|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: House Government Reform Panel Approves Bioshield Bill By Juliana Gruenwald CongressDaily WASHINGTON — The U.S. House Government Reform Committee approved legislation yesterday that would provide the government with additional tools to spur the development of vaccines and other measures to protect the United States from a bioterrorist attack (see GSN, May 16). With little debate, the committee approved the “Bioshield” bill after adopting a substitute version of the measure offered by Government Reform Chairman Davis. Only two members were present for the bill’s markup: Representative Mark Souder (R-Ind.) and ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). In highlighting the need for the legislation, supporters point to the fall of 2001 when letters laced with anthrax were sent to some members of Congress and media outlets. “The death toll could have been higher if there had not been effective countermeasures to treat that particular form of anthrax,” Souder said. “Unfortunately, there has been little progress in treatments for other deadly diseases like smallpox, Ebola and the bubonic plague, which affect few, if any, Americans.” Souder added that private companies have little interest in developing treatments for such diseases because there is little market for such products. To address this problem, the bill would provide the Health and Human Services secretary with “flexible” tools to sponsor research and development projects aimed at combating bioterrorism and would authorize funding for the purchase of vaccines and other measures developed from such research. It also would authorize the secretary in emergencies to allow for the use of drugs and other products aimed at combating bioterrorist attacks before the FDA has approved such products. Among the key changes included in the substitute amendment, which was approved by voice vote, are provisions that would allow the simplified research and development procedures to be used only when the HHS secretary determines there is a “pressing” need for them. It also would provide interested parties with a limited right to appeal contracting decisions made by the secretary.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
