Why hasn't Congress passed a Zika funding bill?

A Republican-drafted bill would have allocated $1.1 billion in emergency funding to fighting Zika. Why didn't it pass? 

Carlo Allegri/Reuters
An anti Zika virus kit, including a bug net, mosquito repellent, condoms, literature and anti mosquito dunks.

As the Zika virus is reported to be spreading in the United States, public health officials are keen to deploy a mass response. But Congressional gridlock over funding to fight Zika is stalled.

In a 52-48 vote on Tuesday, Senate Democrats blocked a Republican-drafted bill that would have allocated $1.1 billion in emergency funding to fighting Zika. The bill needed 60 votes to pass. Democrats took exception with a provision loosening Environmental Protection Agency restrictions as well as another that prohibited funds from being directed to Planned Parenthood and other women’s health clinics. After the vote, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) of New York accusing the GOP of “[taking] Zika hostage” by inserting "poison pills" into the bills on Thursday, according to NBC News.

Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics. In an op-ed published in The Hill, Rep. Andy Harris (R) of Maryland called increases in funding to Planned Parenthood unnecessary and said the failed proposal “actively calls for tight monetary oversight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent appropriately”, in contrast to the “blank check” for $1.9 billion requested by the Obama administration back in February.

The failed passage of a bill designed as a compromise on an earlier measure drafted in the House left lawmakers without much time to spare. Congress breaks for seven weeks on July 15. In the meantime, health officials are burning up borrowed funds – the administration has redirected almost $600 million in unspent money approved for spending on the ebola crisis.

Among other appropriations, the Senate bill would have allotted $476 million for mosquito-control programs, and $230 million for the development of a Zika vaccine.

The House’s version would have provided just $622 million in funding, far short of what the Obama administration had sought. It occasioned a veto threat from the White House, which cited assessments from health experts. “We didn’t draw that figure from the clouds,” said President Obama on Friday. “It was based on the assessment of our scientists and our experts in terms of what was going to be needed for basic mosquito abatement and vaccine development, and making sure that we've got the proper diagnostic tools.”

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that 935 cases have thus far been identified in the continental US, with all but one brought in by travelers. US territories – Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and Samoa – have been hardest hit, with over 2,000 cases reported there. 

In mid-June, CDC director Tom Frieden said that Zika’s spread was increasing “rapidly” in Puerto Rico and, CNN reported that he emphasized that residents in areas of active transmission of the virus should use protective measures such as DEET repellent and long-sleeve clothing, and to work to reduce mosquito breeding sites, adding that it "takes an entire community" to protect women.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky told USA Today that the chamber would likely hold another vote on the same Zika funding bill next week. "We'll address this matter again (next week) and hopefully respond...to this pending health care crisis," he said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.