Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to support House Resolution 32, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8,

2011. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their loved ones, including my friend and colleague Gabby Giffords, the Giffords staff, and all who are mourning this tragedy in Arizona and across the Nation.

The events of this weekend are difficult to comprehend. Gabby is a champion for her constituents and it was because of her devotion to them that she was outside a local grocery store the Saturday morning when she nearly lost her life. As the tragedy unfolded, she was surrounded by a group of dutiful staff and constituents, including an intern who may have saved her life, and many who so unbelievably lost their own lives or were injured.

I have gotten to know Gabby through our shared efforts to advance renewable energy policies, including our working together on the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition. She's bright and engaging, and is always bringing in fresh ideas to achieve solutions to our Nation's energy problems. My heart is with her and her husband at this moment as she fights for her recovery. If there is anyone who can pull through, I believe it will be Gabby.

It is in times like these that I believe our Nation can rise above our past and shine brighter than we have before. While it will take time to learn exactly why this has happened, I hope that as we heal, our Nation will find a way to be more compassionate, understanding and peaceful.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the leadership shown to bring this document for reading today; but I do want to inquire of the Chair and perhaps the gentleman who is the author of this effort today, Mr. Goodlatte. The language, as I understand it, that we will be reading today does not include some of the original language of the Constitution of the United States. On multiple occasions amendments have purported to change some of the intent of the original document.

I do have. My parliamentary inquiry is, will we be reading the entire original document without deletion, or will we be reading a document with deletions that may or may not have been accomplished by respective amendments?

And may I inquire of the gentleman, if I may inquire before we start this process, if he would explain to us so that we will all be on the same page.

I ask unanimous consent to ask the gentleman to yield for a question.

I will wait till Mr. Goodlatte is recognized, and I will ask him to yield so we can have clarity of this.

If I may ask unanimous consent to ask Mr. Goodlatte to yield for just a question so we all understand the reading.

Yes. My parliamentary inquiry is, may I ask the gentleman to yield for 30 seconds to ask a question of the derivation of this language that we will all be reading in good faith and in good spirits today?

If I may make a unanimous consent to ask Mr. Goodlatte a question so that we all do understand the nature of the language that we will be reading today, I think it would be very helpful to us on a bipartisan basis.

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Goodlatte, could you explain to us the decision-making process about which language to read today?

And the reason I ask is, through our American history, we have had a series of amendments that were intended to change the original document, but the amendments do not make specific deletions to specific language in the original document, and it has been up to us to ascertain the intent of the amendments to figure out which language is operative or not. But the language has not specifically been deleted by the amendment, so it could be subject to some interpretation of which language really has been removed and which has not.

So I think it would be helpful to the Members if you explain to us how the determinations of what to read have been made or not made so that we will all be on the same page as to congressional intent.

And would the gentleman accept the premise that since we have not been able to review the exact language we will be reading today--I will wait for a moment, Mr. Speaker. We do want to have a good bipartisan success here today, and this is a special moment for us all.

So I guess the question is: I take it that since we have not had discussion about which language to read or not, that this is not intended to create any statement of congressional intent about the language but, rather, to do our best to have a moment of comity to read the language as best as we can ascertain it. Is that correct?

I thank you. And I very much appreciate your leadership in bringing this to our attention today.

``To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act of 2010, a bipartisan bill to help transition our transportation sector from an oil-based system to one based on electricity and natural gas. This legislation is a significant investment in our shared goals to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and ramp up production of homegrown biofuels in states like Washington that can spur our economy and create American jobs. As many of you know, the U.S. has only two percent of the world's oil reserves while we consume 23 percent of the world's oil. The status quo is not in our national security interests, or economic interests. Of all the oil that is used in the United States each day, 57 percent is imported, and 70 percent of that imported oil comes from countries that do not enjoy many of the same basic freedoms as U.S. citizens. Further, this addiction costs the U.S. economy close to $1 billion per day. This imbalance of supply and demand means that the U.S. will be dependent on foreign sources of oil unless we create smart and thoughtful policies to invest in America's clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

This bill provides the necessary framework for the United States change invigorate new American industries and kick our oil habit. To put this in perspective everyone should know that approximately one- third of the total amount of energy consumed in the United States is to fuel the 249 million vehicles that are burning gas on our highways.

The Oil Independence for a Stronger America Act of 2010 contains language that has the goal of reducing our dependence on oil by approximately 3 billion barrels per year, a number that represents nearly all of our oil imports. This bill would:

1. Establish the National Energy Security Program to coordinate oil reduction efforts across all of government

2. Help deploy electric and natural gas vehicles though tax credits and deployment demonstration projects

3. Amend current federal transportation planning rules to include planning for oil savings in transportation infrastructure plans developed by states and authorize funding for projects to implement the plans

4. Help the U.S. advanced biofuels industry scale up to commercial levels

5. Support research and development in battery technologies

In addition to strengthening America by reigning in our oil consumption the legislation also has very positive environmental benefits. Almost \1/3\ of all the Green House Gas, GHG, emissions in the U.S. come from the transportation sector. Switching over 60 percent of our transportation sector to electric vehicles would cut emissions by 33 percent. This is the equivalent of taking 82 million gas burning cars off the road.

In the great state of Washington, interests from the private and public sectors are already working to bring electric vehicles and the associated infrastructure to the 1-5 corridor. Their efforts can be greatly enhanced by this legislation. Realizing the goals of this legislation will ensure that the U.S. secures its competitive edge in this field.

This legislation is a win-win-win for the future of the United States. We can help secure our nation's energy resources, reduce our nations greenhouse gas emissions significantly which will help mitigate issues of global climate change, and ensure that innovative transportation technologies like advanced batteries and advanced biofuels are made here in the United States. In closing, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and hope that we can work together to move it toward passage as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6540) to require the Secretary of Defense, in awarding a contract for the KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Program, to consider any unfair competitive advantage that an offeror may possess.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We have another great bipartisan success today, at the closing day of our Congress, and I want to thank Representatives Larsen, Blunt, Tiahrt, Moran, and McDermott for bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. This bill is the Defense Level Playing Field Act, which will incorporate in standalone legislation an amendment we adopted with huge bipartisan support previously by a vote of 410-8 on the defense authorization bill.

This bill is very important to bring a level of fairness and competitiveness from a job creation perspective to the tanker contract, which is now one of the largest procurement contracts in American history, a $35 billion contract providing for 179, and ultimately 400, aerial refueling planes, which will replace the Eisenhower-era tankers, which is so critical to our Nation's skeleton and backbone of our Nation's defense.

I note the basic thrust of this bill is to make sure that in our procurement process that we have fairness--fairness both to the law and fairness to the American workers, who are so successful. And one of the bidders we hope to be so successful with is the Boeing 767 platform, which will be fully capable of continuing the tradition of American provision of the very backbone of our American fleet and providing our tankers.

I want to make four points about what this bill will do. Basically, what this bill will do is require the Defense Department to take into consideration any unfair competitive advantage of any of the bidders in this contract. What basically this bill will do is require that the Pentagon take into consideration any unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by either of the bidders, Boeing or the Airbus consortium, and that is defined as costs of development, production, or manufacturing that are not fully borne by the offeror of any such contract.

Obviously, what gave rise to this amendment was the fact that we have found that there were over $5 billion of illegal, unfair competitive advantage that has been enjoyed by one of the contractors, the Airbus consortium.

But I want to make four points about what our bill does. Number one, our bill basically says that we need a fair competition. We are happy to compete as Americans. We love competition. We're happy to compete, but we need to do it on a level playing field. And this bill is very fair because it says that any unfair competitive advantage of either of the bidders needs to be taken into consideration in this bill. We love competition, but it needs to be fair.

Second, this bill is fair to both sides, Boeing and Airbus, America and Europe, because it requires an unfair competitive advantage from either bidder to be taken into consideration. And it is WTO-compliant. We were careful to draft the bill with that in mind.

Third, this is an enormous contract, and there have been enormous unfair competitive advantages bestowed on one of the bidders--frankly, Airbus. The $5 billion of illegal subsidies that we have found come out to somewhere between 27 and $5 million an airplane. This is an extraordinarily unfair advantage that one of the bidders has been given, and we need to take that into consideration.

Fourth, the job importance of this issue cannot be overstated. It is estimated that 62,000 jobs could hang in the balance if we allow these illegal subsidies not to be remedied in this procurement contract. American workers have built the best airplanes. They're ready to do it. And we're not going to allow tens of thousands of jobs to be lost based on illegal subsidization by our friends in Europe.

Now we have standalone legislation. We look forward to giving the Senate every opportunity to act on this.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I want to put in a good word for my comrade in arms, Todd Tiahrt. He isn't with us right at the moment, but he did great work on this--he has had a great career--as well as Mr. Larsen.

A couple of closing comments.

I come from a Boeing family. My uncle's cousins have worked with Boeing products from the 707, to the 737, to the 727, to the 747. Now they hope to work on the 767 tanker product. So this is a hometown team issue for me, but it is an international issue as to whether or not we are going to have rules when we compete with our friends across the pond, and we are happy to compete no matter what team we are on. This simply insists that America will follow the rules in a fair competition. It is the right thing to do.

So, in that regard, Madam Speaker, I will note that sometimes Congress reserves the best in its legislation and the best in its speakers pro tem for the last, and I think that this is the best in both ways.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I just wanted to address Mr. Miller's concern, wanted to advise him that we have been in discussions for the last several days with the current minority staff on the committee, who have all been well-advised about our intention to bring this in one way or another, either by UC or suspension, to the floor, and we've appreciated their cooperation in doing that.

I also want to advise Mr. Miller that this is exactly the same language we did vote for, including the gentleman from Florida, in its previous incarnation in the Defense authorization bill. I hope that I can say this is a fairly noncontroversial issue in the House, and we hope that when the light of public interest is shone on the Senate that they will act on this as well on behalf of America.

Madam Speaker, I would reserve my time unless the gentleman has no further speakers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff recently commented at the 2010 Energy Security Forum that ``[the Department of Defense] is using 300,000 barrels of oil every day. The energy use per soldier creeps up every year. And our number-one import into Afghanistan is fossil fuel.'' Admiral Mullen understands how critical an energy supply is to a combat troop; but how safe are our troops if this oil comes from overseas? Our defense sector should adopt more sustainable fuels, which can be produced here in the United States; for the security of our troops.

As an initial step forward, the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Maybus, outlined five formal energy goals to lead the Navy toward a more energy secure fleet:

1. Evaluation of energy factors will be mandatory when awarding Department of the Navy contracts for systems and buildings.

2. Department of the Navy (DoN) will demonstrate a Green Strike Group in local operations by 2012 and sail it by 2016.

3. By 2015, DoN will reduce petroleum use in the commercial fleet by 50 percent.

4. By 2020, DoN will produce at least 50 percent of shore-based energy requirements from alternative sources; 50 percent of Navy and Marine Corps installations will be net-zero.

5. By 2020, 50 percent of total energy consumption will come from alternative sources.

To ultimately realize these goals we need to dramatically scale up advanced biofuel production in the U.S. One way to help scale this nascent industry is to allow government entities to engage in longer term contracts with fuel producers. These longer term contracts will provide additional market certainty and will ultimately help unlock private investment for construction and development of large advanced biofuel refineries.

That is why I introduced the Domestic Fuel for Enhancing National Security (D-FENS) Act 2010. This bill extends the multi-year contracting authority for advanced biofuels from 5 years to 15 years.

In the great state of Washington, interests from the private sector, universities, and major airports are already working to bring the first generation of biofuels to the market, and their efforts can be greatly enhanced by this legislation. These fuels are based on plants such as camelina, jatropha, and even algae; plants that can be grown right in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to being able to grow these feedstocks in our own backyard, research on the next generation of biofuels is also creating jobs at our highly regarded research institutions. These efforts will make sure that the U.S. secures its competitive edge in this field.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and hope that we can work together to move it toward passage as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I came to peace with my decision on this bill this weekend when I was holding my 2-year-old grandson, Brody, who was checking out the Christmas tree. I became focused on the real question before us: Is it right to put $858 billion of debt on that kid's shoulders? The answer is ``no'' for three reasons.

First, this bill represents an old and unsuccessful experiment in supply-side economics. It has failed time and time again. In 2001, it was going to create jobs. It didn't create a single net job. Most of us remember when the first President Bush called this type of scheme ``voodoo economics.'' Do you remember that? Well, this is deja vu voodoo economics, and we have no interest in erecting a fiscal monument to the failed policies of George Bush.

Second, let's be honest about what this deal is--a bipartisan deal gone bad. It's a case where both sides handed out candy to their favorite constituencies, put the candy together in one pile of $858 billion of deficit spending and said, We will sober up, just not today.

We've got to have time to eat our spinach, not just our candy. Stop kicking this can down the road. True bipartisanship will happen when both parties confront fiscal reality and become responsible.

Third, we have to face the music as to what this deal is. It's just another case of using an overextended credit card. We cannot build an economy based on consumer credit card spending, which is what got us in the hole in the first place. This deal does not educate one kid; it does not build one bridge; it does not lead to the production of one innovative company. It doesn't build America. It just builds American debt.

So let's learn from our past. Let's put away the credit card. Let's get an unemployment extension the old-fashioned way. Let's have more jobs and less debt.

Let's defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise to alert my colleagues to a very important job creation issue that resides potentially in the defense authorization bill that may come to the floor.

We have the opportunity to do something right for the American worker and the American taxpayer by insisting that in the competition for the new Air Force tanker that we take into consideration the illegal subsidies that have benefited so extraordinarily the Airbus competitor for the tanker contract. It is absolutely imperative that at this moment when we are struggling to create jobs in this country that we take into consideration in this competition the fact that our competitors in Europe have received over $5 billion of illegal subsidies, and we have to insist the Pentagon take that into consideration.

For those that share my view, I hope you will join me in a letter to make sure that an amendment we passed will become part of the defense authorization bill. It is the only way to make sure that we keep these jobs in America and build a U.S. Air Force tanker.

Mr. Speaker, our cab driver the other day said he served in the last segregated African American unit during the Korean War. He told me there were five guys in his unit who were gay, and he thought those guys were the best because all five of those gay soldiers were on the boxing team of his unit, and they beat the stuffing out of anybody they fought.

That's who we need right now with those .50 calibers and on our bridges and in our cockpits--the best fighters America can produce. Right now, in warfare, we cannot afford the luxury of discrimination. Put those Americans to work fighting for freedom. We need them.

Mr. Speaker, George Washington said something which I thought was appropriate to the Cobell settlement. He said, ``The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of government.'' Today, that is what we are administering--some justice for the 50,000 individual Native Americans and more than 100 tribes across this country.

We have known, in no uncertain terms, that there has been an injustice

to thousands of these Americans for decades, and we have struggled mightily to find the right resolution of that, and we have found a settlement that, in fact, achieves that. The point I want to make about this is we know how important this has been to Native Americans. We know of their attachment to the land and of the abuses they have suffered at the hands of their government.

Conservatives should like the fact that we are forcing a government that acted inappropriately to pay for the damage it did to their citizens as this is not just justice for Native Americans. A justice for any is a justice for all, and justice for Native Americans today is justice for all Americans. We all ought to feel proud that we are taking a step forward to make this a more just Nation.

Madam Speaker, all members of this body and indeed all Americans are united in the high esteem we have for the men and women of our Armed Forces who have given their lives in service to our country.

A constituent of mine provides a grand example in this regard. Mr. Michael Reagan, a portrait artist residing in Edmonds, Washington, a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, a combat veteran of the Vietnam War, and a member of the local Veterans of Foreign Wars, has committed himself to providing surviving families with hand-drawn portraits of every man or woman killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. To date, Mr. Reagan has completed over 2,400 portraits of servicemembers.

These portraits make a difference. A wife of a fallen Marine wrote to Mr. Reagan, ``I sit in the living room every day looking at the portrait you drew . . . It just brings me a little bit of peace because I feel like he's right there with me.''

In honoring the dead and comforting the living, Mr. Reagan helps the families to hold their loved ones in their hearts forever and helps assure that our Nation will never forget the service they gave and the sacrifice they made. I believe we should reflect on Mr. Reagan's contribution and ask ourselves how we, too can continue to honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker, I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in doing the right thing for working families in this difficult time on unemployment. I've heard them say, well, we just can't afford this. Well, that's a little interesting to me when they say we can afford to blow a $700 billion hole in the Federal deficit by giving away tax cuts to millionaires.

We Democrats stand for working middle class folks to give them middle class tax relief but not grow the Federal deficit another $700 billion.

Now what is going on here is a hostage-taking situation, because the Republicans are holding the middle class hostage by not allowing 100 percent of Americans to have tax relief just so their friends who might be hedge fund managers or otherwise can get additional tax relief on top of it. Well, here is what we should say: Americans do not negotiate with hostage-takers.

We ought to have the right economic policy. And I'll tell you what: We are not going to allow the trickle-down economics of George Bush to be foisted on America anymore.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3397) to amend the Controlled Substances Act to provide for take-back disposal of controlled substances in certain instances, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 3397, as amended, the Secure and Responsible Drug Disposal Act of 2010. This bill is our effort to respond to the very rapidly rising rate of prescription drug abuse in our country where 2,500 teens a day are using prescription drugs illegally for the first time. And this bill will help, we think, significantly in helping remove prescription drugs from the illicit drug pipeline by giving citizens an ability to get rid of their drugs, their prescription drugs, in a legal fashion so that communities can fashion a way to create drug take-back programs so citizens can get rid of their unnecessary and no longer useful prescription drugs.

The House has previously passed a version. We have made some improvements to the bill after it went through the Senate. I just want to note some of those improvements.

Today, when people do not have ready access to drug disposal programs, they often flush them down, and drugs ultimately end up in the waterways. In order to ensure that the drug take-back programs that we fashion under this bill are environmentally sound, it's important that the Attorney General consider the environmental impacts of take- back programs and work with the Environmental Protection Agency and communities on appropriate ways to dispose of the collected

substance in an environmentally sound manner. We also have provided ways to make sure communities are engaged in designing these programs so that they meet the individual needs of specific communities.

I want to thank all the people who have worked on this bipartisan legislation, particularly Representative Stupak who is ending his congressional career having done some great work in this regard.

With that, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I just want to thank Senators Klobuchar and Cornyn for their work on this and say this is a good bipartisan effort. We are not done on this, as Mr. Buyer pointed out, but this is a good start. I urge passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2010, a bill to promote the development of renewable energy from our oceans and rivers, using the tides, currents, waves and even the thermal properties of our oceans to generate electricity. I also want to acknowledge the work of Chairman Brian Baird, my friend and Washington state colleague, who joins me in introducing this important legislation.

This bill will bolster research and development in marine renewable energy, to ensure the industry overcomes existing barriers to deployment so that our ocean and tidal currents can deliver power to homes and businesses in American communities. Improved federal research programs are key to meeting our long-term energy security and climate mitigation goals, and creating American jobs in the marine hydrokinetic industry.

A study by University of Washington, Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute, and Electric Power Research Institute that was published in HydroReview stated that marine renewable resources could yield 51,000 MW of power--equivalent to 34 conventional coal-fired power plants. Yet at this time, our nation's commitment to this technology lags behind countries in Europe and Asia.

In Washington state, the private sector, universities, research institutions and public utilities are already working to bring affordable, reliable and abundant electricity to major urban load centers located near Puget Sound. But these, and similar efforts across the country, need national support in order to truly realize the benefits of commercial-scale marine hydrokinetic projects in the United States.

This bill will expand the renewable energy research and development program at the U.S. Department of Energy, so that Americans do not lose out on the global race to create and manufacture marine renewable energy technologies. To do so, the bill creates a competitive demonstration grant program to test technologies, devices and systems at a variety of scales to facilitate commercial application. The environmental research program established in this bill will also help us best monitor the environmental impacts of these projects, to help disseminate information on ways to identify and avoid any negative environmental impacts to protect our marine environment. Additionally, the bill will expand a Department of Energy research program to set up MHK test facilities in the United States, which are critical in our efforts to demonstrate a wide range of technologies, and evaluate the technical viability of each new and emerging type of technology at different scales.

In closing, I also want to thank the expert staff on the Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment for their extensive knowledge of this issue and hard work. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and hope that we can work together to move it towards passage as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, today is Taste Washington Day, when more than sixty local schools and fifty local farms in my home state team up to celebrate Washington-grown produce and teach kids about healthy eating habits by featuring locally-sourced meals in the school cafeterias.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) Farm-to-School Program and the Washington School Nutrition Association (WSNA) have partnered with local schools to feature Washington-grown foods in their school meals. From fresh-dug potatoes in potato salad to just-picked lettuces in fresh salads, this state-wide event is a great opportunity for students, teachers, and parents to consider where their food comes from, how it is produced and the benefits of a healthy diet.

Washington state is one of the most productive growing regions in the world. Our $38 billion agricultural industry is one of the cornerstones of our state's economy and supports over 160,000 jobs. If the Midwest is our nation's breadbasket and California our salad bowl, then I submit that Washington is our nation's fruit stand. We may be famous for our apples, which constitute 59 percent of U.S. production, but we also rank first in our nation's production of sweet cherries, red raspberries, hops, and pears. Our rich soils, unique climate and hard- working growers produce a wide array of agricultural products like wheat, potatoes and wine grapes for local, regional, national and global markets. Our geographic location and deep-water ports make us well positioned for global trade. Nearly $14.8 billion in food and agricultural products were exported through Washington ports in 2008, the third largest total in the U.S.

Our agricultural bounty supports a $13 billion food processing industry that employs thousands of Washingtonians. Washington is the leading U.S. producer of apple juice and a leading producer of grape and berry juices. It also has a vibrant and growing wine industry and is the second largest wine producer in the nation with over 600 wineries. We have a strong and productive food and agriculture industry that feeds and employs people in every single county in Washington. Agriculture has been and will continue to be a strong part of our state's economic and cultural identity.

Taste Washington Day offers our kids a chance to establish a deeper connection and develop a better understanding of our state's food system, from farm to fork and each step in between. The more opportunities our children have to learn about the people, time, effort and resources necessary to turn a seed into a crop, the more they will appreciate the food on their plates. As the next generation, it will be up to them to continue our state's agricultural heritage and history.

The valuable and delicious lessons learned through events such as Taste Washington Day will help them carry on our state's proud traditions.

Nutrition is another key element of Taste Washington Day. Right now, Americans are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. For the sake of our nation's health, we need to find ways to instill healthy eating habits in our children, including eating more fruits and vegetables. The more exposure kids get to fresh, healthy foods, the more they will choose them. Pilot programs in Washington state schools that promote salad bars and healthy choices have shown us that given options, kids will choose fruits and vegetables over prepackaged, processed items. The Washington School Nutrition Association helped school districts put together the menus for today's event, showcasing local produce in healthy menu items, a win for local farms and local kids. Taste Washington Day shows kids that the healthy choice can also be a tasty choice.

I encourage my colleagues to take a look at the relationships Washington schools and farms are building and lessons they are teaching on Taste Washington Day and explore ways they can support such efforts in their own districts.

Madam Speaker, currently, the aviation industry does not have a commercially available low-carbon fuel option nor is there a statutory requirement (like the Renewable Fuel Standard for transportation fuels or tax incentives to help bring one to market. However, low-carbon, renewable aviation biofuels have been successfully tested in flights of both military as well as civilian aircraft.

Unfortunately, the volatility of jet fuel prices makes it difficult for renewable jet fuel to compete with lower-cost petroleum-based fuel and attract the investment necessary to build commercial-scale refineries.

I rise today to introduce the Clean, Renewable Jet Fuel Act of 2010. This bill will establish a responsible loan program that will allow biofuel producers to climb over the economic hurdles associated with commercializing their product. The commercialization of these products will not only create jobs at these facilities it will also create jobs throughout the aviation and agriculture industry. Additionally, the fuels that will be produced will also enhance our Nation's energy security as all of the feedstocks used to make these biofuels can be grown on U.S. soil. Recently, the Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, made the research development, and increased use of alternative fuels a priority for the Department of the Navy.

These biofuels also offer a range of attractive technological and environmental aspects that will introduce efficiencies into our aviation sector that cannot be realized with current petroleum-based fuel sources.

In the great state of Washington, interests from the private sector, universities, and major airports are already working to bring the first generation of aviation biofuels to the market, and their efforts can be greatly enhanced by this legislation. These fuels are based on plants such as camelina, jatropha, and even algae; plants that can be grown right in the Pacific Northwest. In addition to being able to grow these feedstocks in our own backyard, research on the next generation of biofuels is also creating jobs at our highly regarded research institutions. These efforts will make sure that the U.S. secures its competitive edge in this field.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and hope that we can work together to move it towards passage as soon as possible.