The Child Care Modernization Act
A Step Forward for Families
By Amanda Guarino, Managing Director, Policy & National Partnerships
The Child Care Modernization Act has earned broad bipartisan support as a positive step forward in strengthening child care and supporting both providers and the families they serve. As the bill has gained popularity and momentum, there have been some questions and critiques about the details. Care is unaffordable, provider pay is too low, and CCDBG reaches too few children – we all decidedly agree. Where we part ways is the point where most critiques land – that the answer is to wait, which is just another way of doing nothing.
START WITH WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY DOES
What can get lost in these discussions is what the CCMA would actually mean for families and providers – not someday, but now. The bill would create new supply and facilities grants to build, renovate, and expand child care capacity in communities facing shortages; provide targeted technical assistance to home-based and rural providers, who are too often left behind by one-size-fits-all requirements; reduce administrative burden that pushes small providers out of the subsidy system; strengthen requirements for states to consult providers and parents in developing their plans; and support mixed delivery so families can choose the care setting that works for them. These provisions respond directly to the supply crisis facing families today – which is why more than 30 organizations have endorsed the bill. Dismissing the bill does nothing for the working families waiting on care options that do not yet exist in their communities.
REAUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATIONS ARE COMPLEMENTS, NOT SUBSTITUTES
Some have noted that the CCMA does not itself appropriate new funding. That’s true – and it is also true of virtually every reauthorization bill, including the bipartisan 2014 CCDBG reauthorization that is extensively celebrated. Authorizing legislation sets the policy framework; appropriations bills provide the dollars. The CCMA authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” through FY2030, providing the opportunity for the sustained funding growth we all want, and can be accomplished through the legislative process.
History suggests reauthorization strengthens the case for investment rather than undermining it. In the years following the 2014 reauthorization, Congress more than tripled discretionary CCDBG funding – in part because lawmakers had recently affirmed the program’s structure and purpose on a bipartisan basis, and in part because it has such strong support on both sides of the aisle, something we must continue to foster through the CCMA. A recently reauthorized program – one fresh in the minds of lawmakers – is a much easier case to make in the appropriations process. Refusing to modernize CCDBG will not produce a single additional dollar for families; it risks leaving the program outdated and unable to meet the needs of families today, while the funding fight continues either way.
COST ESTIMATION MODELS ARE AN UPGRADE, NOT A LOOPHOLE
The bill’s shift from the ’equal access’ framework to cost estimation models has raised questions about rate-setting accountability. It’s important to take a closer look at how the current system actually functions. Today, most states set payment rates using market rate surveys – tying what they pay to what a strained market can withstand, not what quality care costs to deliver. That approach bakes low provider compensation into the system. The equal access framework has governed rate-setting for decades – a period in which provider pay has stayed at poverty levels.
Cost estimation models, by contrast, require states to calculate the real cost of delivering quality care – including the wages, benefits, and operational expenses needed to recruit and retain qualified educators. This is not a new or untested idea – cost-based rate setting has long been seen as critical to strengthening the child care system and has appeared in several child care bills across recent Congresses. The CCMA is the first bipartisan vehicle with a real chance of making it law. States like New Mexico and Massachusetts have already used these methodologies to justify meaningful rate increases. The CCMA would make this stronger, more accurate approach the national standard, giving providers, advocates, and state legislators a transparent, defensible number to organize around. Defending the status quo requires believing rates will rise faster under the same methodology that has kept them low for decades. That logic is hard to follow.
It is worth being precise about what the bill actually requires, because the accountability comparison favors the CCMA. Under the bill, a state must certify that its payment rates will be sufficient to meet the cost of providing child care – including fixed and operational costs – and that rates “will be set and paid in accordance with the cost estimation model.” That is a binding standard tied to the real cost of care, not merely a requirement to build a model and set it on a shelf. By contrast, the “equal access” standard is comparability-based: it asks only whether subsidized families can access care comparable to what unsubsidized families use. Equal access ties rates to the private market – but that market reflects what families can afford, not what care costs. A state can satisfy the standard and still pay poverty wages, which is why decades of equal access never lifted provider pay. The CCMA breaks that cycle, anchoring rates to real cost data instead – and where states have tried it, rates have gone up.
WHERE THE BILL STANDS – AND THE ROAD AHEAD
For those who want the rate-setting provisions strengthened, there’s a straightforward answer: our legislative process is built for exactly that. The CCMA is still at an early stage. The Senate bill (S. 2828) was introduced in September 2025 by Senators Fischer, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, and Collins, with Senators Britt and Kelly as cosponsors, and referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee. The House companion (H.R. 9224) was introduced in June 2026 by Representatives Mackenzie, Lee, Hinson, and McDonald Rivet and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Before either bill can become law, it must clear several steps. The committees of jurisdiction will consider the legislation – typically including a markup, where members debate the bill, vote on amendments, and make refinements like this one. A committee-approved bill then goes to the full chamber for a floor vote. Because the House and Senate must pass identical text, any differences would need to be reconciled before a final bill reaches the President. And because CCDBG is a discretionary program, annual appropriations remain the separate vehicle through which Congress funds it – a fight worth having regardless of this bill.
Every one of those steps is an opportunity. Reauthorization is Congress doing its job: putting child care policy on durable statutory footing instead of ceding control to rules and regulations that can be rewritten with every change in administration. Families and providers deserve more stability than that. Advocates who want payment rates tied more closely to the cost model can bring that case directly to the sponsors and committees. Not everyone will agree it’s needed – there’s honest debate about how much flexibility states should keep – but the door is open to make that case. A gap that can be addressed through an amendment is a reason to engage in the process, not a reason to abandon reauthorization altogether. The process is far from over, which is exactly why we should all be at the table shaping this legislation – not standing outside it, or in the way.
WAITING FOR A PERFECT MOMENT IS NOT A STRATEGY
Finally, there’s the notion that now is the wrong time to reauthorize – an argument that deserves scrutiny. CCDBG has not been reauthorized since 2014. The CCMA is bipartisan and bicameral – exactly the kind of shared, cross-party commitment that durable child care policy requires. Bipartisan windows in this space are rare and closing them carries real costs. Holding out for ideal conditions has not delivered higher rates, more supply, or broader access – it has only left an outdated program in place. Working families cannot press pause on their child care needs, and neither should Congress.
The child care crisis demands both modernized policy and sustained investment. The Child Care Modernization Act delivers the first and builds the foundation for the second. We should be working together to pass this bill – and then stand shoulder to shoulder in the appropriations process to fund it at the level families and providers deserve.
