PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 28, 2012
Anthony DeJuan Boatwright Act - Amends the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to require a state to include, as part of its regulatory process for issuance and renewal of licenses to providers of child care services, a recommendation to each provider that it carry current liability insurance.
Requires state plans for the use of child care and development block grant funds to certify that there are in effect state or local health and safety requirements that each child care provider: (1) post publicly and conspicuously in the service area of its premises a notice specifying whether it carries current liability insurance; and (2) give written notice to parents about whether it carries such insurance, obtain the signature of at least one parent per child acknowledging receipt of such notice, and maintain records of such signed notice while a child receives services.
People & committees
Rep. Barrow, John [D-GA-12] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 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.4283 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.4283 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.4283 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.4283 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.