H.R. 9007 (119th)Bill Overview

Constance C. McDaniel Medically Necessary Infant Formula and Donor Milk Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
May 21, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

Creates a 3-year HHS pilot program providing financial assistance to eligible parents to purchase covered infant formula or pasteurized donor human milk. Assistance may be vouchers, reimbursements, or grants to local entities; HHS must provide outreach, perform annual evaluations, and report to Congress.

Why people may split

Scope and size of federal spending versus reliance on state/charitable help

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative pilot that establishes authority, basic eligibility, funding authorization, timelines, and reporting requirements while delegating detailed program design to the Secretary of HHS.

Creates a 3-year HHS pilot program providing financial assistance to eligible parents to purchase covered infant formula or pasteurized donor human milk.

Assistance may be vouchers, reimbursements, or grants to local entities; HHS must provide outreach, perform annual evaluations, and report to Congress.

Defines eligibility (excludes WIC participants) for parents of infants with medically necessary breastfeeding challenges or infants with feeding issues.

Passage30/100

Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—favorable for enactment—but requires appropriations and competing legislative priorities.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative pilot that establishes authority, basic eligibility, funding authorization, timelines, and reporting requirements while delegating detailed program design to the Secretary of HHS.

Contention58/100

Scope and size of federal spending versus reliance on state/charitable help

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsFederal agencies · Local governments

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitIncreases access to medically necessary infant formula and donor milk for families not eligible for WIC.
  • Potential benefitReduces out-of-pocket costs for eligible parents purchasing covered formula or donor human milk.
  • Local governmentsProvides grant funding to local nonprofits and governments, supporting service delivery capacity.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesAuthorizes federal spending and could increase budgetary outlays if appropriated.
  • Local governmentsAdministrative costs and verification requirements may create additional federal and local regulatory burden.
  • StatesPotential overlap or confusion with WIC and state nutrition programs could complicate benefit coordination.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Scope and size of federal spending versus reliance on state/charitable help
Progressive85%

Generally supportive as a targeted safety-net measure for medically necessary infant feeding needs.

Views donor milk access and formula assistance as advancing maternal-child health and equity, but may want broader coverage and higher funding.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Cautiously supportive of a targeted pilot to address medically necessary infant feeding needs.

Values the pilot design, evaluation, and multiple delivery mechanisms, but seeks clarity on administration, cost controls, and overlap with existing programs.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

Skeptical of additional federal spending and program expansion.

May accept limited assistance for extreme, documented medical cases but prefers state, private, or charity solutions and tighter fiscal and regulatory constraints.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood30/100

Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—favorable for enactment—but requires appropriations and competing legislative priorities.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether Congress will appropriate the authorized funds
  • Potential overlap or interaction with WIC/Medicaid programs
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Scope and size of federal spending versus reliance on state/charitable help

Content is narrow, low-cost, and administratively straightforward—favorable for enactment—but requires appropriations and competing legisla…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-scoped administrative pilot that establishes authority, basic eligibility, funding authorization, timelines, and reporting requirements while delegating det…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis