Senators Cast Doubt on U.S. Bioterror Preparedness
By Fresia Rodriguez Cadavid and Elaine Povich
CongressDaily
WASHINGTON — U.S. senators expressed concern Thursday that despite the government's ongoing efforts, the nation remains susceptible to a bioterrorist threat (see GSN, April 1).
At a hearing on bioterrorism, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said while progress has been made to improve national security, the country should not underestimate how far it needs to go to safeguard the country's food and vaccine supplies.
President George W. Bush’s fiscal 2006 budget seeks $274 million to beef up a series of programs to combat the threat of bioterrorism, up from $100 million the previous year, senators said. But critics have charged that the budget also calls for cuts in antibioterrorism efforts at the local level.
Doubts raised by Gregg came as Penrose Albright, the assistant secretary for science and technology at the Homeland Security Department, testified specifically on the Bioshield program coordinated by the Homeland Security and HHS departments.
Signed into law last July, the program will provide $5.6 billion over 10 years for the purchase of vaccines to combat biological weapons. It also would expedite research into addressing the threat posed by the weapons. After passing the bill, lawmakers immediately began work on a Bioshield II bill aimed at industry concerns that impediments remain to industry development of such products (see related GSN story, today).
Albright testified there is not a “good way” to identify pathogens, such as anthrax and smallpox, coming across the border into the United States. He added that the department is focusing efforts not on prevention but on detection before infected populations exhibit symptoms of a bioterrorism attack.
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) questioned whether the United States has enough protection on its borders against deadly germs being brought into the country.
Albright said it is almost impossible to protect against biological agents being brought into the United States, since a supply as small as a quarter could cause widespread sickness.
“No, we don't have a good way of detecting someone trying to bring a vial of pathogen across the border,” he said. He added that the best way to protect the nation is to detect an attack when it occurs so that vaccines can be distributed as quickly as possible.
Noting that the flu can be lethal to vulnerable populations such as the elderly, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said the country was unprepared to deal with an influenza pandemic.
Craig said the nation “lucked out this year. We made it through the flu season. But I was amazed at our vulnerability there.”
He said a small amount of influenza virus could cause an epidemic.
“The flu isn't a seasonal nuisance,” Albright said. “The flu is a very, very unique threat to this country, going back to [the epidemic of] 1918.”
Stewart Simonson, assistant secretary in the Health and Human Services Department Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness at HHS, stopped short of agreeing with Craig's assessment, saying “I would not say we are unprepared, but it presents an enormous challenge to us.”
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Gregg also questioned whether the process used by Simonson's office to award vaccine development contracts ensured open competition and delivery to prevent a vaccine shortfall.
Gregg noted that during this year's flu season, the main manufacturer of flu vaccine, Chiron Corp., was forced to withdraw its supply because of contamination, causing a severe shortage in the United States.
“Are we creating the same situation with anthrax?” Gregg asked, referring to the flu vaccine shortfall last winter.
Simonson responded that the agency has negotiated a contract with California's VaxGen for 75 million doses of an anthrax vaccine and also has ordered 5 million additional doses from other suppliers to satisfy immediate needs.
Although Simonson said the different agreements show that they are “seeking not to put all our eggs in one basket,” he added that he remains unsure if the contract award process is being done right.
“We're learning as we go,” he said.
CongressDaily
WASHINGTON — U.S. senators expressed concern Thursday that despite the government's ongoing efforts, the nation remains susceptible to a bioterrorist threat (see GSN, April 1).
At a hearing on bioterrorism, Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said while progress has been made to improve national security, the country should not underestimate how far it needs to go to safeguard the country's food and vaccine supplies.
President George W. Bush’s fiscal 2006 budget seeks $274 million to beef up a series of programs to combat the threat of bioterrorism, up from $100 million the previous year, senators said. But critics have charged that the budget also calls for cuts in antibioterrorism efforts at the local level.
Doubts raised by Gregg came as Penrose Albright, the assistant secretary for science and technology at the Homeland Security Department, testified specifically on the Bioshield program coordinated by the Homeland Security and HHS departments.
Signed into law last July, the program will provide $5.6 billion over 10 years for the purchase of vaccines to combat biological weapons. It also would expedite research into addressing the threat posed by the weapons. After passing the bill, lawmakers immediately began work on a Bioshield II bill aimed at industry concerns that impediments remain to industry development of such products (see related GSN story, today).
Albright testified there is not a “good way” to identify pathogens, such as anthrax and smallpox, coming across the border into the United States. He added that the department is focusing efforts not on prevention but on detection before infected populations exhibit symptoms of a bioterrorism attack.
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) questioned whether the United States has enough protection on its borders against deadly germs being brought into the country.
Albright said it is almost impossible to protect against biological agents being brought into the United States, since a supply as small as a quarter could cause widespread sickness.
“No, we don't have a good way of detecting someone trying to bring a vial of pathogen across the border,” he said. He added that the best way to protect the nation is to detect an attack when it occurs so that vaccines can be distributed as quickly as possible.
Noting that the flu can be lethal to vulnerable populations such as the elderly, Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) said the country was unprepared to deal with an influenza pandemic.
Craig said the nation “lucked out this year. We made it through the flu season. But I was amazed at our vulnerability there.”
He said a small amount of influenza virus could cause an epidemic.
“The flu isn't a seasonal nuisance,” Albright said. “The flu is a very, very unique threat to this country, going back to [the epidemic of] 1918.”
Stewart Simonson, assistant secretary in the Health and Human Services Department Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness at HHS, stopped short of agreeing with Craig's assessment, saying “I would not say we are unprepared, but it presents an enormous challenge to us.”
Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Gregg also questioned whether the process used by Simonson's office to award vaccine development contracts ensured open competition and delivery to prevent a vaccine shortfall.
Gregg noted that during this year's flu season, the main manufacturer of flu vaccine, Chiron Corp., was forced to withdraw its supply because of contamination, causing a severe shortage in the United States.
“Are we creating the same situation with anthrax?” Gregg asked, referring to the flu vaccine shortfall last winter.
Simonson responded that the agency has negotiated a contract with California's VaxGen for 75 million doses of an anthrax vaccine and also has ordered 5 million additional doses from other suppliers to satisfy immediate needs.
Although Simonson said the different agreements show that they are “seeking not to put all our eggs in one basket,” he added that he remains unsure if the contract award process is being done right.
“We're learning as we go,” he said.
