A Democratic bill with 75 Democratic cosponsors · See all 75 cosponsors
Last activity — ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Ocasio-Cortez asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 5658, a bill originally introduced by Representative Sherrill, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
What this bill would do
The Child Care for Every Community Act aims to establish universal, comprehensive child care and early learning programs. It seeks to ensure all young children have opportunities to reach their full potential through affordable, high-quality programs. The bill establishes a framework for services including health, nutritional, and educational support, while promoting school readiness. It provides various funding streams, including supplemental assistance for high-need areas and grants to States for workforce development. Additionally, the act establishes a Child Development Research Council and mandates annual reports to Congress.
Yes· 3 of 48
- Scored +10
Would children be better off under this?
Provides universal access to high-quality early learning, health, and nutrition services.
- Scored +10
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Eliminates child care fees and provides comprehensive support services for underserved populations.
- Scored +10
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Provides 100 percent federal funding for Native American and Native Hawaiian children and prioritizes Tribal Colleges.
The opposite· 3 of 4
- Scored -8
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Increases federal spending through universal grants and an uncapped entitlement for child care.
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Appropriates significant federal funds for an uncapped entitlement and new grant programs.
- Scored -4
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Creates an uncapped entitlement, which may challenge long-term budget predictability.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Universal Access and Affordability: The bill aims to provide all young children with access to comprehensive child care and early learning programs, ensuring families can access these services regardless of their circumstances (Section 101).
-
Support for Low-Income Families: Low-income children, defined as those in families with incomes not more than 200 percent of the poverty line, are not charged fees for services (Section 112, Section 114).
-
Full Funding for Specific Groups: The Secretary is required to pay 100 percent of the costs for providing programs to children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers, as well as Native American children in Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian children (Section 112).
-
Comprehensive Development: Programs are designed to promote school readiness by enhancing cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development through specific learning environments (Section 101).
-
Support for Families with Specific Needs: The act includes provisions for health, mental health, and nutritional services, as well as assistance for families of dual language learners (Section 114).
-
Workforce Stability and Pay: The bill seeks to provide a qualified and stable workforce by ensuring employees are paid competitive rates comparable to local educational agencies and no less than a living wage (Section 136).
-
Improved Child Development Services: The bill authorizes research into alternative methods and innovative approaches to achieve maximum development of children (Section (b)(B)).
-
Support for Children with Disabilities: The Secretary may collaborate with organizations that have expertise in inclusive educational strategies for preschoolers with disabilities (Section (c)(6)).
-
Enhanced Workforce Stability: States can use grants to support compensation for the workforce that is comparable to primary education workforce compensation, including bonuses (Section 152(b)(3)).
-
Financial Relief for High-Need Areas: The Secretary may provide supplemental assistance to prime sponsors who serve areas with a high concentration of families earning near the poverty line (Section 151(c)).
-
Increased Program Stability: Grants to States can be used to cover fixed operating expenses to support increased wages and continuity of services (Section 152(b)(16)).
-
Protection of Parental Rights: The bill requires the establishment of parental consent for nonemergency intrusive physical examinations (Section 141).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Potential Fees for Non-Low-Income Families: While low-income children are exempt from fees, other families may be charged based on a sliding fee scale (Section 114).
-
Administrative Burden on Providers: Prime sponsors must comply with various national program standards, monitoring procedures, and mandatory annual reports (Section 121, Section 114).
-
Requirements for Staff Training: Employment is conditioned upon the satisfactory completion of specific training programs covering topics like child abuse prevention and emergency medical procedures (Section 135).
-
Mandatory Financial Contributions: Non-Federal shares of costs may be provided through various sources, including fees from families (Section 112).
-
Ownership of Personal Data: All studies, reports, proposals, and data produced with Federal funds under this title will become the property of the United States (Section (g)).
-
Restrictions on State Spending: States are prohibited from reducing their own expenditures for child care and early learning programs due to the financial assistance provided under this section (Section 152(c)).
-
Limitations on Benefits: An eligible child can only receive child care services under this subchapter that they are ineligible for under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (Section 201(b)).
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 children be better off under this? — Provides universal access to high-quality early learning, health, and nutrition services. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Eliminates child care fees and provides comprehensive support services for underserved populations. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Provides 100 percent federal funding for Native American and Native Hawaiian children and prioritizes Tribal Colleges. Would farmers be better off under this? — Provides 100 percent federal funding for children of migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Ensures inclusive access and mandates specialized support for children and parents with disabilities. Would union members be better off under this? — Strongly mandates collective bargaining rights and living wages for child care workers. Would women be better off under this? — Greatly reduces child care barriers to employment and professionalizes a female-dominated workforce. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeted outreach and priority for marginalized populations and low-income children. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Provides universal access and supports for dual language learners. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Mandates culturally and linguistically appropriate services and prioritizes Hispanic-serving institutions. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Universal eligibility regardless of citizenship status and support for dual language learners. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Relieves parents of high child care costs and improves job security for workers. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Caps child care fees at 7 percent of family income, significantly reducing costs. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Includes specific provisions for rural providers and the waiver of population thresholds for localities. Would students be better off under this? — Provides scholarships and financial assistance for those training to be child care providers. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Expands access to comprehensive early learning programs in city settings. Would men be better off under this? — Reduces the financial burden of child care for fathers. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Provides universal access to affordable early learning services. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Provides financial aid and professional pathways for those entering the early childhood education field. Would business owners be better off under this? — Increases available labor pool by improving child care access and provides start-up funding for providers. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides access to high-quality care, though they will pay the maximum capped fee. Would veterans be better off under this, taking everything together? — Uses the military child care program as a benchmark for qualifications and pay scales.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make child care cost less? — Creates a universal system with no fees for low-income families and capped fees for others. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Ensures entitlement for children with disabilities and mandates linkages to early intervention services. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Requires nondiscrimination, targets recruitment of diverse professionals, and addresses racial disparities in outcomes. Does this narrow the gap between how men and women are treated? — Reduces the childcare burden on mothers and supports a female-dominated sector through increased wages. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Provides free high-quality early education and nutrition for low-income children and a living wage for workers. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Provides targeted support, research, and reporting for homeless children to ensure their access to care.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — Provides scholarships and grants to students pursuing early childhood degrees to reduce loan needs. Does this give people more control over their personal data? — Establishes strict confidentiality requirements for personally identifiable data of children. Does this put more money into scientific research? — Authorizes the Secretary to research innovative approaches to early childhood development. Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — Offers direct student support to eliminate the need for loans in early childhood coursework. Does this put more money into public schools? — Coordinates with local educational agencies and promotes school readiness.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Requires prime sponsors to recognize and bargain with labor unions and supports labor organization-sponsored training funds. Is this likely to create jobs? — Establishes a universal system requiring significant staffing and invests in workforce development for child care professionals. Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Establishes national program and facility standards to ensure health, safety, and quality of care. Does this raise the lowest wage an employer may pay? — Requires staff and home-based providers to be paid a living wage comparable to local educational agency employees. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Provides financial assistance, start-up funding, and operating expense support for home-based and small child care providers. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Increases workforce participation by providing affordable child care for parents. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal spending through universal grants and an uncapped entitlement for child care. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Appropriates significant federal funds for an uncapped entitlement and new grant programs. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Creates an uncapped entitlement, which may challenge long-term budget predictability.
- Healthcare
- Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Mandates the provision of comprehensive mental health services and screenings for children. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Provides integrated health, dental, vision, and nutritional services as part of the universal child care program. Does this put more money into medical research? — Authorizes extensive research into innovative approaches to child development and program effectiveness. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Includes activities to support family well-being, specifically mentioning substance abuse counseling.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes national program standards and an entitlement managed by the federal government. Does this protect people from being watched or searched? — Mandates strict privacy protections for children's data and parental consent for intrusive examinations. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides for notice and hearings before withdrawing prime sponsor designations. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires public reporting of monitoring outcomes and detailed biennial reports to Congress. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Imposes federal standards as conditions for funding, while providing flexible grants for state goal identification.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides technical assistance, grants, and support for rural providers and Tribal colleges.
- 11/11/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/14/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/2/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 8/10/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/27/2026
- 4 Cosponsors added.
- 7/16/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/13/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/12/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 4/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/25/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/4/2026
- ASSUMING FIRST SPONSORSHIP - Ms. Ocasio-Cortez asked unanimous consent that she may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 5658, a bill originally introduced by Representative Sherrill, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII. Agreed to without objection.
- 11/19/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/7/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/31/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/8/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 10/3/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 9/30/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 42 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.
Gabe AmoDemocrat · Rhode Island
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Donald BeyerDemocrat · Virginia
Brendan BoyleDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Nanette BarragánDemocrat · California
Shontel BrownDemocrat · Ohio
Becca BalintDemocrat · Vermont
Everton BlairDemocrat · Georgia
Yvette ClarkeDemocrat · New York
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Katherine ClarkDemocrat · Massachusetts
Troy CarterDemocrat · Louisiana
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Danny DavisDemocrat · Illinois
Diana DeGetteDemocrat · Colorado
Christopher DeluzioDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Madeleine DeanDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Dwight EvansDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Adriano EspaillatDemocrat · New York
Veronica EscobarDemocrat · Texas
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Laura FriedmanDemocrat · California
Al GreenDemocrat · Texas
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Jesús GarcíaDemocrat · Illinois
Robert GarciaDemocrat · California
Daniel GoldmanDemocrat · New York
Adelita GrijalvaDemocrat · Arizona
Steven HorsfordDemocrat · Nevada
Jahana HayesDemocrat · Connecticut
Val HoyleDemocrat · Oregon
Pramila JayapalDemocrat · Washington
Sara JacobsDemocrat · California
Jonathan JacksonDemocrat · Illinois
Stephen LynchDemocrat · Massachusetts
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
Mike LevinDemocrat · California
Summer LeeDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Grace MengDemocrat · New York
Joseph MorelleDemocrat · New York
Morgan McGarveyDemocrat · Kentucky
Seth MagazinerDemocrat · Rhode Island
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Robert MenendezDemocrat · New Jersey
Sarah McBrideDemocrat · Delaware
Analilia MejiaDemocrat · New Jersey
Jerrold NadlerDemocrat · New York
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Donald NorcrossDemocrat · New Jersey
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Ayanna PressleyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Jamie RaskinDemocrat · Maryland
Delia RamirezDemocrat · Illinois
Luz RivasDemocrat · California
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Adam SmithDemocrat · Washington
Linda SánchezDemocrat · California
Mary Gay ScanlonDemocrat · Pennsylvania
Melanie StansburyDemocrat · New Mexico
Andrea SalinasDemocrat · Oregon
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California
Bennie ThompsonDemocrat · Mississippi
Paul TonkoDemocrat · New York
Rashida TlaibDemocrat · Michigan
Lori TrahanDemocrat · Massachusetts
Ritchie TorresDemocrat · New York
Jill TokudaDemocrat · Hawaii
Shri ThanedarDemocrat · Michigan
Nydia VelázquezDemocrat · New York
Juan VargasDemocrat · California
Maxine WatersDemocrat · California
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida