Setting up an emergency fund for Zika could save money.

It’s been nearly 200 days since the White House requested emergency funding in response to the spread of the Zika virus. So far, Congress has released exactly zero dollars, while more than 10,000 cases have been confirmed in the continental United States and Puerto Rico, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. A handful of locally transmitted cases have popped up in Florida. Next on the virus’ trajectory most likely are Louisiana and Texas.

The CDC estimates it could cost upward of $10 million to care for children with microcephaly over their lifetimes, though that’s not the only long-term health issue associated with the virus.

There will be considerable pressure for Congress to authorize an emergency spending package when lawmakers return to Washington in September. The Department of Health and Human Services has already shifted tens of millions away from other projects in order to fund the Zika response.

But public-health experts and some lawmakers say they need more than emergency funding: They’re pushing for a permanent fund for health emergencies. The idea is to have a ready pot of money so that officials can respond to future disease outbreaks without being subject to congressional squabbles, and without robbing from other health initiatives, as the Obama administration had to do earlier this year.

Congress set up a similar fund for public health emergencies in 1983. It was authorized to hold up to $45 million – but it’s almost empty, because lawmakers haven’t appropriated any money for the fund since 2000. Even $45 million is a tiny sum compared to what health officials have estimated they need for the Zika response, not to mention future health emergencies. In February, Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro introduced a bill to inject the fund with $5 billion, while Republican representatives proposed a smaller $300 million fund. In the Senate, California Democrat Barbara Boxer recently proposed a $3 billion emergency fund. Last week, Hillary Clinton proposed a fund, though she hasn’t said how large it would be.

To get a sense of what’s needed, consider how much the government set aside to prepare for other recent pandemics. In 2005, Congress appropriated $6.1 billion in emergency funding for H1N5, commonly known as bird flu. In 2009, Congress provided $7.7 billion for H1N1, or swine flu. The emergency-funding package for Ebola amounted to $5.5 billion.

Zika has not created a sense of urgency the way Ebola did, perhaps because its most damaging effects are slow to develop and implicate a small slice of the population. Yet Republicans in Congress stalled in releasing Ebola funding, too. Both cases indicate that asking politicians, rather than health professionals, to determine which epidemics warrant a response, and when, is dangerous. In July, CDC director Tom Frieden blamed “inaction” for 9,000 Ebola-related deaths. As for Zika, it will be some time before we know its costs.

ZOË CARPENTER is The Nation’s associate Washington editor.