Bob Beauprez

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for raising this question. This is technology, Mr. Speaker, that I am very familiar with, have been for many, many years, and similar to the gentleman from New York, this technology holds great potential for economic development, job and career development within my own district back in Colorado. I similarly hope that the House can favorably entertain inclusion of this provision when we go to conference.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for America's senior citizens, as the Medicare-approved prescription drug discount cards hit the streets across the country. From this day forward, seniors will no longer have to pay full retail price for their life-saving drugs. Unfortunately, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle have mounted a misinformation campaign to scare and confuse America's seniors for their own political agenda. They say that prescription drug cards are too confusing and that they will not work. Well, seniors have already decided that discount cards will work. The verdict is in, and these new discount cards will save seniors hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. For example, at current discount drug prices, my mother in Louisville, Colorado, will save just under $400 on her prescription drugs and my father over $900. That is about $1,300 a year for my own parents. Those are real savings, money they can take to the bank, give to the grandkids or pay their own rent. I encourage seniors to take advantage of this program to begin realizing these savings. Call 1-800-MEDICARE or visit www.medicare.gov.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, it has been 6 months since President Bush signed the historic Medicare prescription drug bill into law, and although the ink is hardly dry, there has been a steady campaign of misinformation by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They say that these cards will not work, that they are too confusing, that they will not actually save seniors money. Mr. Speaker, the verdict is in. Medicare's new drug discount cards will save seniors money. In many instances, seniors will save hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. For example, a senior living in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, my district, who takes three commonly prescribed drugs for seniors, Zocor, Nexium, and Fosamax, can save $1,365 per year on their prescription drugs. I have done the math. That is money you can take to the bank, pay the rent or give to the grandkids. The false accusations and scare tactics used by the political opponents of the prescription drug cards reminds me of something my mother used to say, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, these seniors do not deserve to be lied to. They deserve the truth and they deserve a prescription drug card that will save them money.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Fremont Elementary, a school located back home in my Colorado district, for displaying the kind of academic excellence that is to be recognized at a national level. Fremont recently received word that they are one of the top three finalists for the 21st Century School of Distinction Award. Over 1,200 schools nationwide applied for this distinction. To be a finalist is an amazing honor for them. The award is open to all public, private, charter and parochial schools. There are ten different categories of merit. Fremont is in the ``Technology Implementation'' category. Schools in this category have shown sensible improvement in the implementation of technology in at least one school program or the curriculum itself. The review board will soon be making a visit to the remaining three schools and will make their final decision pending that visit. The awards program will conclude with a national awards ceremony in June. Also, the winner will be highlighted in a future issue of ``Scholastic Administrator''. Recently, I had the honor of being able to read to the students at Fremont during their Celebrity Read Week. It was a pleasure to be in the presence of such great and enthusiastic young minds. I am continually impressed with this school's administration and their dedication to educating these young leaders of tomorrow. The school and its staff raise the bar of academic expectations and set an example for all elementary schools, in and out of my district, to follow. I am proud to live in the same district as a school that exemplifies such superior academic programs. I would like to wish the best of luck to Fremont Elementary with this award and with all future endeavors. This educational institution has shown amazing academic excellence and I would like to congratulate them for the distinction this has earned them.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his efforts to bring this to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) as well for being a cosponsor of this legislation. There is certainly much to do. I recognize and respect that. It crossed my mind, though, that this is perhaps one step in the direction of the great bit that we have to do, and it is something we can do and do quickly to provide some relief to the many families that have been going through sacrifice, financial and certainly otherwise, at this difficult time. The Guard and Reserve have a noble tradition. Some of our greatest American heroes have served in the Guard. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Paul Revere, and certainly Teddy Roosevelt were all members of the National Guard. In fact, Roosevelt's Rough Riders were a Guard unit. Since September 11 alone, some 366,000 plus Guard and reservists have been mobilized, just since September 11, 2001. Currently on Active Duty there are about 167,000 Guard and reservists on Active Duty. I believe it was the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), perhaps it was the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), who cited an estimated one-third that took a pay cut, and it may be more than that, to make this huge sacrifice and, of course, put themselves in harm's way. It would seem one of the most disingenuous, ungrateful things that this Nation could do, and in order to maintain their life-style back home, their obligations back home, that their families then be penalized for tapping into a retirement account. Recognizing again that there is much that could and, in fact, probably should be done relative to the expanded mission that we have now found ourselves in for our Guard and Reserves since September 11, 2001, this being but one step and the step that I hope this House and this body takes today in trying to provide some financial relief to those families. This legislation is retroactive to any Guard or reservist that has been called up since September 11, 2001. It does sunset in 2005, but certainly is action that I hope, once we see the wisdom of, perhaps we can extend that into the future. Again, a step to take, not the final step, not the only step, but a logical step in providing some financial relief to those who have taken on such a heavy burden in serving this country in a time of need.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I especially thank him for acknowledging the quality of our wives. We are blessed indeed, are we not? And I thank the gentleman for bringing this Special Order to the floor tonight. It strikes me that there are a lot of people out there that are trying to convince people that maybe conditions are different than they really exist. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) just acknowledged that I have been a businessman before myself. I have met payroll. I have created jobs. Most recently I was CEO and president and chairman of a bank. I am kind of prone to analyzing things and getting a basis of comparison, the ``compare to test'' I call it. Compared to what? Folks are talking about how bad things are. Well, I have done a little reading. I think my colleagues in this Chamber, all of us, do quite a lot of reading, and I have found a few things that I think are fairly interesting. Specifically, there has been a lot of talk lately about how great everybody else is, and especially our friends over in Europe, how good they are doing. Well, I was in Europe. In fact, I was in France last May, not quite a year ago, representing this great body as a representative of the United States Congress at a conference on terrorism and the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe. And I witnessed for myself how ``good'' they are doing. They were not doing all that great, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker. In fact, according to an article in the National Review just this very month, our economy has grown about one-third faster than Europe's or Japan's, Mr. Speaker, even though, of course, as my colleague from New Mexico just cited, it was us that experienced the ravages of 9/11, an event, Mr. Speaker, that I submit to you, I submit to this body, would have crippled, perhaps destroyed, the economies and the governments of nearly every other nation on this Earth. But yet we are growing faster. Now, some of us, myself included, are certainly old enough to remember an index that was created some time ago called the misery index. It was not created by me. It was not created by you, Mr. Speaker. I think we remember where it came from. It was invented by our friends in the other party in an attempt to bludgeon a former President, Gerald Ford, for the condition of the economy. Let us go back and look. Let us use that as a comparison. When Gerald Ford was running for reelection in 1976, this misery index, which was a simple combination of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate, add the two together as an indicator of the pulse, if you will, of the economy. Well, that misery index in 1976 when President Ford ran for reelection and was unsuccessful was 11 percent. In 1980, that misery index rose to 17 percent under then President Carter, and the country decided to make a change. When President Clinton ran for his reelection in 1996, which our colleagues on the other side continually cite as the best of times, the misery index, again, inflation plus unemployment, stood at 8 percent. Now, Mr. Speaker, that same index today stands at 7.8 percent, the lowest, obviously, of that entire period. And yet our colleagues on the other side of the aisle night after night, day after day are trying to convince the American people that they administration under this party's leadership is experiencing ``the worst economic performance since Herbert Hoover.'' Mr. Speaker, I cannot find evidence to support that claim. And just because you say it is so does not make it so. The facts do not bear it out. A few other facts, Mr. Speaker, if I might. Again, I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, I have created jobs. I have met payroll, and I am proud of that. So I am concerned like many about those seeking employment in this country but not able to find it. We are addressing that situation. Jobs are coming back. We all know that they are the lagging indicator. That does not make us feel any better, but it is one of those economic realities. Now, if we go back to 1979, 1980, that recession, unemployment hit 7.9 percent. The mini-recession in 1982, it peaked at 10.8 percent. Then in 1990, one I remember very well, it hit 7.8 percent before beginning to fall. Now, all of this seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to pale by comparison to the 6.3 percent that we hit even following 9/11, even with the effects of a recession and then the tremendous impact of a 9/11. Why? Because with this President's leadership, the 107th Congress enacted tax cuts in 2001, and we have followed now with tax cuts again in 2003. Now, to reference again what is going on in the European Continent, which many seem to want to cite as some sort of utopia, some sort of model, well, over in Europe right now the European Union is averaging unemployment of about 8 percent, Mr. Speaker, about 8 percent. We are at 5.7 today and falling, and we are the ones, again, who experienced the ravages of 9/11. If we were doing as well, and I use that in quotes, as our friends in the European continent, we would have 3 million more jobless Americans, Mr. Speaker. That is my comparison. That is one of my comparisons. Additionally, let us look at just some statistics. We are under assault nightly for the terrible, again, I use that in quotes, tax cuts that we imposed last year and the conditions that it has created, and there is at least one person running around this country campaigning to be our next President to change the course, that wants to rescind those tax cuts. Well, let us make a little comparison. Beginning in May of 2003, which is shortly before this body approved those tax cuts and before the President even had the pleasure of signing those tax cuts, until February of this year, to give a baseline of when we got current numbers, the Dow has increased almost 20 percent, the NASDAQ almost 30 percent. Not everybody has stocks, but it is a pretty good bellwether of what is going on economically in this country and where we are headed, the faith and confidence in the market; and I know full well and I would guess my colleagues, too, Mr. Speaker, have had any number of constituents come up to them and talk about that 401(k) that is now a 1(k). Remember that joke, Mr. Speaker? Well, the markets have come back, and that is real value in the pockets and the wallets and in the bank for the people all over the country that have got an IRA, 401(k), any kind of pension plan, a little investment in a mutual fund. It is estimated that some 3 trillion, with a T, Mr. Speaker, $3 trillion have returned to the market, returned to people's net asset value. That is a good thing. Real gross domestic product, same period of time, just inside of 9 months, increased 6.1 percent. Productivity, 6.4 percent while we are increasing job growth, albeit a little bit slow, but increasing job growth, adding employment figures, productivity up 6.4 percent, just inside of 9 months. Housing starts, strongest in 20 years, Mr. Speaker, increase of 9 percent just inside that 9-month period of time, all while unemployment on a percentage basis fell 8.2 percent. Mortgage rates lowest in 20 years, prime interest rates lowest in 45 years, and inflation the lowest in 4 decades. Mr. Speaker, the numbers do not bear out their claim that this is the worst economic performance since Herbert Hoover. We should be celebrating, Mr. Speaker, not only the actions of this body, the other body in Congress and the White House, but especially celebrating the will, the fortitude, the entrepreneurship of the American worker and the American businessman. That is who we ought to be celebrating. They are doing the heavy lifting, and they are performing. The system is working. It is not time, Mr. Speaker, to change course nor captains of the ship. It has been cited that manufacturing has taken a tough hit. Indeed they have, indeed they have; and no one, no one should know better what the true nature of the reason for the difficulties, the struggles that manufacturing has gone through, nobody should know better than manufacturing. I happened to come across a little communication from the National Association of Manufacturers, an organization that represents, Mr. Speaker, manufacturers all over this land, largest organization of its kind, so far as I know. I would assume that they are a legitimate mouthpiece for their members. I do not like to read at this hour or during these Special Orders very often, but I do not want to misstate anything either, Mr. Speaker. So I am just going to quote what the National Association of Manufacturers tells us. Let us look at the real sources of manufacturing job loss. While many were lost to productivity gains in technology, there were many other major factors as well, such as 900,000 jobs lost when U.S. exports tanked owing to the overvalued dollar and slow growth abroad. That is the problem in other countries. Their economies were in the tank, the value of our dollar went up, 900,000 jobs because of foreign problems. 75,000 jobs lost in the chemical sector alone, due largely to skyrocketing natural gas prices. Mr. Speaker, maybe we can talk about that at another point in time, too. 60,000 jobs lost due to asbestos litigation that drove companies right into bankruptcy. We have a solution to that. We have a solution that will save companies, save jobs. Members on the other side of the aisle say no, no, no, let us give it to the trial lawyers and bankrupt companies. I do not know how you can have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, create jobs and put companies out of business at the same time and thousands more jobs lost because of the high cost of doing business in America. Here is what they say: nonproduction costs, nonproduction costs such as taxes, excessive legal and regulatory burdens, and the rising cost of natural gas and health care add 22 percent to the cost of making a product in America relative to our major trading partners. Mr. Speaker, I am not making that up. This is from the National Association of Manufacturers. That is why we struggle in this country to be competitive in a global market, even a domestic market, because taxes, excessive legal and regulatory burdens, and the rising costs of energy and health care are stifling American business, thus, American workers. Mr. Speaker, this is a critical subject. I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the attention of this body and I see he has something on his mind that he would like to say. I thank him for the time.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for his timely comments as well. We talk about large numbers in this body. We are dealing with a $2.4 trillion budget this year. And running the United States of America's business is certainly an expensive business. But while I was home over the last couple of weeks, I talked to a whole lot of constituents. I know the gentleman has a great deal of familiarity with the energy business, and, not surprisingly, energy came up over and over again. I think in the context that we have been discussing these last about 45 minutes now of embedded costs, costs that stifle competitiveness, job creation, economic growth, and all the things we are all talking about, now we have this rapidly escalating cost of energy. A friend of mine, a young mother, she has three children. I think the oldest is about eight. So this mother of these three little children, she is absolutely beside herself. She does not work outside the home. She is home doing what moms ought to do, taking care of her three little kids and doing a good job of it. Her husband works and is bringing home a decent income, but one can imagine that things are pretty tight around her house. She is now faced with rapidly escalating costs of gasoline and in their utility bill at home. So I went looking for numbers. She pulled up to the pump just behind me and she said, oops. Regular unleaded that day was about $1.85, and the next two grades were over $2. I think it was $2.05 and $2.13, if I remember correctly. The AAA estimates that in the average two-car household, they use about 1,200 gallons of gasoline a year. I know the gentleman is from New Mexico. I am from Colorado. Out our way we drive even more miles, I think, than the average, so that 1,200 gallons is probably a conservative number for the average household. Now, imagine just a 50-cent-per-gallon increase. And we have had all of that. Maybe it is closer to 60 or 70 cents now in just recent months. But at 50 cents, 1,200 gallons a year, that is obviously a $600-a-year additional burden on that family. That $600 has to come from somewhere, so I asked her, where does it come from, Teresa? Teresa says, I just have to do without something. We do not take the kids to the zoo, or we do not take the kids to McDonald's for a Happy Meal. We are starting to make those tough choices. We have to stop and ask ourselves, I think, what are we doing to American people? In addition to that extra $50 a month to pay her fuel bill, Teresa tells me that her energy prices, the utility bill at home, has gone up about $30 a month, too. Now, sooner or later it gets to be real money. That evening I spoke to a group of realtors. They have been enjoying pretty good times, because, thankfully, interest rates have been very low, and, to a very real degree, the housing market has kind of kept us going as we get jobs coming back on the market. But they are concerned, and they are concerned for exactly this reason: I asked them, I said, how many of your clients have wanted to put a contract on a house, and they pushed the numbers, and, having been a banker before, I understand how this works, and they find out they just barely or maybe not quite qualify for that new home they would like to buy? It is often $50 or $100 a month one way or the other. When energy costs alone go up that much, you just have a whole pile more folks who cannot afford going that next step up the ladder. That does not make sense. We have passed an energy bill out of this body three times since 2001. It is time that the entire Congress, with the cooperation of the other body, do what America desperately needs and pass an energy bill, send it down Pennsylvania Avenue and let the President sign it. There is no silver bullet solution. But as the gentleman knows, we need to address some common-sense regulation relief, common-sense permitting, and create some jobs at home. And that is the other thing that is so maddening, as we talk day after day after day, and we hear rhetoric in the media and from candidates running for all kinds of offices about jobs. Pass an energy bill. The Department of Commerce estimates that for every $1 billion we send offshore, those foreign sources which we are now two-thirds dependent on for our total energy supply, for every $1 billion we send them, we are sending them 12,389 jobs. With what we are sending in total today, the billions and billions, that is 1.7 million American jobs that are somewhere else on this planet, and in the meantime we are paying more. Less jobs; more for our energy. Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be the proverbial rocket scientist to figure out that that will not work forever and ever and ever. So rhetoric is not going to get it done. Sooner or later we have to have some decent policy. The American people are feeling the pinch right now, and they need to hear the truth. My colleague talked about litigation reform. We talked about how we have to have some regulation relief in this country. We talked about the effects of the tax cuts. We need a good energy policy to go with it. Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman has that look in his eye that says he has something to close with, so I yield back to him and thank him for his kindness this evening in letting me participate.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is good to join my colleagues, and I thank the gentleman from Iowa for taking this special order on a very timely topic. My colleagues, today in this city, in this Chamber, there are a whole lot of people saying hallelujah and holy cow, because we have created some jobs, and there is news out saying just exactly that. Just a short while ago in this Chamber, we passed a transportation bill, and that transportation bill is going to put Americans to work, and it is going to put Americans to work building infrastructure that is critical to this Nation. Transportation is a jobs bill. But there are also numbers out from the Department of Labor that are really encouraging. We have heard that 308,000 jobs were added in the United States in the month of March. That is 308,000 new payroll jobs. Now, everybody has a right to say, well, what does that mean? Compared to what? That is the strongest number in 4 years, the strongest in 4 years. We have been through a bit of a tough cycle. Four years ago right now, we were in a recession. So 308,000 new jobs in the month of March and, in addition to that, numbers that we thought were a little softer than we expected in January and February have now been revised upward. So we are increasingly in better and better shape. Now, that is good news. That is good news. And here is how I characterize it. Almost anybody can hang onto the wheel of a ship going through calm waters. But it takes a pretty good captain to guide a ship through a stormy sea. If we go back to late 2000, we were slipping into some rough waters. We now know that the recession was upon us in late 2000 when this President was sworn in. He grabbed ahold of a ship that was going into troubled waters. Then it really got rough, with 9/11 happening and SARS happening and on and on and on. We all know the litany. Where are we today? We are in an expanding economy, with job creation now under way, which, as everybody knows, every economist will tell you, that is the lagging economic indicator. So I will say it again, because it is happy news. We have 308,000 new jobs in the month of March alone. It is astounding. The policies of the captain of the ship, the Republican leadership in this House, the Republicans in this Congress, have set us on the right path and are calming the waters. It is not the time to change captains nor change course. I was listening a moment ago to my colleague from New Mexico as he was talking about energy policy, and I could not agree more. Everybody is saying jobs, jobs, jobs; and that is why I am so happy right now, is because we have evidence we have jobs coming back. That is really good news. But if you want to know where the jobs went, ask the people who have got a different policy. Ask the people who have got a different policy than the one that righted the ship, calmed the waters and set us on this course, the people that have been talking about raising taxes. What did this House and this President do to set us on this course? We provided some tax cuts. We invested right back in the people in the United States of America who create jobs and who increase consumer demand. That is how an economy works. We understand that on our side of the aisle, and the President certainly understands that. So he set us on the right course. We passed the jobs and growth bill, and here we are, and it is good news. Now there are some out there saying, no, we need to rescind those tax cuts, we need to increase the strong hand of regulation, and, worse yet, they have fought us on an energy bill, and they are still fighting us on an energy bill. Now what have we got? Our own Department of Commerce tells us that for every $1 billion spent on imported oil that means 12,389 jobs. Maybe somebody does not think 12,389 jobs is all that much, but I submit, Mr. Speaker, when taken in the context of the billions that we are spending on imported oil, it adds up in a big hurry. How big a hurry? Well, by today's dollars, the amounts we are spending on imported oil equates to 1.7 million jobs, American jobs that are now somewhere else. The very people who fought us on that energy bill are the ones screaming about outsourcing of jobs. They not only got outsourced, they got outforced, and they were forced out by the very people who fought us on the energy bill and now are raising their hands in wonder saying, where did our jobs go? Where did our jobs go? What has happened since we have not had an energy bill? Gasoline prices have increased 30 percent; U.S. imports of oil increased another 10 percent. We are about two-thirds import, one-third domestic production. The price of crude oil has increased 65 percent. Natural gas has increased 92 percent. That is especially sensitive for people like my colleague from New Mexico and me, from Colorado, from the Rocky Mountain States, and my friend from Iowa. You bet. Because we know where it is. It is right there underneath our ground, a lot of it Federal ground. And in places like Iowa, being an old farmer myself, I know how important energy is. It is not just gas and diesel, it is our commercial fertilizer that is produced from those same petroleum products. Mr. Speaker, I have a potato farmer back home who told me that 35 percent of his operating overhead, 35 percent of his entire cost of production, is energy related, 35 percent. Fire up the electric motors to run his sprinklers to irrigate the potatoes; the commercial fertilizers, the diesel and the gasoline he puts in his vehicles, 35 percent. Now when you have inflation of energy costs like I just cited, you know what that does to that potato farmer who is operating on a margin that thin already? Where did the jobs go? They were outforced. That is where they go when we have wrong-headed Federal policy like we have right now. It is not a case of us needing to improve an energy policy that is already out there. We have none. We are just trying to establish one that is so woefully needed. Well, it is time. It is time we act. We need to pass not only an energy bill but continue on this course that has been charted that has got us finally into some calmer waters and headed on the right path. We need to continue that course, not alter that course. We need to stay the course on tax cuts, on deregulation, on sound policy, and bring American jobs home to Americans.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for just a moment.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. It is estimated that if we could construct that gas pipeline that my colleague referred to from ANWR, 400,000 new jobs, direct and indirect jobs, would be created from that one action alone, including increasing dramatically the supply of natural gas to the lower 48. I repeat, 400,000 new jobs and lower gas prices. Now, the gas my colleague referred to, and I referred to as well under the Rocky Mountain States, I held a hearing in my district recently on this subject, and I learned a lot. I learned, for example, that under nonpark, nonwilderness Federal land, I repeat, nonpark, nonwilderness Federal lands, we have enough natural gas to take care of the demands of 100 million homes for 157 years. Now what I cited earlier here, natural gas prices up 92 percent, this is akin to the old biblical tale of the people going through a famine, the granaries being full and the pharaoh being unwilling to unlock the doors. We have natural gas. It is those crazy, environmentally overly- sensitive policies that have restricted us from going to get it; and the same people who now restrict us from going to get it were the very people who told us a few years ago that we need to convert to natural gas. Why? Because it is affordable, it is clean, and it is abundantly available. Well, now they are telling us we ought to go get it somewhere else, from abroad, and ship it here in tankers as liquified natural gas. We do not have the storage for it. Somebody says we have a storage problem. Well, we have a storage problem: The natural gas is stored under Federal land. That is the storage problem. The people that are in the way are us, the Federal Government. We need to change that with an energy policy. I yield back to the gentleman and thank him.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend. He brings up a number of very clear points. I think the gentleman from Illinois mentioned 1.7 million, the estimated number of jobs we have lost because of our dependence on foreign energy sources, primarily oil. It is absolutely tragic. And the gentleman from New Mexico highlighted some of the extreme, radical environmental concerns and efforts that have restricted our energy development and energy production in this country. One would think, Mr. Speaker, that a few wake-up calls would be enough to get Congress' attention. Electricity blackouts. The big blackout in the Northeast. We had rolling blackouts even out in my neighborhood. The skyrocketing prices we are going through right now. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that just as we are concerned about taxes in this Chamber, the information that my colleague from New Mexico just pointed out, those are taxes, too, the most painful kind of taxes. When your job goes away, that is 100 percent tax. When the cost of production goes up, that is a tax as well; and it eliminates jobs. When businesses become less and less and less competitive and finally close their doors, that is a very real tax on the business, on the employees that work there and on the community that depended on it. How many wake-up calls do we need? Well, our environmentalist friends apparently believe many more, because they still cause us to not have an energy policy in this country. They seem, in fact, to oppose all forms of energy. A few years ago, they were the ones telling us to use more natural gas. Why? Because it is more affordable, and it is abundantly available. But it is those same people who are now telling us no to natural gas. They have caused us to limit production right here in this very country where we have enormous resources. So it is no to clean-burning natural gas; no to hydroelectric energy; no to clean coal energy; no to new outer continental shelf gas and oil exploration; no to more energy exploration in Alaska; no to more energy exploration in the inner mountain west, my home; no to more electricity transmission lines; no to more power plants; no to more energy pipelines; no to ANWR, and I would like to return to that; no to liquified natural gas ports; no to offshore wind energy farms, even renewables; and no to onshore wind energy farms. The environmentalists seem to have two policies: one, BANANA, build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything; or NOPE, not on planet Earth. Now that is some energy policy for a Nation, again, Mr. Speaker, that produces 33 percent of the world's economic output. And, yes, we consume 25 percent of the world's energy. That is how we produce that economic output. I would like to yield some of the remaining time that we have to the gentleman from Illinois once again. Again, he serves on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and should have quite a little bit of insight on this issue.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments; and a couple of things that he said sparked a little bit of my memory, if I might. I know that in Illinois, of course, there is a tremendous amount of agriculture, a lot of farmers. That is what I spent most of my life in is a farm family; and a few months back, as you were preparing to take up this energy bill, I held a hearing in my district back in Colorado in Golden, and we had a gentleman at that hearing who is a potato farmer from an area of Colorado, southern Colorado, high mountain plateau, called the San Luis Valley; and he grows some pretty high- quality potatoes down there. Like a lot of farmers, though, he struggles with ever-shrinking margins, and every year they try to get a little more efficient and try to squeeze just a little bit more out of the land and their operation and still make a living. He told me something that I thought was profound and probably a fact that goes unnoticed by most everyone. He went through his operating overhead, all of the costs on an annual basis it takes for him to operate his potato farm. Thirty-five percent of his operating overhead is energy-related, not just the fuel that he puts in his equipment, gasoline, diesel, but the energy to run. We are a pretty arid State. So you have got to irrigate, to run the electric motors to pump the water for the sprinklers to irrigate with. Obviously, the chemicals he fertilizes with are produced from natural gas primarily, 35 percent of his overhead. Now go to that gentleman and tell him that gas prices are going to go up 30 percent or more, natural gas is going to go up 92 percent, so his electric bill is going up dramatically and see what he has to say. When we talk about these rising energy prices affecting jobs, it is real. It is as real as it gets, and having been in business most all of my life until I came to Congress this past year, and being a community banker, I came in contact with businessperson after businessperson, and there is only so much they can do, so much more efficient you can get. At some point, you throw up your hands and say I am done. So when we are saying tonight that the lack of an energy policy, as I stated earlier, it is not a weak one, it is not a short-term one. It is no energy policy this Congress has failed to pass. It is extremely real, and blaming the President, as the other side of the aisle likes to do night after night, day after day for this outsourcing of jobs situation, we need to look inward. I will say again, the reason that we are losing jobs in America, we need to look at the people that are promoting higher taxes and higher regulation that render us less competitive and the people that have refused to give this country a commonsense, sane, straightforward energy policy that would allow us to have affordable, predictable, sustainable supplies of energy, domestically produced energy. That is where we need to look. That is the problem. I thank the gentleman. I was thinking of back to that hearing that I had in Colorado on natural gas, and there are statistics and numbers out there to boggle the mind, but one that stuck with me from that hearing was relative to natural gas, which I know the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is close to, is that we have enough natural gas in this country just under Federal land, nonpark, nonwilderness Federal land for 100 million homes for 157 years. That is a staggering amount. Natural gas prices, at least back in my hometown, are nearly double right now. Somebody said, well, we have a storage problem. Somebody else responded, yeah, we have got a storage problem. It is all stored under Federal land, that is our problem. As my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), just pointed out, we get in the way. So I would be pleased to, once again, yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) on this critical subject.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a portion of my time talking about the situation that has been rapidly developing of late, a situation that sometimes is called outsourcing or offshoring, whatever one's term might happen to be. The definition seems to be very much the same, though: sending American jobs to foreign countries. Now, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle seem particularly eager to make this subject a central one for the next, oh, about 7 months. I relish that opportunity. I relish the opportunity to also have that debate. To quote their presumptive Presidential nominee, I would say, ``bring it on.'' Our friends on the other side of the aisle are unwittingly the biggest proponents of this very problem that they highlight: outsourcing, offshoring. What I mean by that, Mr. Speaker, is that by their opposition to a comprehensive national energy policy, they create and nurture an environment that is, in fact, hostile to job creation. The very thing that they say they are critical of, they are fostering a hostile environment toward job creation. Corporate greed is not responsible for outsourcing; anti-energy, anti-job policies are responsible. Since 2001, Mr. Speaker, this House, this body has passed comprehensive energy legislation three times, led by Republicans. The other body has repeatedly failed to follow suit and, as a result, our Nation has no energy policy today. The ramifications of this lack of national energy policy are absolutely staggering. Mr. Speaker, let me itemize. Gasoline prices have increased 30 percent. U.S. imports of oil have increased 10 percent. The price of crude oil has increased 65 percent. The cost of natural gas has increased 92 percent. And according to the United States Department of Commerce, America loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. Let me repeat. These are not my numbers; this is from the United States Department of Commerce. America loses 12,389 jobs for every $1 billion spent on imported oil. That means, based on today's current prices, that we are offshoring, outsourcing 1.7 million jobs every year. Mr. Speaker, the House passed an energy bill in this 108th Congress. It is estimated that that energy bill would produce 838,500 new good- paying American jobs. It has a great deal of incentives for cleaner fuels, renewable energy, and tough environmental standards. That bill would lessen our dependence on foreign sources of energy and strengthen our economic and national security and independence. The U.S. has always been a leader when it comes to the steady increase of better- paying jobs and improved standards of living. That is why we consume, yes, we consume 25 percent of the world's energy; but we create 33 percent of the world's economic output. Mr. Speaker, it is developing countries around the entire planet that covet our economic system and our economic output, our ability to produce not only goods and services, but the jobs that produce the goods and services. That is why people look to the United States of America as that shining city on a hill, that vision of something better. And in order to achieve that, developing nations worldwide struggle to develop an energy system that is the very foundation of these United States of America, the jobs we create, and the economic output that we enjoy. Mr. Speaker, one-third of the total economic output of the world is produced by the United States of America, but we are at risk today. We are at risk because of not a faulty, not a weak, but a nonexistent national energy policy. What America needs right now is an affordable, reliable, and safe supply of energy to strengthen our economic and national security and to help create good-paying jobs. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the entire Congress to do their job and get a national energy bill passed. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by one of my colleagues, a classmate of mine, the distinguished gentleman from the State of New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). The gentleman from New Mexico has spent most of his life before he came to Congress very, very close to this issue of energy. Coming from New Mexico and the West, he is intimately familiar with the issues of energy resources, energy production, energy utilization. It is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) for a very intelligent and concise presentation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). The Congressman serves on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, quite appropriate for our subject matter tonight.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like, Mr. Speaker, in the time that is remaining, to return to the issue of ANWR. Now it is estimated that, if we were able to construct the natural gas pipeline that has been proposed from ANWR down to the lower 48 States, not only would we dramatically increase our availability of natural gas to the lower 48 but we would create more than 400,000, 400,000 direct and indirect jobs from that one pipeline alone. Now let us talk about ANWR just briefly. This is a map that points out the entire State of Alaska on the far side of the chart. For scale, you see in gold the area known as ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve; and you see that it is roughly the size of the State of South Carolina. The area we are talking about, and this is the entire Arctic Natural Wildlife Reserve, ANWR, the area we are talking about is not the entire reserve but just the coastal plane. In fact, in the coastal plane, only the little area in red. It may or may not be that location, but that is the 2,000 acres within the bill that is limited for production. Just that one spot. I am told that if you thought of it in terms of a very large room, it would be like a postage stamp in the corner. I visited this site last August. I wanted to see it for myself. I flew up. I flew to Prudhoe Bay here. I flew over to this village of Kaktovik right here. About 270 Eskimos live there. I visited with the president of this entire Eskimo corporation. Think of it as an Indian tribe, if you will, these few hundred that live in this region; and we talked about this. This is as flat as flat gets. It is as flat literally as a table top. We asked him, What about drilling? What about exploring and producing in ANWR? What should we do? He says, drill it. I said, Really? He said, Yeah, drill it. One of my colleagues that was there with me said, But what about the caribou? This gentleman had already mentioned that they still hunt the whales and they fish in the frozen sea. They hunt the animals, including the caribou, for survival. What about the caribou? He said, What do you mean? He said, Wouldn't we scare them off? He looked at him and he said, We hunt them and kill them and they come back every year. What part of this don't you get? It is pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the people that depend on this area, that have the most at stake, in fact, their very lives at stake, their survival, their way of life are saying, drill it. This is the kind of insane environmental policy, people that have nothing to do with this area, have never seen this area, are thousands and thousands of miles from this area, are prohibiting the people that do live there, that do have a vested interest, that care about it the most, from reaping the benefits of it. That is insane environmental and insane energy policy. Mr. Speaker, we could go on for hours on this subject. It has negatively impacted this Nation long enough, and it is time that it stop. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico for a closing minute or two. Unfortunately, we need to bring this hour to an end.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a woman of great spirit and integrity. Mrs. Nancy O'Connor has been a friend of mine for many years. She has utilized her passion for our democratic system to assist many Republicans like myself by serving on various campaigns. Nancy is one of the most sincere and generous individuals I have had the pleasure of knowing. In addition to her 20 years of hard work for the good of the Republican Party, Nancy is the wife of Mr. Richard O'Connor and a wonderful mother to Mrs. Roxanne Hansen and Ms. Amber O'Connor. Nancy and Richard moved to Chaffee County, Colorado in 1971 to establish Hummingbird Hill Ranch and have been active community members ever since. Nancy has also been a respected real estate broker for over 30 years. She has been the recipient of many awards for her dedication, including the recognition as fifth in the nation for sales under United County Real Estate in 2003 and fourth in the nation for 2002. She is also a respected Rotarian, member of the Chaffee County Republican Women and has been the Chairwoman of the Chaffee County Republican Party for 16 years. Nancy has been a leader for many community service efforts in her community. For 12 years she has given her time and her wonderful talents as a cook to raising money for the Buena Vista High School Presidential Classroom project. She has helped many young men and women in her community to participate in this extraordinary experience by sponsoring the annual lasagna dinner with the Chaffee County Republican Women, and making enough homemade lasagna every year to feed an average of 250 people. During her two-year term as President of the Buena Vista Rotary Club, in addition to winning the Humanitarian Service to Mankind Award, Nancy also led an effort to restructure the playground at Columbine Park for the kids of Buena Vista. Her efforts raised enough money to buy new equipment and not only add fun for local youth, but improved the community atmosphere as well. To say the least, Nancy is an extraordinary woman with a very kind heart. She brightens the day of anyone she encounters and is always willing to offer a helping hand to those in need. To this day, she continues to send homemade cookies to myself and the other Colorado Republican delegation to say thank you for what we do. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to say thank you to Nancy for all that she does.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the accomplishments of Colorado nonprofit organizations. This week is Colorado Nonprofit Week, an annual event organized by the Colorado Association of Nonprofit Organizations (CANPO) and volunteer committees around the state to recognize and celebrate the vital impact Colorado's nonprofits have on our economy and quality of life. The theme for this year's Colorado's Nonprofit Week is ``where hope resides.'' Nonprofit organizations do not only provide much needed benevolent services to the needy, but they also provide a sense of hope for those in the direst of circumstances. The three major goals of Colorado Nonprofit Week is to increase the visibility of these organizations, strengthen the relationship between nonprofit leaders and public officials, and to encourage individual nonprofit leaders to see themselves as part of the greater nonprofit private sector. Nonprofit organizations throughout Colorado serve as responsible stewards of charitable dollars. Over 16,000 charitable nonprofit organizations operate in Colorado. In 2001 nonprofit expenditures totaled more than $9 billion in Colorado for the 5,400 largest nonprofits and $822 billion in the U.S. for the nearly 267,000 largest nonprofits. These organizations subscribe to a number of missions and values. I strongly commend their efforts to invest in the potential of all citizens through education, employment, recreation, arts, and culture. The nonprofit sector throughout Colorado has a proud history of service, innovation, and the accomplishments of the sector deserve acknowledgement, affirmation, and celebration. Mr. Speaker, that is why I ask my colleagues to join me to commend the efforts of nonprofit organizations, not only throughout Colorado, but also the entire Nation.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay respect to a great American, a great Coloradoan and a great Republican. My good friend, Hal Shroyer of Adams County, Colorado, is without question a giant in Colorado politics. As one who has toiled through the political party leadership myself from precinct committeeman to State chairman, I can honestly say that my State, our country and our Republican Party have no greater patriot and warrior than Mr. Shroyer. For decades he has fought valiantly for the causes and ideals of the GOP. Having served at all levels of party leadership, including his chairmanship of the Adams County GOP, Hal Shroyer has represented the ideals and philosophy of the Republican Party with civility, grace and patriotism. A shrewd strategist, a motivating leader and an appropriate role model for all who relish the thrill of partisan battle yet respect the integrity of the local opposition, Hal Shroyer set the example in Colorado of what it means to be a party leader. Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately live in an age where honest differences about principles and policy too often give way to petty and personal attacks. Hal Shroyer may be among the last of a dying breed. He is a great man of integrity and principle, a man who loves America more than anything, a great husband to his late wife Maxine, a great friend to all who have the pleasure of making his acquaintance and, put simply, a decent and honorable American. Mr. Speaker, Hal Shroyer of Adams, County, Colorado, is a true American treasure; and it is my tremendous honor to pay my most heartfelt respects to him and his legacy of leadership and patriotism.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Woolsey amendment, and to recognize the critical importance that Congress must adopt a new attitude toward faith-based and community initiatives and not hinder their ability to effectively assist the needy. Uncertain times have left many people in search of assistance and in need of a helping hand to improve their lives. I believe is in the vital interest of the United States to care for all of our citizens. Inadequacies seen in many current programs have left millions searching for alternative sources of aid. I believe that the establishment of faith-based initiatives is one of many ways to provide a helping hand to our fellow Americans in need. Few people realize that faith-based organizations have been utilized for years by all levels of government. President Lyndon Johnson's ``Great Society'' initiatives expanded FBOs to include welfare and community service programs. Further evolution of FBOs showed that they are effective partners for delivering special services, including literacy programs, counseling, and healthcare services. These programs proved to be a more effective process to deliver vital programs to the needy. I have seen the positive results of faith-based initiatives first hand throughout the Denver metro area. Fine examples are childcare, senior services, and job placement training. Some of my colleagues believe that faith-based organizations discriminate against employees based on their faith. In 1972, a Democratic-controlled Congress expanded the already-existing 1964 Civil Rights Act Title VII exemptions for religious organizations, which allows religious organizations to consider potential employees' faith when making staffing decisions. The United States Supreme Court, without a single dissenting vote, upheld this law. The Court reasoned that a law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, it must be evident that the Government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence. I fully support our constitutional separation of church and state and remain convinced that adequate judicial protection exists to assure compliance. As a former member of a Christian school board, I know first hand that faith-based organizations cannot be expected to sustain their religious drive without the ability to employ individuals who share the tenets and practices of their faith. This is simply because it is that faith that motivates them to serve their neighbors in trouble. When the objective is helping some of the most distressed and needy in our communities, faith based groups have historically been the best providers. It would seem counterintuitive to limit opportunity for needed services because of an underlying religious affiliation. Vote to defeat the Woolsey amendment, and for passage of H.R. 3030.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, the occasion on which I rise today is to recognize the importance of one small business based in my home state of Colorado. This business has provided Colorado with an innovative private sector concept that demonstrates social-minded entrepreneurship by assisting in our nation's fight against drunk driving. Each year, seventeen thousand Americans die in alcohol-related traffic accidents and over six hundred thousand are injured. While Congress has made numerous efforts to reduce the number of these tragedies, private sector industries and community leaders perform a vital role to stop drinking and driving. One such company leading the fight against this tragic and avoidable threat is NightRiders, Inc. Located in Boulder, Colorado, NightRiders was created by three pioneering young men who wanted to reduce impaired driving and its tragic consequences. Founders Gary Calnan, Brad Dickerhofe, and Carl Grodnik implemented NightRiders to operate on a simple, but effective business plan that gives individuals peace of mind and the freedom to get home safely without risking lives. NightRiders provides such a valuable service that it enjoys the endorsements of local businesses and law enforcement officials. Let me take a moment to explain how they operate. A dispatched driver on a folding motorized scooter meets you at your automobile, places the scooter in the trunk, drives you home, and the driver gets back on the scooter to assist the next customer. Recently, NightRiders was recognized by the National Commission Against Drunk Driving (NCADD) and received the 2003 Corporate Leadership Award. Past recipients of the Corporate Leadership Award from the NCADD include Liberty Mutual Group (2002), The Century Council (2001), Kmart Corporation (2000) and Daimler Chrysler (1999). By presenting this award to NightRiders, the NCAAD is recognizing the potential for the NightRiders solution to affect real change in the problem of drinking and driving on a national scale. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me and the NCAAD in commending NightRiders for their efforts and vision to reduce the senseless tragedies associated with drunk driving.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, the political landscape of Colorado's third largest city changed considerably after the City of Aurora's November 4 municipal elections. Due largely to term limits, the largest turnover of elected officials in city history has occurred. The people who left public service were committed public servants who have left indelible marks on Aurora and positioned the City and its citizens for great success and achievement in the 21st century. Collectively, Mayor Paul Tauer and Council members Barbara Cleland, Bob LeGare, Edna Mosley, John Paroske and Dave Williams provided their constituents with 85 years of service as elected officials at the City. They have provided visionary leadership and both their knowledge of and commitment to issues of importance to the people of Aurora will be hard to replace. Paul Tauer was the Mayor of Aurora from 1987 until 2003. He was a City Councilman for eight years before that. He has been a visionary leader whose legacy will be felt for decades to come. He has been at the forefront of development in the City, including Original and Southeast Aurora, Buckley Air Force Base, Gateway, E-470 corridor, City Center, Aurora Municipal Center and the redevelopment of Fitzsimons. He was instrumental in establishing a growth management plan that sets goals for quality and smart growth and has been a leader in water issues including drought management, the enhancement of Aurora's water supply including acquisition of new water resources, treatment and use of recycled water and more than doubling storage and distribution systems. He has also overseen the enhancement of the City's transportation systems. He has been Aurora's greatest cheerleader and defender and under his leadership, Aurora has grown from a sleepy suburb to a vibrant city. Barb Cleland served as an Aurora City Councilwoman for 20 years. She distinguished herself as an expert on public safety issues and was instrumental in decisions to make Aurora a leader in ensuring its citizens had necessary protections with programs including the Victim Advocate program and service on the Officer Standard and Training Board, the Aurora Gang Task Force and the National League of Cities Public Safety and Crime Prevention Steering Committee. She was active in municipal organizations and has been a respected leader in the National League of Cities, the Denver Regional Council of Governments and the Colorado Municipal League, where she remains a member of the Board of Directors. Bob LeGare was an Aurora City Councilman for eight years. Devoted to the importance of small business, he worked to make Aurora a partner with businesses to provide jobs and services. He provided leadership on a variety of economic development initiatives including the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority, Colorado Commission on Taxation, Aurora Citizens Advisory Budget Committee, Colorado Office of Regulatory Reform Advisory Board, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Aurora Association of Realtors and the Aurora Realtor Governmental Affairs Committee and further contributed to the community through Leadership Aurora, Aurora Museum Foundation, Aurora Open Space Board and the Aurora Boys and Girls Club. Edna Mosley spent 12 years serving Aurora as a City Councilwoman. She championed issues of importance to veterans and military retirees and worked to promote volunteerism, diversity and the enhancement of the cultural arts in the community. She was instrumental in the formation of the Aurora Youth Commission and served with distinction on the Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority Executive Committee, Aurora Economic Development Council, Denver International Airport Business Partnership, Lowry Economic Recovery Project, Adams County Economic Development Council, Community College of Aurora Advisory Council and Aurora Business Advisory Board. John Paroske completed ten years of public service as a City Councilman last month. An accountant, John offered his financial expertise and worked hard to make sure Aurora taxpayers knew their resources were being used wisely. He devoted countless hours to make Aurora a better place through his work on the Economic Development Committee, E-470 Authority, Aurora Chamber of Commerce, Utility Budget Committee, Visitors Promotion Fund, Aurora Education Foundation, Spirit of Aurora, Community Housing Services and Aurora Rotary Club. Dave Williams served 11 years during two different stints as a member of the Aurora City Council. He worked to improve the efficiency of the City by encouraging better review processes and more efficient administration. He represented the views of his constituents by promoting business and development in an effort to improve the City's quality of life. He has been a leader in the business community as illustrated by his experience on the Aurora Economic Development Council, E-470 Authority, Aurora Rotary Club and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. These outstanding public servants deserve our thanks and admiration. Their work on behalf of the people of Aurora has improved quality of life in innumerable ways. They leave big shoes for their successors to fill. We are honored to have served with them and offer our best wishes for future success.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Marine Corps Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps program at Adams City High School in Commerce City, Colorado. On Friday, December 12, they will present the colors for a field hearing I have requested at the Colorado State Capitol. It is worth noting the history of this group. The only Marine Corps JROTC program in the State, the Adams City High School program started in 1969 and enjoyed several years of popularity before declining in the late 70's and early 80's. After a concerted effort to improve expectations and standards, the program has received several awards of recognition as a program of excellence. In the 2001-02 academic year, they received the prestigious Marine Corps Reserved Officer's Association Award (MCROA) as the best JROTC program in the ten-state 8th Marine Corps District. Only six programs across the Nation receive this distinction annually. Due to the superior performance of the program, Adams City High School was also designated as a Naval Honor School for the first time in its history. This is the highest award attainable for a Marine Corps JROTC program and exemplifies leadership, integrity and excellence. Naval Honor School status is reserved for the top 20 percent of the schools nationally and affords the Senior Marine Instructor the opportunity to nominate up to three cadets to the United States Naval Academy. Last year (2002-03) the cadets continued their superior performance, repeating as a Naval Honor School and attaining distinction as the best inspected unit in the 8th Marine Corps District with a total score of 993 points out of a possible 1000, receiving ``outstanding'' marks in all twelve categories of the inspection. This accomplishment garnered the program the coveted ``McLemore Detachment'' Award for the Marine Corps League, McLemore Detachment in Houston, Texas. JROTC is a regularly scheduled class for students, focusing on leadership, discipline, citizenship and physical fitness. Their weekly events include drill marching, uniform inspection, physical training and academic instruction. J.D. Bristow, the senior Marine instructor at ACHS, has done a fine job with this group of young men and women. These young leaders are extremely active in the leadership of their class. They not only have the potential to make excellent officers in our military, but also have dedicated their time to many after-school opportunities, such as community and school service projects. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent this terrific organization in Congress. I appreciate their families for the support and encouragement necessary for its success. The ACHS JROTC program and its administrators have made a sizable impact on the community. They are to be commended.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add to the Record a story of true leadership and determination occurring in the very place that it should, our school system. I recently had the honor of visiting Pennington Elementary, a small school located back home in my great Colorado district. Not only was I impressed by the moral this house of education puts forth to its visitors, I was amazed at the progress I learned of that these young minds are making and the dedication of their instructors and administrators. Four years ago Pennington Elementary was considered to be the school to which no one wanted to send their children. The children in the community were known to be impolite and irresponsible. Now if you ask neighbors of this accomplished school about the little ones' demeanor in and out of the school setting, they will tell you the children are intelligent, delightful and always polite and courteous to those around them. This school of only 248 students has risen to the top of the pile and now begins their day with a ``Pennington Pledge'' as a daily reminder of what they stand for; a good motto for any upcoming citizen. It reads: We the students of Pennington agree to have a drug free school, a safe and orderly learning environment, to be big brothers and big sisters to any little student. As a responsible citizen I will follow the rules of Pennington. Because the school has changed the outlook of the staff, community and parents, success is a regularly heard word within the walls of Pennington Elementary. The school's standardized state test scores have risen from 28 percent proficient or better in 1998-1999 to 56.7 percent during the 2002-2003 school year and continue to rise. Their fourth grade reading scores alone have gone from 35 percent proficient or greater to 82 percent during the same span of time, gaining them the recognition for the largest, improvement in reading scores for the state of Colorado. I would also like to make mention that Pennington has achieved these great strides by adopting a ``no excuses attitude.'' The students and faculty of Pennington believe that there is no reason that their school should not be a school of excellence, and that very attitude is what has placed them as such in my eyes. Pennington illustrates pride in education and excitement for the learning process. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have such a school of excellence back home in my district. Pennington has truly shown that they are an excellent educational institution that strives daily to deliver on their goals and dedication to their children and the futures that await them. I am truly proud of the students, staff and community surrounding and supporting Pennington Elementary.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend Lafarge Construction Materials on their exceptional contribution as a corporate member of the Golden community. Lafarge West operates the Specification Aggregates Quarry on Colfax Avenue in Golden, Colorado. I am proud to serve Golden as their Congressman, especially after watching this tremendous effort put forth by all parties involved to create a win-win situation for Lafarge, the city of Golden, concerned environmental groups and, of course, the citizens of Jefferson County. In fact, I recently received a letter from the mayor of Golden, Charles Baroch where he said, ``Lafarge has for many years been a good neighbor, being very concerned about the impact of the mine and crushing plant on the neighborhood. Lafarge listens to citizens concerns and takes action to correct the problem. Most everyone in Golden is proud to have this business a part of Golden.'' The partnership began when Lafarge realized it's basic need to increase the reserves of the quarry to serve the growing Denver market. A market, I hope, that will be even stronger soon with the passage of a new transportation re-authorization bill. So, in the spirit of cooperation, Lafarge began a 2-year process of meeting with local citizens, businesses, community leaders and environmental groups to learn what concerns may be out there regarding a quarry expansion. In the end, after many presentations, many meetings and many late nights, they did find that win-win solution. Scott Gudahl put it simply when he said, ``We kept addressing expectations and concerns until there were none left--and that's what you basically have in the final proposal.'' That final proposal was an innovative land swap. The quarry will be able to expand by 60 acres and Jefferson County will receive more than 500 acres of added scenic open space. Even the quarry itself, once reclaimed, will be donated as additional open space for the enjoyment of Jefferson County citizens. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that all too often, good honest businesses are painted with unfair labels by those who do not understand the process of making the roads and highways that keep our economy moving. I applaud the people at Lafarge for putting forth the extra effort not only to create a better company, but also create a better community. I am proud of their efforts and I am proud to represent their employees in this Congress.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today in support of the Veterans Health Care Capital Asset and Business Improvement Act of 2003. Like many systems in the VA, the Denver Medical Veterans Center in Colorado was constructed about 50 years ago primarily to provide low- volume inpatient care to our veteran population in Colorado. Today, we have an opportunity to provide health care in a much more efficient manner. This legislation, as has already been mentioned, will allow for the relocation of the VA hospital to the new Fitzsimons campus. Such relocation would allow for a modern facility to deliver modern health care on a state-of-the-art medical campus. The VA would be able to continue the synergistic University of Colorado partnership which will provide numerous operational efficiencies, as well as access to an extensive staff of doctors, technicians and specialists. S. 1156 would authorize this critical relocation. It is my belief that the savings in operational efficiencies at Fitzsimons in itself will pay for the construction of the new hospital. Construction of a new hospital at Fitzsimons also allows for the ability to build a much-needed spinal cord injury center. This new hospital and the strengthened partnership holds potential for cutting edge enhancements in veteran health care through collaborative research with the university. The unparalleled quality of health care that will be afforded to our veterans with this unique partnership is not something that we should deny our veterans. In addition to the university and the VA, this legislation authorizes the DOD to join the Fitzsimons VA partnership to provide health care to the nearby Buckley Air Force Base. Many of us believe that the new Fitzsimons VA Hospital may become a new model for delivery of health care for our veteran population. Regardless of where our veterans happen to live, they deserve the best care possible, and as the House votes today on this measure, I ask that we all keep in mind the long-term planning mission of the VA, which is to improve access to and the quality and cost-effectiveness of veteran health care. I want to particularly thank and commend my colleagues, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), especially the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman; and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), subcommittee chairman; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), the subcommittee ranking member, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, for their passionate, unrelenting service on behalf of our veterans and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I commend them, and I also thank my colleagues in the other body for looking favorably on this critical project. I strongly support the passage of S. 1156. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak today in support of S. 1156, the Veterans Health Care Capital Asset and Business Improvement Act of 2003. Many facilities in the VA healthcare system are run-down, decrepit buildings that are not conducive to providing quality healthcare to our veterans. The Denver Veterans Medical Center in Colorado was constructed about 50 years ago primarily to provide low-volume inpatient care to our veteran population. In Colorado today, we have an opportunity to provide health care in a much more efficient manner. The Denver Veterans Medical Center in its decaying state is faced with two main alternatives with regard to their facility. The first alternative is to invest in the renovation of this facility to make it capable of handling the medical needs of our current veteran population, and the changing needs of that population over the next 20 years. After such a renovation, not only would the VA still be left with a 50-year old buildings, but it would also be an orphaned medical center, as the University of Colorado Health Science Center--the VA partner for 50 years--is relocating to the redeveloping Fitzsimons Army Base. The second alternative is to relocate the VA Hospital to the new Fitzsimons campus, as well. Such relocation would allow for a modern facility to deliver modern health care on a state of the art medical campus. The VA would be able to continue the synergistic University of Colorado partnership, which will provide numerous operational efficiencies as well as access to an extensive staff of doctors, technicians, and specialists. S. 1156 would authorize this critical relocation. It is my belief that the savings in operational efficiencies at Fitzsimons in itself will pay for the construction of the new hospital. Construction of a new hospital at Fitzsimons also allows for the ability to build a much-needed Spinal Cord Injury center. One final reason construction of a new VA hospital at Fitzsimons is a better option, lies in the hospital's potential for cutting-edge enhancements in veteran health care through collaborative research with the university. The unparallel quality of healthcare that will be afforded to veterans with this unique partnership is not something we can deny to our veterans. Additionally, this legislation authorizes the DOD to join in the Fitzsimons VA partnership to provide healthcare to the nearby Buckley Air Force Base. Many of us believe that the new Fitzsimons VA Hospital may become a new model for delivery of healthcare for our military veterans. Regardless of where our veterans happen to live, they deserve the best care possible. As the House votes on this measure today, I ask that we all keep in mind the long-term planning mission of the VA: ``to improve access to, and the quality and cost effectiveness of, veterans health care.'' I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. Hefley, Chairman Smith and Chairman Simmons for their leadership on their efforts to bring this measure to the floor. I also thank my colleagues in the other body for looking favorably on this critical project. I strongly support S. 1156 and hope my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.