The House on Thursday voted 239-171 to approve a bill (HR 2577) that includes $1.1 billion in funding to address the Zika virus, the New York Times reports.
Liberal lawmakers in Congress and President Obama have voiced opposition to the proposal, noting that it is insufficient to respond to the virus (Herszenhorn, New York Times, 6/23).
Background on Zika
The Zika virus is a mosquito-borne disease that has spread across North and South America over the past year. Researchers recently learned that Zika can also be transmitted through sexual activity. The virus is not easily diagnosed, and it does not have a cure or vaccine. It is linked to the birth defect microcephaly, a condition in which an infant is born with an abnormally small head and brain. The condition is fatal for some infants, while others experience permanent disabilities.
Officials in Brazil and Honduras have issued guidance recommending that women avoid pregnancy. El Salvador's recommendation is that women not get pregnant until 2018. However, many countries in Latin America restrict access to contraception and often ban abortion. In addition, women have been advised to protect themselves against mosquitos, but insect repellant can be unaffordable for low-income women.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the outbreak and its link to microcephaly a public health emergency of international concern. Separately, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement directing nations affected by the Zika virus to remove bans on access to sexual and reproductive health care services.
U.S. response efforts
The White House has called for $1.9 billion to combat the virus. Amid congressional delays on the funding request, a senior administration official in April said the administration would transfer more than $500 million in funding allocated to combating the Ebola virus to Zika response efforts.
In May, CDC announced that it will allocate more than $85 million to U.S. states and territories to combat the Zika virus. Separately, CMS in June announced that states may use Medicaid funding to cover preventive measures, including contraception and family planning services, to combat the virus' spread (Women's Health Policy Report, 6/17).
The House and Senate approved separate funding proposals for responding to Zika. The Senate's measure (SA 3900) would provide $1.1 billion in funding, while the House's measure (HR 5243) would allocate $622 million (Ferris, The Hill, 6/21). Both proposals include antiabortion-rights language.
Earlier this month, the Senate voted to go to conference with the House to negotiate and merge the proposals (Women's Health Policy Report, 6/9).
House advances Zika measure
The House on Thursday advanced a funding proposal, written by conservative lawmakers, that differs from the $1.1 billion measure approved last month by the Senate, the AP/Sacramento Bee reports (Taylor, AP/Sacramento Bee, 6/23).
According to the Times, the proposal was included in an $82.5 billion appropriations measure (HR 2577) for military and veteran services for 2017 (New York Times, 6/23).
Specifically, the proposed Zika funding would redirect $750 million from other federal programs, including $107 million for Ebola-related efforts and $543 million for a program to help U.S. territories set up insurance marketplaces under the Affordable Care Act (PL 111-148) (AP/Sacramento Bee, 6/23). Overall, the proposal allocates about $400 million in new spending for Zika response efforts, short of the $1.9 billion requested by the White House (Ferris, The Hill, 6/23).
According to the AP/Bee, the proposal would prohibit Planned Parenthood from receiving funds under a $95 million grant program (AP/Sacramento Bee, 6/23). In addition, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.), chair of the Appropriations Committee, said the proposal includes more specific rules for CDC and NIH's use of the funding than the administration's request. The House-approved bill also designates specific funding for USAID and WHO (The Hill, 6/23).
Following the vote on the bill, the House immediately adjourned for the July 4 break (AP/Sacramento Bee, 6/23). According to the Times, it is unclear how the House and Senate will move forward or when a final vote on funding will occur (New York Times, 6/23). Public health experts have said it is critical that lawmakers address the funding before recess (The Hill, 6/21).
Measure draws liberal opposition
Liberal lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), on Wednesday said they would not sign the proposal (The Hill, 6/23). According to the Times, conservative lawmakers do not have enough votes in the Senate to defeat any potential procedural obstacles levied by liberal lawmakers and secure approval for the bill.
Reid said, "A narrowly partisan proposal that cuts off women's access to birth control, shortchanges veterans and rescinds Obamacare funds to cover the cost is not a serious response to the threat from the Zika virus." He added, "In short, [conservative lawmakers] are trying to turn an attempt to protect women's health into an attack on women's health" (New York Times, 6/23).
Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, said the offsets in the bill would "set a precedent that will hinder our ability to respond to the next public health crisis, natural disaster, or national security event." According to the AP/Bee, liberal lawmakers noted that funding for other national emergencies has not required spending cuts for approval (AP/Sacramento Bee, 6/23).
Separately, White House press secretary Josh Earnest denounced the bill. He said, "This plan from congressional [conservative lawmakers] is four months late and nearly a billion dollars short of what our public health experts have said is necessary to do everything possible to fight the Zika virus and steals funding from other health priorities." Earnest added, "The fact that [conservative lawmakers'] plan limits needed birth control services for women in the United States and Puerto Rico as we seek to stop the spread of a sexually transmitted disease is a clear indication they don't take seriously the threat from the Zika virus or their responsibility to protect Americans" (New York Times, 6/23).
