PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 571.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Sep 9, 2016
Strengthening Public Health Emergency Response Act of 2016
(Sec. 2) This bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on programs for public health emergency preparedness.
(Sec. 3) This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure procedures are in place to coordinate the ongoing stockpiling of countermeasures (certain medical supplies) by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Procurement of countermeasures using the Biodefense Countermeasures appropriations account no longer requires Presidential approval or an agreement between HHS and the Department of Homeland Security.
(Sec. 5) BARDA is given direct contracting authority.
(Sec. 6) The annual countermeasures plan developed by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response must report on the amount of time between a BARDA request and the award of a contract.
(Sec. 7) This bill amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to award, upon approval, a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a new drug or biological product that can be used as a medical countermeasure to a material threat. The transferable voucher entitles the holder to have an application for a new medication acted upon by the FDA within six months.
The sponsor of a medication that is subject to a voucher must pay a user fee based on the FDA's cost for the priority review process.
The FDA must publish a notice each time it issues a voucher or a voucher is used.
The GAO must report on the effectiveness of this priority review voucher program in providing incentives for the development of material threat medical countermeasures.
People & committees
Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 571.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-735.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-735.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 36 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3299 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3299 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3299 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3299 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.