S. 2862 (119th)Bill Overview

CCAMPIS Reauthorization Act

Education|Education
Cosponsors
Support
Democratic
Introduced
Sep 18, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

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

This bill reauthorizes and revises the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program under the Higher Education Act. It authorizes $500 million per year for FY2026–2031 for grants (minimum $75,000, maximum $2,000,000 annually) to eligible institutions to provide subsidized campus-based or contracted child care and related supports for student parents, establishes application, reporting, quality, and nondiscrimination requirements, and gives funding priority to programs leveraging local resources and serving single parents.

Why people may split

Budget size and federal spending magnitude

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive reauthorization and amendment of an existing federal grant program.

This bill reauthorizes and revises the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program under the Higher Education Act.

It authorizes $500 million per year for FY2026–2031 for grants (minimum $75,000, maximum $2,000,000 annually) to eligible institutions to provide subsidized campus-based or contracted child care and related supports for student parents, establishes application, reporting, quality, and nondiscrimination requirements, and gives funding priority to programs leveraging local resources and serving single parents.

Passage40/100

Technocratic reauthorization with popular objectives but heavy authorization totals and some policy flashpoints lower probability absent appropriation clearances and bipartisan buy-in.

CredibilityPartially aligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive reauthorization and amendment of an existing federal grant program. It provides clear purpose language, concrete grant mechanics (amounts, duration, permissible uses), detailed application and reporting requirements, priorities, and an explicit funding authorization.

Contention65/100

Budget size and federal spending magnitude

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Students · Federal agenciesFederal agencies · Cities

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

Likely helped
  • StudentsIncreases student parents' access to affordable child care, likely improving college retention and completion.
  • Federal agenciesDirects federal funding to campus child care operations, supporting early childhood staff and administrative positions.
  • StudentsSubsidized sliding-fee models reduce out-of-pocket costs for low-income student parents.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesAuthorizes $3.0–3.5 billion over six years, increasing federal spending obligations if appropriated.
  • Potential burdenReporting, compliance, and quality-improvement requirements increase administrative burden for institutions.
  • CitiesProhibition on construction may limit capacity expansion and require reliance on existing facilities.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Budget size and federal spending magnitude
Progressive95%

Likely strongly supportive.

The bill targets low-income student parents (Pell focus), expands funded childcare access on campuses, sets quality standards, and mandates outreach and nondiscrimination.

It aligns with priorities to improve college completion and equity for parents.

Leans supportive
Centrist75%

Generally supportive but pragmatic and cautious.

The program is a targeted federal investment with measurable reporting and quality goals, though implementation costs, administrative burden, and overlap with existing child care funding deserve scrutiny.

Leans supportive
Conservative25%

Skeptical and likely opposed or only conditionally supportive.

Concerns focus on expanded federal spending, ongoing bureaucracy, federal involvement in campus services, and potential crowding out of private childcare markets.

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 likelihood40/100

Technocratic reauthorization with popular objectives but heavy authorization totals and some policy flashpoints lower probability absent appropriation clearances and bipartisan buy-in.

Scope and complexity
52%
Scopemoderate
52%
Complexitymedium
Why this could stall
  • CBO cost estimate and score absent
  • Whether appropriations will fund the authorized amounts
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

Budget size and federal spending magnitude

Technocratic reauthorization with popular objectives but heavy authorization totals and some policy flashpoints lower probability absent ap…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive reauthorization and amendment of an existing federal grant program. It provides clear purpose language, concrete grant mechanics (amou…

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