S. 2398Senate bill · 119th CongressOn the President's deskHealth

Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act

Sponsored bySusan M. CollinsR-MEIntroduced Jul 23, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 29, 2026) — Presented to President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Aug 6, 2026

This bill reauthorizes through FY2030 activities of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address vector-borne diseases (e.g., diseases spread by bites from ticks or mosquitoes). These activities include (1) a national strategy, (2) grants for regional centers of excellence, and (3) cooperative agreements with state, local, and tribal health departments to increase capacity for preventing and responding to vector-borne diseases.

Face Value

as reported to the Senate
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

7 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
kbmontroseDemoNM-2voted Nay7d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
5
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay7d ago
Fair, though the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
9
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay8d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
BudgetHawk88DemoUT-3voted Yea8d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
1
river_readerDemoIL-108d ago
That's true of almost every bill though, isn't it? At some point the objection stops being about this one.
3
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay7d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
2
greta_walkerDemoIN-8voted Yea8d ago
Has a version of this been introduced before? It feels familiar, and if it died last Congress I'd want to know what killed it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on S. 2398No positions yet