S.J.Res. 199Senate joint resolution · 119th CongressIn progress3 votes from flippingFamilies

A joint resolution 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)".

Sponsored byPatty MurrayD-WAIntroduced Jun 24, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Jul 30, 2026) to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 47 - 52. Record Vote Number: 215.

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 placed on the calendar
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

1 recorded
  • On the decisive vote

    Senate · Jul 30, 2026

    Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.

    4752

    Motion to Proceed Rejected

    Every vote →

Discussion

9 comments

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

Sort
21
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay20d ago
My objection is scope creep. The title describes something narrow; the text is considerably broader than the title suggests.
2
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay18d ago
Agreed on the substance, disagree on the timing. Doing this badly now makes doing it well later harder.
15
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay17d ago
Opposed, mainly on process — this hasn't had a hearing that I can find, and it's moving fast for something with this much reach.
6
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay24d ago
Counterpoint: the reporting requirement is the guardrail. Once the numbers are public the politics change on their own.
-1
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay17d ago
Sure, but 'the states are doing it' cuts the other way for me. If it's working there, why federalise it?
7
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea21d ago
I'd add that the states already doing this haven't seen the effects the opponents predicted. That's some evidence.
0
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay22d ago
The sunset clause point is the strongest argument in this thread and nobody has answered it.
3
notmyfirstrodeoDemoCO-1voted Nay21d ago
The intent is fine. The drafting is not. There's no sunset, no review, and no mechanism to stop it if it turns out to be counterproductive.
2
adaeze_oDemoTX-6voted Nay22d ago
I'd oppose this. It reads like it was written to be announced rather than administered.
Your position on S.J.Res. 19920% Yea · 5 VoteWire users