Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 154.
This bill, titled the Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes existing federal programs addressing vector‑borne diseases (including tick‑borne illnesses) by amending the Public Health Service Act. The amendments primarily extend authorization periods for the national strategy and regional centers of excellence in vector‑borne disease and for enhanced support to health departments, changing covered years from 2021–2025 to 2026–2030.
Degree of support tied to funding: liberals want explicit funding guarantees; conservatives worry about potential new spending.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow procedural reauthorization that primarily updates statutory language and authorization timeframes.
This bill, titled the Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes existing federal programs addressing vector‑borne diseases (including tick‑borne illnesses) by amending the Public Health Service Act.
The amendments primarily extend authorization periods for the national strategy and regional centers of excellence in vector‑borne disease and for enhanced support to health departments, changing covered years from 2021–2025 to 2026–2030.
The text also clarifies coordination language referencing the Tick‑Borne Disease Working Group established under the 21st Century Cures Act.
Based purely on the bill text, this is a routine, narrowly focused reauthorization of existing public health activity with little ideological content, a modest fiscal footprint, and built‑in sunset dates — characteristics that historically make such measures likely to be enacted. Remaining barriers are procedural (scheduling, inclusion of appropriations) rather than substantive.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow procedural reauthorization that primarily updates statutory language and authorization timeframes. It identifies the specific statutory provisions to amend and sets a clear, limited objective.
Degree of support tied to funding: liberals want explicit funding guarantees; conservatives worry about potential new spending.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Degree of support tied to funding: liberals want explicit funding guarantees; conservatives worry about potential new spending.
A mainstream progressive would generally welcome continued federal commitment to vector‑borne disease surveillance, research, and public health capacity, viewing the reauthorization as necessary given rising tick‑borne disease incidence and climate impacts on vectors.
They would see this as a modest but important public health investment, while also noting the bill lacks explicit new funding levels and equity or prevention provisions.
They would likely press for stronger language on funding, community outreach to underserved groups, environmental prevention, and research into long‑term effects and treatments.
A pragmatic moderate would view the bill as a low‑risk, bipartisan, incremental extension of existing public health authorities that helps sustain surveillance and support to states without creating large new programs.
They would appreciate the continuity for public health infrastructure but seek clarity on costs, oversight, and measurable outcomes.
Overall, they would favor the reauthorization if accompanied by cost discipline and transparency on implementation.
A mainstream conservative would likely see this as a modest renewal of a specialized public health authority that is largely non‑controversial, but would be cautious about further expansion of federal programs and ongoing unfunded mandates.
They would favor state and local responsibility where practical, seek to limit new spending, and demand evidence of effectiveness and fiscal restraint.
If the bill is purely an authorization extension without new mandatory outlays, they may accept it; if it requires substantial new appropriations, they would scrutinize costs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based purely on the bill text, this is a routine, narrowly focused reauthorization of existing public health activity with little ideological content, a modest fiscal footprint, and built‑in sunset dates — characteristics that historically make such measures likely to be enacted. Remaining barriers are procedural (scheduling, inclusion of appropriations) rather than substantive.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Degree of support tied to funding: liberals want explicit funding guarantees; conservatives worry about potential new spending.
Based purely on the bill text, this is a routine, narrowly focused reauthorization of existing public health activity with little ideologic…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrow procedural reauthorization that primarily updates statutory language and authorization timeframes. It identifies the specific statutory provisions to amen…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.