PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Del. Moylan, James C. [R-GU-At Large] · R–GU
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10407 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10407 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10407 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10407 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-16 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Childcare Cost Relief Act of 2026 would change how federal child care grant money is distributed when the available annual total rises. Each qualifying state or territory with disproportionately high child care costs relative to its median income would receive 2 percent of that increase before regular funding allocations. The bill would also require annual eligibility decisions and reports to Congress.
This Act may be cited as the Childcare Cost Relief Act of 2026.
provide to each affected State and territory an amount that is equal to 2 percent of the difference between— (A) the total amount available for such reservations and allotments for the fiscal year for which the Secretary is making grants; and (B) the total amount available for such reservations and allotments for the fiscal year immediately preceding such fiscal year.
has disproportionately high aggregate child care costs (as determined by the Secretary), calculated as a percentage of State median income.
the Secretary shall, prior to making reservations under subsection (a)(1) of section 658O or allotments under subsection (b) of such section (as applicable)
and on an annual basis thereafter, the Secretary shall determine the affected States or territories
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report
Section 2 would add a funding distribution rule to the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990. Before making the specified existing set-asides and allocations, the Secretary would have to give each qualifying state or territory an amount equal to 2 percent of the annual funding increase. The 2 percent would apply separately to each qualifying jurisdiction.
The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9857 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in making grants under this subchapter for a fiscal year described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, prior to making reservations under subsection (a)(1) of section 658O or allotments under subsection (b) of such section (as applicable), provide to each affected State and territory an amount that is equal to 2 percent of the difference between— (A) the total amount available for such reservations and allotments for the fiscal year for which the Secretary is making grants; and (B) the total amount available for such reservations and allotments for the fiscal year immediately preceding such fiscal year.
The proposed distribution would apply only in fiscal years when the relevant available funding exceeds the previous fiscal year's amount. Supplemental appropriations—additional funding enacted separately—would be excluded from that calculation.
The distribution of funds described in paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to a fiscal year for which the total amount available for reservations and allotments under section 658O is greater than such amount for the fiscal year immediately preceding such fiscal year.
The total amount available for reservations and allotments described in this subsection does not include amounts made available pursuant to supplemental appropriations.
To qualify, a state or territory would need to be entitled to a payment under existing section 658J for a year when funding rises and have disproportionately high child care costs relative to state median income. The Secretary would determine whether costs are disproportionately high; the proposed definition supplies no numerical threshold.
The term affected State or territory means a State or territory that— (A) is entitled to a payment under section 658J for a fiscal year described in subsection (a)(2); and (B) has disproportionately high aggregate child care costs (as determined by the Secretary), calculated as a percentage of State median income.
The distribution of funds described in paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to a fiscal year for which the total amount available for reservations and allotments under section 658O is greater than such amount for the fiscal year immediately preceding such fiscal year.
For eligibility, “aggregate child care costs” would mean the average total child care costs paid per family, expressed as a percentage of state median income. Median income is the midpoint of the income distribution. The bill would use the existing definition of “State” in section 658P to define which states and territories are covered.
The term aggregate child care costs means, with respect to a State or territory, the average value of total child care costs paid per family, calculated as a percentage of State median income.
The term State or territory has the meaning given the term State in section 658P.
The Secretary would have to make the first eligibility determination by the first day of the first federal fiscal year beginning after enactment, and repeat the determination annually.
Not later than the first day of the first fiscal year that begins after the date of the enactment of this section, and on an annual basis thereafter, the Secretary shall determine the affected States or territories for purposes of the distribution of funds described in subsection (a).
Within 30 days after each annual eligibility determination, the Secretary would have to report to Congress. The report would list qualifying jurisdictions, give median child care costs as a percentage of state median income for every state and territory, and assess whether each jurisdiction's child care workforce meets its needs. That workforce assessment would involve consultation with the state or territory. The Secretary could include other information considered necessary.
Not later than 30 days after the date on which the determination is made under paragraph (1) each year, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing the following information: (A) The median cost of child care for each State and territory, calculated as a percentage of State median income. (B) An assessment of the child care workforce in each State and territory, including whether such workforce meets the child care needs for each such State or territory, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the State or territory. (C) A list of the affected States and territories determined by the Secretary under paragraph (1). (D) Such other information determined by the Secretary to be necessary.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records that the bill was introduced in the House and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on September 16, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T14:22:44Z. 2026-09-16: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2026-09-16: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-16. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No provision unrelated to the bill's main subject was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish the absence of riders in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption or preferential exception warranting a separate finding was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI