Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services relating to "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)".
A Democratic resolution with 22 Democratic cosponsors · See all 22 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
H.J. Res. 195 is a joint resolution introduced in the House of Representatives on June 10, 2026. It seeks to use congressional disapproval to stop a specific rule from the Department of Health and Human Services. The rule in question is titled "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)" and was published on May 12, 2026. If passed, the rule would have no force or effect.
Yes
No question was scored yes.
The opposite· 3 of 15
- Scored -5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Low-income families are the primary beneficiaries of the Child Care and Development Fund.
- Scored -4
Would children be better off under this?
Blocking flexibility in childcare funds may negatively impact child development services.
- Scored -4
Would women be better off under this?
Women are disproportionately impacted by lack of flexible and affordable childcare.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- The resolution aims to disapprove of the rule relating to "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)," which would stop that specific rule from having any force or effect.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- The resolution seeks to ensure the rule relating to "Restoring Flexibility in the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)" shall have no force or effect.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income families are the primary beneficiaries of the Child Care and Development Fund. Would children be better off under this? — Blocking flexibility in childcare funds may negatively impact child development services. Would women be better off under this? — Women are disproportionately impacted by lack of flexible and affordable childcare. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affects marginalized communities who rely heavily on CCDF subsidies. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately affects marginalized communities who rely heavily on CCDF subsidies. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — May reduce accessibility to critical childcare funding. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — May reduce accessibility to critical childcare funding. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Parents in this age group may face more difficulty accessing flexible childcare. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — May limit childcare options and subsidies for middle-income families. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural areas may lose potential flexibility in how childcare funds are administered. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban centers often have higher reliance on structured CCDF funding. Would white Americans be better off under this? — May reduce accessibility to critical childcare funding.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make child care cost less? — By blocking a rule intended to restore flexibility to the Child Care and Development Fund, it may hinder efforts to improve childcare accessibility. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Child care funding is a critical component of poverty reduction for working families.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill uses congressional disapproval to override an executive agency rule.
- 8/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/22/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/10/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 13 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Janelle BynumDemocrat · Oregon
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Sarah ElfrethDemocrat · Maryland
Lois FrankelDemocrat · Florida
Laura FriedmanDemocrat · California
Jimmy GomezDemocrat · California
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Seth MoultonDemocrat · Massachusetts
Joseph MorelleDemocrat · New York
John MannionDemocrat · New York
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Chellie PingreeDemocrat · Maine
Robert ScottDemocrat · Virginia
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Maxine WatersDemocrat · California
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida