No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act
February 26, 2026
Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.
Where This Stands
Currently in_committee. The next step in the legislative lifecycle is Floor Vote.
Version history
Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.
View official text →The Frame
This bill changes federal oversight of child care funding by removing the Secretary's discretion, making the withholding of funds mandatory for states found in violation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.
Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.
State governments
States receiving federal child care grants face mandatory loss of funding if they are found noncompliant with program requirements.
Secretary of Health and Human Services
The Secretary loses the discretion to decide whether or not to withhold funds from noncompliant states.
Current stage: in_committee.
Floor Vote.
Summary
Why It Matters
This bill changes federal oversight of child care funding by removing the Secretary's discretion, making the withholding of funds mandatory for states found in violation of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act.
Key Facts
- The bill changes the Secretary of Health and Human Services' authority from 'may' withhold funds to 'shall' withhold funds for noncompliant states.
- The bill amends Section 658I(b)(2)(B) of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990.
- The bill is officially titled the 'No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act'.
- The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 26, 2026.
- The bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this bill change?
Who is responsible for withholding the funds?
News Coverage
Voting Record
Total
417
Yes
214
No
203
Present
0
Not Voting
0
Abstain
0
How they voted (417)
Shomari Figures
D · no
James Himes
D · no
Ed Case
D · no
Steve Scalise
R · yes
Daniel Goldman
D · no
Donald Beyer
D · no
Tom Cole
R · yes
Mike Kennedy
R · yes
Eugene Vindman
D · no
Mario Diaz-Balart
R · yes
Troy Balderson
R · yes
Scott DesJarlais
R · yes
Teresa Leger Fernandez
D · no
Brittany Pettersen
D · no
Mary Gay Scanlon
D · no
Rudy Yakym
R · yes
Jimmy Patronis
R · yes
John Rutherford
R · yes
Raul Ruiz
D · no
Jared Huffman
D · no
Barry Moore
R · yes
Jared Golden
D · yes
Brian Jack
R · yes
Veronica Escobar
D · no
+ 393 more
Sponsors
Discoveries
Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.
Mandatory Enforcement
The bill represents a shift toward stricter federal oversight by removing administrative discretion in penalty application.
Connected Entities
Sources
www.congress.gov
Analysis Score
0–100- Significance60How much this matters to a regular citizen
- Controversy40Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
- Entertainment10Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
- Buzz20Current news / social attention level
Publisher tools