Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
This resolution uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a recent federal rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services about the Child Care and Development Fund. If both chambers of Congress pass this joint resolution and the President signs it, the named rule is treated as having no force or effect. Disapproval under this process also prevents the agency from issuing a new rule in substantially the same form unless Congress passes new legislation authorizing it. The rule being targeted is titled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)".
Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), published May 12, 2026 (91 Fed. Reg. 25796).
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Under the Congressional Review Act, the Senate may consider disapproval resolutions under an expedited procedure that limits debate and prevents a filibuster, so passage requires only a simple majority in each chamber; after both chambers pass the resolution it must be presented to the President for signature or veto.
This joint resolution, filed under the Congressional Review Act (chapter 8 of title 5, U.S. Code), disapproves and nullifies the Department of Health and Human Services rule titled “Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF),” published May 12, 2026 (91 Fed.
Reg. 25796).
If enacted, the rule would have no force or effect; CRA disapproval would also generally bar reissuing a substantially similar rule without new statutory authorization.
Narrow and administratively simple, which helps; political controversy over child-care regulation and lack of compromise features reduce likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and legally specific Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies and nullifies a particular HHS rule. Its mechanism and problem statement are explicit and appropriate for a CRA resolution.
Progressives emphasize protecting standards and accountability.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize protecting standards and accountability.
Likely to support the resolution.
Sponsors are Democrats and progressives, suggesting concerns that the HHS rule would weaken protections or oversight in CCDF.
They would frame disapproval as protecting child safety, accountability, and low-income families' access to quality care.
Viewed as a mixed tradeoff.
Supports oversight and child protections but concerned about excessive federal rigidity.
Would prefer targeted amendments to balance accountability with state and provider flexibility.
Likely to oppose the resolution.
Conservatives generally favor reducing federal regulatory burdens and increasing state/provider flexibility for child care; they would view disapproval as federal micromanagement preventing needed flexibility.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow and administratively simple, which helps; political controversy over child-care regulation and lack of compromise features reduce likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize protecting standards and accountability.
Narrow and administratively simple, which helps; political controversy over child-care regulation and lack of compromise features reduce li…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise and legally specific Congressional Review Act disapproval that clearly identifies and nullifies a particular HHS rule. Its mechanism and problem statemen…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.