Biosecurity and Vaccine Development Improvement Act of 2010

Mr. Speaker, this program, Radio Free Asia, was due to expire, under existing law, in September. And I am delighted here, for several reasons, that the legislation is before us. One is because, on a strategic level, if you have this sunset and you have authoritarian regimes presuming that at the end of the year RFA's broadcasts are going to be discontinued, it implies that it does not have the full support of the U.S. Government or our people here in the United States. And in some countries there's even been talk of RFA going out of business. This sends the message that that just isn't so because now RFA will permanently be in business.

And from a practical standpoint, what does that mean? If you're running a station, it means that you've got the ability now to contract effectively in long-range leases. You get the capital agreements that you need. You are better able, less expensively, to run these operations.

It's not that these operations are expensive. As my friend, John Kasich, former chairman of the Budget Committee once said, the price of this is the price of a fuel cap on a B-52. But, oh, how effective, oh, how effective this strategy has been over the years, because what we provide here is surrogate news. We provide the kind of information that people would be hearing if they actually had a free radio station, if they could actually listen to the voice of a news reporter on issues such as the corruption of a local official, let's say, or what is actually happening in their city, what is happening in their country. That is provided now through RFA.

And I wanted to share with you just a couple of observations. Many of us have heard the words of Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa, Eastern Europeans who were very moved by the broadcasts into their own countries by Radio Free Europe. And whether it's a crackdown on workers at a local factory or news and information about ideas like tolerance, political pluralism, the fact is these messages were heard.

And I remember in the former Yugoslavia talking to a Croatian journalist who had tears in his eyes, and he said there was one country in Eastern Europe where we did not broadcast with Radio Free Europe. That was Yugoslavia.

And as a result, he told me, we watched what happened in Czechoslovakia as Vaclav Havel was able to do a plebiscite, and the Czech Republic went one way and Slovakia went the other. And the reason he was crying was because he said not one human life was lost in that, and Vaclav Havel had said he had listened to those broadcasts about the importance of political pluralism and self-determination and tolerance, whereas he as a Croatian was listening to Croatian hate radio and Serbian hate radio, and indeed hate radio from every single ethnic group in that country.

And during his time as a reporter covering those wars, he watched the war with Slovenia spin out of control, and then Croatia, and Bosnia, and the Kosovo war. He watched each of these tragedies, with their tens of thousands of human lives lost. And he said to me something I will never forget. ``If only we had had the broadcasts here to better prepare us for what was to come.'' That is why this work is so important.

And today we do this work in Burma, we do this work in North Korea, in Vietnam, and in China, in all the major dialects. And many of these governments actively work, of course, to try to block RFA transmissions and information into their society. But still the information manages to get in. Maybe not into the main cities at times, but into the rural areas and into the suburban areas.

And frankly, Freedom House, which ranks all of these countries not free, attests to the ability of this information to get through. As one observer has noted, this type of broadcasting irritates authoritarian regimes, inspires democrats, and creates greater space for civil society. So it's no wonder that China attempts to block RFA transmissions, or that Vietnam has heavily jammed the station since its first day.

But RFA has been chipping away at authoritarian regimes. And I will just mention Kim Jong Il and his grip on information in North Korea. I mention it because Congresswoman Diane Watson and I went into North Korea. And according to experts today, that grip is not as strong as it once was. And this is one of the reasons. The information cordon that once encircled North Korea, I am going to quote this observer, is now in tatters as information is getting in. And that is backed up by a survey by a prominent think tank which interviews hundreds of North Korean refugees every year. And it finds an ever-increasing percentage, now more than half who fled since 2006, had listened to foreign news regularly, including RFA.

I remember a report we had of one of the Politburo members who said in debate, ``If you are not listening to the radio broadcasts, you are like a frog in the well who does not know what is going on in the outside world.'' And so the harsher the regime, the more the attempt to control information, the more diligent we find our reporters and stringers are at RFA in trying to counter the propaganda that comes from the state.

And with this legislation, Radio Free Asia can better focus its long- term mission of bringing its message of some modicum of humanity, freedom, democracy, respect for the rule of law, creating a space for civil society where it can flourish under the Asian continent's oppressive regimes such as China. And I think if we continue this good effort, and I have listened in and participated in some of the broadcasts

into China, we have a tremendous opportunity to reach a young generation of people who are in desperate need of another side of the story. And those reporters are providing it with RFA.

Mr. President, as we prepare to reauthorize the Child Nutrition Act, it is critical that we address the need to invest in commonsense ways to improve the health and well being of our nation's most precious resource--our children.

Childhood obesity threatens the healthy future of one-third of American children. Every year we spend $150 billion to treat obesity- related conditions, and that cost is growing. Obesity rates tripled in the past 30 years, a trend that means, for the first time in our history, American children may face a shorter expected lifespan than their parents.

Right now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, spends more than $10 billion a year on school meal programs, but only a small fraction of that funding goes to fruits and vegetables.

A recent report by the Institute of Medicine entitled School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children, found that increasing the amount and variety of vegetables and fruits in schools is one of the best ways to make school meals healthier, and recommends that schools increase their offering of fruits and vegetables to help keep kids healthy.

That is why I am introducing the Healthy Food in Schools Act, which would improve school nutrition by providing more fresh fruits and vegetables in school breakfasts and lunches starting in elementary school, when children are developing healthy eating habits.

A recent study was conducted by Dr. Wendy Slusser, director of UCLA's Fit for Health Program, and Harvinder Sareen, Director of Clinical Programs at WellPoint, a health benefits company that found children's consumption of fruit and vegetables increases dramatically when produce is made available in school meals. The data also shows that increasing availability of fruits and vegetables exposes children to new foods, which can affect their eating habits for a lifetime.

The Healthy Food in Schools Act instructs USDA to put in place a plan to promote the use of salad bars in schools and provide $10 million for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 to help schools purchase salad bars and fruit and vegetable bars for their cafeterias.

The Healthy Food in Schools Act also includes $100 million for overall cafeteria infrastructure improvements. Many cafeterias around the country are looking to move away from processed food and toward kitchens that can cook healthier meals from scratch, but they lack the funds to implement such a plan.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed last year included $100 million in grants for cafeteria equipment, but the Department of Education received more than $650 million in requests for infrastructure improvements. This bill will help meet the needs of the many school districts that want to improve the meals they serve their students.

This bill also provides competitive matching grants and technical assistance for schools to improve access to local foods. The bill directs $10 million a year for 5 years toward these farm-to-school programs.

Farm-to-school programs are a proven, commonsense way to help improve the health of children while supporting local farmers and bolstering local economies. While many schools would like to incorporate fresh local food into their meals, schools often lack the startup funding and technical expertise to overcome barriers to making this change. These limited federal grants will give school districts and small- and medium-sized farms the help they need to develop new farm-to-school programs.

With more than 31 million children participating in the National School Lunch Program and more than 11 million participating in the National School Breakfast Program, good nutrition at school is more important than ever. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in support of including this commonsense bill in the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act.

The Healthy Food in Schools Act will help ensure that our nation's children are not just eating, but also learning to eat healthy. The rise in the rates of children who are overweight or obese are a result of poor diets, a lack of physical activity, and insufficient nutrition education. A healthy school environment can help correct these problems and put our Nation's youth and our Nation on the path to a healthier and more sustainable future.

Mr. President, among the many casualties of our economic downturn is the collapse of the primary form of private financing to construct affordable housing. I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Recovery Act, which would restore investment in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program. In doing so, the bill will create tens of thousands of new affordable housing units and, in turn, thousands of construction jobs. I am grateful to my Finance Committee colleagues, Senators Kerry, Cantwell, Menendez, Stabenow, and Schumer for joining me in introducing this bill.

Many of us are familiar with the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program's importance; indeed, I consider it the most successful affordable housing production program in our nation's history. Since its enactment in 1986, the program has spurred the creation of more than 1.7 million units of affordable housing nationwide, including nearly 20,000 units in my home State of New Mexico.

But today, the Housing Credit program is facing tremendous challenges in attracting private investment. Having incurred significant losses, many traditional investors cannot currently use these tax credits, and thus have temporarily exited the market. Moreover, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--which until recently provided a significant share of private investment in Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and nationwide--have pulled out entirely. Our bill will help attract new private investment to Housing Credit projects in New Mexico and across the country.

First, the bill will permit existing investors to carryback their unusable existing housing credits for up to five years. A major impediment to new investment today is that traditional Housing Credit investors have incurred business losses that prevent them from utilizing tax credits on previous investments. Consequently, these traditional investors have become disinclined to make new investments-- as doing so would generate further credits they could not use for some time. But through a 5-year carryback, many of these traditional investors will be able to make use of accumulated credits. Only investors who are committed to creating additional affordable housing deserve this tax treatment. Accordingly, the bill makes the 5-year carryback election available only to the extent that carryback proceeds are entirely invested in new affordable housing credit investments.

Additionally, the bill provides that Housing Credits generated from future investments can be carried back 5 years. With its 10-year credit stream and 15-year tax compliance period, the Housing Credit program faces hurdles lining up investors, as compared to other tax credit programs with shorter investment horizons. Without shortening the compliance period, a 5-year carryback will make the Housing Credit more competitive with other tax credits, by providing greater flexibility. This will result in more stable investor demand and thus more resources for affordable housing.

Our bill is based on consensus proposals developed by a broad coalition of affordable housing organizations--including housing advocates, state housing finance agencies, developers, and investors-- to restore private investment in affordable housing. That these proposals will create tens of thousands of affordable housing units and thousands of construction jobs was endorsed in studies by Harvard University's Joint Center on Housing and Ernst & Young's Tax Credit Advisory Services Center.

I am grateful for the coalition's efforts, as well as input that New Mexico stakeholders--including the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, Enterprise Community Partners, and the New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness--provided as I developed this bill.

We must act swiftly to ensure continued progress in constructing affordable housing, to meet our nation's affordable housing needs and create jobs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to see these provisions enacted into law.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Biosecurity and Vaccine Development Improvement Act, which will ensure our country has the resources necessary to protect the American people in the event of a disease outbreak or terrorist attack.

Last year, in preparation for flu season and concern about the H1N1 virus, the Department of Health and Human Services set out to acquire 120 million doses of vaccines. In August 2009, the department initially projected that these doses would be available by mid-October. However, only 11 million were obtained by that time, and the 120 million doses were not acquired until January 2010.

The current system consists of government contracts with private vaccine manufacturers to produce vaccines. While this lowers overhead costs to the Government, the Government is not able to dictate when vaccines will be produced or which vaccines will be produced. The production of the H1N1 vaccine is good example of the problems that can arise without a dedicated Government manufacturing facility for vaccines. The delay was due to several problems with the supplying companies. For example, one company based in Australia had to produce vaccines to meet the needs in Australia before exporting doses to the U.S. Another company had to produce their regular seasonal flu vaccine before switching to H1N1 vaccine production. This demonstrates the critical need to examine the current vaccine system.

The current system has limitations on the ability to produce vaccines related to bioterrorism such as smallpox, anthrax, ebola virus and botulism, leaving the U.S. without vaccines and susceptible to terrorist attacks. What we want to do is to avoid having the government come up short on something like what happened with Katrina where we are unprepared for the eventuality.

I have long been concerned with these issues. Since 2004, when I chaired the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, with the joinder of Senator Harkin, who is now the chair, we appropriated $14.336 billion for pandemic preparedness. So you can see that we are talking about very substantial funds to meet a very substantial problem. Over the past year, I have held a number of meetings about the need for a facility, through a public/private partnership, that would afford the U.S. Government greater control over vaccine and countermeasure production and development. These meetings included Vice President Biden, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. On August 21, 2009, I chaired a hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, to examine the problems our current system faces and what can be done to remedy them.

This legislation would provide funding for a public/private partnership vaccine developing and manufacturing facility, determined by a competitive bidding process. A public/private facility such as this would allow the government to determine what vaccines would be produced and would use new technology being developed by General Electric to allow rapid change in the vaccines produced. This process currently requires extensive cleaning and

takes weeks, but this new technology includes disposable manufacturing equipment to change production quickly and would improve output and meet demand.

This proposed facility would develop and manufacture medical countermeasures critical to this Nation's health and security and could greatly enhance the U.S.'s vaccine-producing abilities. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this legislation forward promptly.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce the Biosecurity and Vaccine Development Improvement Act, which will ensure our country has the resources necessary to protect the American people in the event of a disease outbreak or terrorist attack.

Last year, in preparation for flu season and concern about the H1N1 virus, the Department of Health and Human Services set out to acquire 120 million doses of vaccines. In August 2009, the department initially projected that these doses would be available by mid-October. However, only 11 million were obtained by that time, and the 120 million doses were not acquired until January 2010.

The current system consists of government contracts with private vaccine manufacturers to produce vaccines. While this lowers overhead costs to the Government, the Government is not able to dictate when vaccines will be produced or which vaccines will be produced. The production of the H1N1 vaccine is good example of the problems that can arise without a dedicated Government manufacturing facility for vaccines. The delay was due to several problems with the supplying companies. For example, one company based in Australia had to produce vaccines to meet the needs in Australia before exporting doses to the U.S. Another company had to produce their regular seasonal flu vaccine before switching to H1N1 vaccine production. This demonstrates the critical need to examine the current vaccine system.

The current system has limitations on the ability to produce vaccines related to bioterrorism such as smallpox, anthrax, ebola virus and botulism, leaving the U.S. without vaccines and susceptible to terrorist attacks. What we want to do is to avoid having the government come up short on something like what happened with Katrina where we are unprepared for the eventuality.

I have long been concerned with these issues. Since 2004, when I chaired the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, with the joinder of Senator Harkin, who is now the chair, we appropriated $14.336 billion for pandemic preparedness. So you can see that we are talking about very substantial funds to meet a very substantial problem. Over the past year, I have held a number of meetings about the need for a facility, through a public/private partnership, that would afford the U.S. Government greater control over vaccine and countermeasure production and development. These meetings included Vice President Biden, Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. On August 21, 2009, I chaired a hearing in Pittsburgh, PA, to examine the problems our current system faces and what can be done to remedy them.

This legislation would provide funding for a public/private partnership vaccine developing and manufacturing facility, determined by a competitive bidding process. A public/private facility such as this would allow the government to determine what vaccines would be produced and would use new technology being developed by General Electric to allow rapid change in the vaccines produced. This process currently requires extensive cleaning and

takes weeks, but this new technology includes disposable manufacturing equipment to change production quickly and would improve output and meet demand.

This proposed facility would develop and manufacture medical countermeasures critical to this Nation's health and security and could greatly enhance the U.S.'s vaccine-producing abilities. I encourage my colleagues to work with me to move this legislation forward promptly.