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
7
m.kowalczykDemoLA-1voted Nay25d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
Your position on H.R. 772644% Yea · 16 VoteWire users