Bob Beauprez

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight just a few of the reasons why I am in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA. CAFTA is going to level the playing field for U.S. workers and farmers. Right now, the CAFTA countries have virtually open access to our U.S. market. This agreement will give Americans the same free and fair access to their markets. The day CAFTA is signed, nearly $1 billion a year in tariffs on U.S. goods goes away, making us immediately more competitive. Somewhere in this world, farmers will be producing the food and workers will be making the goods to meet the growing demand of the CAFTA nations. I want this demand to be met by American workers. CAFTA will protect existing American jobs, allow us to compete fairly for more international business and strengthen our relationships with these six developing democracies. Mr. Speaker, neighbors help each other, and CAFTA is a good neighbor treaty. I urge its adoption.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. He likewise is a very good friend. I want to applaud, first of all, your leadership. I know many of us in the House have worked on the passage of CAFTA, but I do not know that anybody has worked harder, longer, more diligently and more successfully than the gentleman from Texas. I am confident later this week we will not only take up CAFTA, but we are going to pass CAFTA. We will pass it, I think, in a bipartisan fashion. I fully believe and hope and expect that a number of our colleagues from the Democrat side of the aisle of this great Chamber will join with us. I want to stay on the point that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and you were just dialoguing about just a moment ago, this issue of national security. I think you will recall that we had the opportunity, we in our Ways and Means Committee, to sit with the six economic ministers of these member nations. All of them just volunteered to us that they have got a long way to go. They are not the United States of America yet. These are developing, fledgling democracies. But you were just making the point that 20 years ago, what was in the news day after day? El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua were hotbeds of communism. Today we would be calling it terrorism; anti- American hatred right on our southern border. Who would think that less than a generation later, economic ministers from these now developing democratic nations would be sitting with us, Members of the United States Congress, saying, please help us. Someone is going to be the political and economic mentors of these developing nations that are our next-door neighbors. I think that someone ought to be the United States of America, not people like Hugo Chavez, not Fidel Castro, not the anti-American freedom haters around the globe who would love to have a foothold on our southern border. This is a critical agreement for us in the United States of America. I think sometimes that we get up in the morning, and often it is easier to find a reason to not do something; everything from the simple not getting out of bed on time or not getting out of bed at all, not going to work in the morning, not rolling up your sleeves and putting in a good, hard day's work, or maybe not taking on a real significant challenge. Certainly anybody in this great Chamber can look through this document if they want to go looking for some reason to say no. But I am saying yes. I join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) in saying yes because this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do because neighbors help neighbors, and it is not just one way. It is not about us just helping these six developing nations. It is about the United States of America and American workers. I used to be, as the gentleman pointed out, in the cattle business. We exported cattle all around the world. Nothing would make me happier to wake up some morning and suddenly find out that the United States Congress and our President had just adopted an agreement with some foreign nations that immediately, immediately made my product, my cattle, more competitive to these nations. That is what happens in this agreement. The day it is signed, $1 billion a year of tariff goes away on our goods, our services, the products we send down there. From my State, just like your State of Texas, a lot of that is agricultural products. A lot of it, too, is manufactured goods, in the high-tech sector, plastic molds. We are sending a lot of stuff down there. These are developing nations, meaning that in future years it will be more that we will be sending them. It only makes sense that somebody around this globe is going to meet the needs of those people. I want that somebody to be American farmers and ranchers and laborers and small businesspeople. I was a community banker. A lot of my bank customers were in the business of making stuff, all kinds of stuff, stuff you could not even imagine that somebody is really out there making that. But they are all anxious for a bigger market. We have got a bigger market right on our southern border. They are begging us to give them a chance to do business with the United States of America. Why? Because they know that by doing business with us, that is the quickest way to emulate us, to be like us, to be a free, open society. That is what they want to become, both politically and economically. How can we as the United States of America, the greatest Nation ever on God's green Earth, deny that kind of hope, that kind of opportunity to our neighbors and friends and at the same time help our own citizens, the workers right here in the United States? I will just close and yield back to the gentleman here in a moment by saying that when I get up in the morning, I like to be about building up, not tearing down. I think the CAFTA agreement is very much one that builds up. It builds up opportunity for the United States of America and United States workers, but it also does the right thing that we as Americans, compassionate people, know we have an obligation to do around the globe, and that is help people that are reaching out a hand to us. With that, I will say, let us pass CAFTA later this week. I applaud you for your leadership. Thank you for letting me be part of your Special Order tonight.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the tremendously dedicated and talented group of professionals who make up the St. Anthony Hospitals Flight for Life team of Colorado. Specifically, I want to thank and honor the flight crew that allowed me to join them on Saturday, June 18th: Flight Nurse Hollie Seeley, Medic Vance Silvia, and Pilot Jeff Warner. Having the opportunity to spend a mere four hours with these remarkable individuals was certainly enough to realize that, on any given day, there are angels in the skies over Colorado. Responding to everything from car accidents to farm accidents, Flight for Life has not only saved countless lives of the people of Colorado and the surrounding states, they've enabled those citizens who live far from a metro area to enjoy the small town quality of Colorado and the West while not totally losing access to world class medical care. Established in October 1972, Flight for Life was the first hospital- based civilian emergency air ambulance program in the Nation. During its 30-year history, Flight for Life has logged more than 75,000 missions and has become the model for the nearly 200 air ambulance programs worldwide, and is still considered a leader in its field. Serving every community in the great state of Colorado and the surrounding seven states, Flight for Life is the biggest and busiest critical care air transport program in Colorado, transporting patients to any appropriate medical facility. Flight for Life's reputation is second only to its dedicated crew. Located across the state in Denver, Frisco, Colorado Springs and Pueblo, the crew consists of 31 flight registered nurses, 27 flight paramedics, 14 helicopter pilots, 6 fixed-wing pilots, 6 helicopter mechanics, 10 emergency medical technicians (EMT), and 10 communications specialists. Mr. Speaker, the people of Flight for Life in Colorado are not only talented professionals, but they are indeed public servants who deserve our admiration. I join the large number of Coloradans and others across the country who have been positively affected by these people in saying a well-deserved ``thank you'' for all that they do to serve and protect our citizens.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank two men from Hudson, Colorado, Alan Lemons and Chado Jacobs, for their selflessness and heroic acts that helped save the lives of two other fellow Coloradans, Shalyn and Zach Roach on Saturday, June 18, 2005. Mr. Speaker, on that same day I was witness to an event of true heroism and of God's great intervention. That Saturday, I had the honor of joining some of the tremendously dedicated and talented group of professionals who make up the St. Anthony Hospital's Flight for Life team of Colorado. It just so happened that on this Saturday morning, the Flight for Life air ambulance was called to the accident site in Hudson, Colorado where Shalyn and Zach Roach had been in a car accident that led to their car being trapped upside down, underwater, in an irrigation canal. As the car lay upside down, partially submerged in water, the situation was obviously very dire for the Roaches. However, thanks to Alan Lemons and Chado Jacobs, Shalyn and Zach Roach are still with us today. After witnessing the accident, Mr. Lemons and Mr. Jacobs immediately rushed into the canal and, putting their own personal safety aside, went underwater in order to pull the Roaches from their submerged vehicle and perform CPR on Shalyn. Mr. Speaker, the term ``hero'' means different things to different people. To some, people who have fought in wars for our country are heroes, and I think that's a very appropriate description. For others, a hero may be a former teacher or coach, or maybe even a professional athlete. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of these two men from Hudson, Colorado are nothing short of heroic. Before the Flight for Life crew arrived on the scene of the accident, these men acted without concern for themselves and helped save two lives of people they had never met before. And so, Mr. Speaker, it's with great appreciation and honor that I speak from the floor of this great chamber to honor Alan Lemons and Chado Jacobs for their selflessness and heroism. We're proud to call them Coloradans, and the State is a better place because of them.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Elizabeth ``Betsy'' Hoffman for her devoted services as President of the University of Colorado System. President Hoffman has provided unwavering leadership to the University of Colorado bringing about several major achievements to each campus in the CU system. President Hoffman created and implemented CU Vision 2010, a bold system wide effort to enhance the University of Colorado in teaching, research, and service, by establishing a commitment to a culture of excellence. I would like to recognize President Hoffman for her tireless efforts in working with Congress, federal agencies, local governments, and businesses that have furthered the development of a world-class health sciences center located at the Fitzsimons campus. Most recently, President Hoffman guided the University of Colorado through a consolidation of the Denver and Health Sciences Center campuses creating the number one research institution in the Rocky Mountain West at $330 million a year. Under her direction, the Boulder campus has consistently ranked among the top tier of public universities in federal research funding and first among public universities in NASA funding, which has bolstered and created new partnerships with private industry in the community. President Hoffman has worked to uniquely position the Colorado Springs campus as the fastest growing campus within the University of Colorado System. She has cultivated partnerships with U.S. Space Command and NORAD to provide education, training, and research in areas of homeland defense and homeland security and directly supporting government efforts to promote the development of a professional space cadre. President Hoffman has facilitated a record level of private support including $250 million to establish the Coleman Institute to assist those with cognitive disabilities, providing the distinct honor of receiving the largest private gift to a public university at that time. As an appointed member of the National Science Board and serving as Chair to the Board's Committee on Education and Human Resources, President Hoffman has championed policies for the University of Colorado and its peers to advance their basic research and applied science programs. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to offer my thanks to President Hoffman for her commitment and record of achievement as President of the University of Colorado System. I have enjoyed our working partnership and wish her and her husband, Brian, the best in her future endeavors.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I especially want to commend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for bringing this resolution to the floor tonight, and I rise in strong support of it. As has been cited repeatedly in this debate, the fifth amendment of the Constitution of the United States states clearly that private property cannot be ``taken for public use without just compensation.'' The recent egregious ruling by the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the City of New London case ignores the word ``public'' and opens the doors for the government to deprive any individual of his or her private property for any reason, including to directly benefit a private individual or private corporation. Under the guise of economic development, State and local officials can now arbitrarily kick families out of their homes, farmers and ranchers off their land, and close small businesses that do not provide enough tax revenue for the city or the State. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable in the United States of America. I believe in the same thing that our Founding Fathers addressed when drafting the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Government is morally obliged to serve the people, namely by protecting life, liberty, and, yes, private property. The Supreme Court should honor these values, and I applaud the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and those other Members who are actively taking the initiative tonight to protect the fundamental private property rights of all Americans. I urge every Member to support this resolution expressing the grave disapproval of the House of Representatives regarding the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in the Kelo versus the City of New London case.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all acknowledge the hard work and dedication of the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their dedication and the construction of a very, very good bill. But I rise tonight with an amendment, and the intent of this amendment is very, very simple. It is to return cop killers back to the United States to stand trial in our country, the same country in which they committed their unthinkable crime. The problem was brought to my attention last month after Denver Police Detective Donnie Young was allegedly executed by Raul Gomez- Garcia. After killing Detective Young and shooting and wounding his partner, Gomez-Garcia fled to Mexico, where he was tracked down and arrested weeks later. The Mexican Government now refuses to extradite him back to the U.S. if there is any chance he could spend life in prison without parole. Detective Young's widow and his two children now face the further tragedy of either partial justice or no justice at all being served to her husband's killer. In another case, in 2002, a convicted felon who had been deported three times allegedly shot and killed a Los Angeles County sheriff following a routine traffic stop before fleeing to Mexico, where he remains today, essentially escaping justice. The U.S. should not be forced to plea bargain with other countries in order to try criminals, especially cop killers, in our own courts. As a good neighbor, Mexico should live up to their end of our extradition treaty. Killing a police officer is one of the most egregious crimes, and we should have the right to seek justice for the families of the slain officers. The U.S. is not obliged to give foreign aid, and we should not reward nations giving safe haven to cop killers. I ask my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment that will bring help and peace and justice to those who deserve it most. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I could not agree more with the chairman that this is more for the U.S. than it is for our neighbors. I also want to state for the record that I have enormous fondness for our neighbors to the south. I have 20 percent Hispanics in my district and many of them came from Mexico. One of my earliest childhood memories is of migrant workers sitting around our kitchen table at our farm, my mother cooking them lunch as they harvested our crops, thrashing the grain crop from our dairy farm. I have great fondness for them but, I also believe, as the gentleman stated, in the rule of law. Let me quote Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles District Attorney. ``As you are aware, the Mexican Supreme Court unilaterally altered the Extradition Treaty in 2001.'' He goes on to say, ``This decision and its application to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico is clearly violative of the Treaty.'' That is what we are talking about tonight. We have a treaty in place. Good neighbors mean what they say and say what they mean, and live by treaties that are reached. This amendment is all about just being honest and fair-dealing with good friends. We intend to be a good friend of Mexico and other nations around the globe. We will live by our treaties, and we ask that they live by theirs. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of a health care organization in my district, Commerce City Community Health Services. Earlier this month, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue ShIeld awarded the 2005 Hero in Health Award to Commerce City Community Health Services (CHS). CHS has provided free and/or reduced cost services to uninsured and underinsured youth in Adams County, Colorado for over 20 years. Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield conceived the Hero in Health Award in 2001 as a way to recognize and reward those organizations that exemplify an authentic commitment to serving underinsured and uninsured individuals. Additionally, the Hero in Health Award heightens awareness for issues of healthcare access and affordability. In 2003, the field of eligible organizations was narrowed to clinics that provide services to the underinsured and uninsured. CHS is a non-profit, 501(c) 3 organization that provides low-cost, high-quality primary and preventive health care services. CHS was initially funded in 1979 by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation as a demonstration site for the National School Health Project and was one of the first school-based health centers in the country. Colorado Association of School-Based Health Care recognized CHS recently as the oldest, operational school-based center in the state. CHS has a community-based center and school-based centers. The community-based center is part of the Adams County High School campus. Health care services are provided for children and adolescents, birth to 21 years old. The health care services include physical exams, medical screenings, immunizations, acute care for the diagnosis and treatment for minor illnesses, infections and injuries, management of chronic health conditions, routine lab work, well/sick infant care, nutrition and weight control counseling, and health education. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the fine men and women of Commerce City Community Health Services. It is the best kind of community organization, fulfilling needs in the community others have not and continuously evolving to address changing demands. They serve a tremendous purpose in Adams County and I am very proud to be able to congratulate them for receiving the Hero in Health Award.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Brighton, Colorado, for recently being named by the Economic Developers' Council of Colorado (EDCC) as the recipient of the Large Community of the Year award for 2004. The EDCC presents their annual achievement awards that recognize outstanding achievement in economic development by honoring individuals, businesses and communities throughout the State of Colorado. The City of Brighton was honored to receive this award which is presented to a community over 20,000 in population that demonstrates support for economic development through an organized economic development program and strong leadership. Mr. Speaker, as we look at a few of the many successes the City has been able to accomplish recently, there is no doubt that they are well deserving of this award. The City provided an incentive package valued at nearly $8.2 million for a new Adams County campus for County services. This campus will not only retain jobs for Brighton but will also ensure that Brighton remains the County Seat. Brighton found funding, without any state support, for the roundabouts at the intersection of U.S. 85 and State Highway 7, which is a major highway intersection to downtown Brighton. The City has also been forward thinking in contributions on their part to make the FasTracks public transit program become a reality in Brighton. In 2004 the City broke ground on a 14-acre entertainment/retail development, the Brighton Pavilions. This project is a unique public/ private partnership between the City, the Brighton Urban Renewal Authority, Brighton Economic Development Corporation, Carlson-Parkhi, LLC and RTD. It is the first Transit Oriented Development in the state based on a bus transit park-n-ride, and a public/private endeavor and is a ``model'' project for the Denver metro area. Further, this partnership helped the City receive the Adams County Economic Development 2004 Regional Partnership Award. On the issue of water, which is so vital to communities in Colorado, Brighton has made great strides in making water purchases during 2004 and has aligned itself with other regional communities to provide water solutions in and out of its community. The first water augmentation storage lake was completed and filled in 2004. Mr. Speaker, what's equally important to many Brighton residents is that the City has been able to accomplish all of this while still retaining its small town atmosphere that makes it so attractive by opening six new neighborhood parks last year. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate Brighton's Mayor, Jan Pawlowski, and all the citizens of the City for Brighton's recognition as the Large Community of the Year. It is only appropriate that the entire State acknowledge the City's efforts and achievements.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to speak to my colleagues and those watching these proceedings about something that is occurring in Colorado's 7th Congressional District which is directly benefiting the Department of the Navy and the U.S. taxpayer. I am so honored to have met the great folks in Arvada, Colorado, my home State, who work for Barber-Nichols, Incorporated, and to hear their story about what they have been able to do so far for the Navy's Surface Ship Torpedo Defense, SSTD, program. This program uses a torpedo, or more particularly an anti-torpedo torpedo to protect our ships. I know it sounds a bit off center, a landlocked State such as Colorado with such expertise in torpedo programs. In fact, Barber- Nichols possesses both advanced engineering and manufacturing prowess that are ideal for reducing the high cost of technology equipment such as the ATT, a very complicated weapon which has approximately 700 separate parts. Barber-Nichols has used their expertise to help the Navy and the American taxpayer reduce the cost of the torpedo and provide tremendous cost savings in the program. To date, for every $1 we have spent on the ATT affordability program, the Navy has realized future production cost savings of $15. Barber-Nichols approached the Navy and their design agent, the Applied Research Laboratory, or ARL, at Penn State to discuss how to consider manufacturability and assemble ability concepts in the design today so that we can save money in the production tomorrow. As we have all witnessed, Mr. Speaker, developing and maintaining the best military in the world comes with a hefty price tag. In an extremely tight budget environment, it goes without saying that any program that can save money helps that service perform better. With that said, let me tell you more about the ATT program and the affordability efforts that are ongoing in this program. The surface ship torpedo defense program and the anti-torpedo torpedo program were started by the United States Navy because our ships were, and remain, vulnerable to torpedo attack. Currently, there are several torpedoes available on the world market that we have little or no defense against. That is right, little to no defense against a torpedo attack. The threat increases when we move our ships from the open ocean, where we can see for hundreds of miles, to coastal areas where threats can get closer to our ships and our reaction time is lessened. As we project our forces into the Third World areas, we operate in locations like the Persian Gulf where we are much more vulnerable. Torpedoes can be bought on the black market by people and organizations who wish to do us harm. These torpedoes can be launched from the shoreline or small boats, threats that we were not too worried about until the USS Cole incident where 17 U.S. sailors made the ultimate sacrifice. Because of this threat to our ships and sailors, Congress has weighed in heavily in support of torpedo defense, as was stated in a letter to the Secretary of the Navy back in 1997, signed by Chairman Duncan Hunter and other Members of this House, including Roscoe Bartlett, who is with us tonight, Bob Dornan, Duke Cunningham and Gene Taylor. I quote from their letter: ``We are especially concerned that our high-value ships that carry hundreds or even thousands of our young sailors and marines are very vulnerable to particular classes of torpedoes.'' Congress has also asked the Navy to study the vulnerability of our ships as evidenced in this quote: ``We therefore ask you to conduct an independent review of the SSTD program and provide us with your findings.'' That in a letter to the Under Secretary of the Navy, again from Congressman Hunter, Bartlett, Dornan and Cunningham. And Congress has agreed with the independent studies that say we should move forward with torpedo defense as seen in this quote: ``I understand that the IDA study is completed and that the results strongly confirm that all ships need to be protected from torpedoes. I look forward to working with you to improve the capability of our ships to defend themselves against torpedo attack.'' That, in a letter to the Secretary of Defense from Chairman Duncan Hunter. Congress since has provided multiple years of funding to allow the Navy to address the issue. The Navy agrees our sailors and high-value ships are worth protecting and that torpedo defense is an important capability to have. Thus, the Navy has, first, teamed with our ally, Great Britain, to jointly develop elements of a surface ship torpedo defense system; secondly, made torpedo defense a requirement for new ship design efforts; third, identified the anti-torpedo torpedo as the solution for torpedo defense; and fourth, developed an anti-torpedo torpedo technology demonstrator that has included successful in-water testing. In the FY 2006 budget, the Navy requested over $47 million for torpedo defense, so Congress is well aware of their interest in continuing this program into the future. Mr. Speaker, I have talked a lot about the need and the desire to protect our ships and our sailors. I bet you would like to hear about how the Navy envisions the system will work. This chart to my left depicts the AN/WSQ-11, this surface ship torpedo defense system. In very simple terms, surface ship torpedo defense is accomplished by detecting a threat torpedo with a sensor towed behind the ship, launching the anti-torpedo torpedo against that threat, intercepting the threat torpedo with the ATT, and destroying it, obviously, before the threat can reach our ship. Conceptually, it looks fairly simple. Practically, intercepting a torpedo under water is quite difficult. We have all seen the challenges played out in the newspapers regarding missile defense. This is essentially the same thing under water, albeit at far slower speeds. The good news is that the tests, to date, show that the technology works. Mr. Speaker, we started this discussion tonight with an acknowledgment regarding the hefty price tag associated with developing and maintaining the best military in the world. However, as stewards of the public's money in this Chamber, we should be looking for ways to spend it wisely. The ATT affordability program is a prime example of fiscal responsibility in military spending. The anti-torpedo torpedo affordability program was started to ensure we could afford the surface ship torpedo defense system when it goes to production. The ATT affordability program is very similar to the efforts commercial companies across our Nation practice on a daily basis. Commercial product companies develop a new product with a final cost in mind. They eliminate features that are not cost effective, and they continually look for ways to reduce cost during that product design. Once the product is designed and developed, they work hard to manufacture the product in a cost-effective manner. The important fact to realize is that 80 percent of the product cost is predetermined in the design process, not in the manufacturing process. Thus, addressing affordability must be done in that first design process. In the ATT affordability program, my constituent Barber-Nichols, a commercial company again in Arvada, Colorado, is working with the Navy's design agent, ARL-Penn State, to simplify the product, reduce costs of manufacture and assembly and ensure affordability and cost reduction are considered in the design process. Affordability is usually not addressed in government technology development programs until after a production program is awarded. Contractors can reduce cost with innovative manufacturing approaches, but the bulk of the potential cost savings will not ever be realized because they were not addressed in the product design. Incorporating commercial best practices like we have just discussed into government procurement practices could save us potentially a great deal of taxpayer money. One aspect of affordability is design for manufacturability. In a simplistic way, this chart to my left depicts the major steps in the process. The way this is accomplished is that you first start with a baseline design, understand what each part of it costs to make, then look at the high-priced pieces to see if costs can be reduced. You then develop lower-cost alternative designs that are constructed and tested. If these alternative designs are successful, both technically and costwise, you can incorporate the alternative design into the baseline design. This design for manufacturability method has been used on the anti- torpedo torpedo. First, a baseline design cost study was performed. From this study, the most expensive parts of the torpedo were found and it was determined that the engine was the most expensive subsystem of the product, as depicted in this new graph. This cost analysis helped in understanding what to focus on first. Where is the biggest bang for the buck? From this analysis, the development moved into affordability projects. One example of a high-priced component that was made into an ATT affordability project is the torpedo propulsor shown on this next chart. That is this machined part from the ATT depicted here. In the production quantities planned, the part was estimated to cost about $14,000 each. I have seen this part. It fits easily into the palm of my hand. Again, it was estimated initially to cost about $14,000 each. The DFM process yielded a lower-cost design that was much easier to make. This low-cost design was manufactured and tested. The tests showed it performed as well as the expensive design. Thus, this low- cost design will now be incorporated into the government's baseline design. When this part goes into production, it will now cost a little over $2,000 each instead of the $14,000, resulting in production program savings of about 80 percent of the original cost estimate. Another example of an affordability project under way is the electronic card carrier set, one of which is shown here. The current design is a set of fully machined metal pieces that would cost approximately $4,000 a set if manufactured in production today as originally designed. The low-cost alternative design uses die cast pieces with very little machining. If these are successfully fabricated and tested later this year, the Navy will achieve a very substantial cost savings with this part as well. The low-cost design is expected to cost approximately $200 per set and result is a cost savings of almost that full $4,000 of the original estimated cost, or about 95 percent. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the ATT affordability program has been extremely successful and must stay the programmatic course in order to protect our sailors and ships when they are in harm's way. The projects completed in 2003 and 2004 are expected to save $31.2 million of taxpayer money when the ATT goes into production. More projects are planned in 2005 through 2007. We estimate the government will save $15 in production costs for every $1 spent in this affordability effort. Developing and maintaining the best military in the world comes with a price. In an extremely tight budget environment, any program that can save money should be applauded and supported. I congratulate Barber-Nichols, Inc., of Arvada, Colorado; ARL-Penn State, and certainly the Navy for their efforts with the ATT program and hope other such collaborative design projects will provide for our security, protect our troops and use taxpayer dollars as prudently as possible.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the chairman is aware, our larger ships such as carriers, amphibious, and logistic ships with many sailors and Marines embarked, could be vulnerable to torpedo attack. The threat increases when we move our ships from open ocean to restricted littoral waters where torpedo launch platforms such as diesel submarines and surface patrol craft can get closer to our ships and our reaction time is lessened. Currently, there is a proliferation of torpedoes of various types available on the world market that could cause significant damage to our surface ships. These weapons could be launched from the shoreline or small boats, threats that we were not too worried about until the USS Cole incident. The gentleman and the Committee on Armed Services have provided the leadership needed for defense of our Navy ships and its sailors from torpedo attack through their support of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defense program. I agree with the gentleman that this is a very important program and believe that the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo is a key element of the program. My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that we have not made the type of progress on this issue that we likely should have. I would appreciate the chairman's thoughts on this.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for his commitment to this issue and look forward to working with him and the House Committee on Armed Services on this critical problem.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's comments. I rise for the purpose of engaging the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, in a colloquy.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for leading a wonderful delegation to Iraq. It was my second visit. I know it was your third, but it was my second visit. The first one was in November of 2003. And I was taken by several things, of course, but one that really sticks out in my mind. As the gentleman will recall, the day we were in Baghdad, Camp Victory, and took the helicopter rides, the Blackhawks, and flew over the city, I think you, myself, all of our colleagues were struck by how much normalcy, and we have to put that in the appropriate context of course, because it is still Baghdad and it is obviously still very much a zone of much conflict, but how normal it looked by comparison to when I was there last in November of 2003. Then, it was obviously in considerable turmoil, and that is probably an understatement. But as we flew over the city that day, I remember seeing cars going up and down the streets in the residential areas. We saw people walking in and out of their homes. We saw the market areas that looked fairly busy and life going on, much as you would think to see in many other cities. What really caught me even more later on that day was that when we got back to our rooms that night and turned on the TV, we realized that was the day there were these demonstrations in Baghdad. And watching TV that night, I thought, goodness, the entire city was somehow under siege and we missed it. As you will recall, that was the day we sat with the generals, Petraeus, Casey, Vines, and we were also with the new Prime Minister Jafari, and I thought what did we miss? Because we did not see anything really of significance and nobody brought it to our attention. The next day we were with the Iraqi women, as the gentleman from Nebraska pointed out, at their conference, and I recall bringing that up to a group that I was talking to, and some that were actually from Baghdad, and they were remarkably dismissive. Now, Baghdad is a city, as I recall, roughly the population of Chicago. It is a big city. And when we mentioned what about the demonstration yesterday, it was kind of an, oh, that was Muqtada al- Sadr's bunch. They do not amount to much. It was almost like there was a demonstration in a Safeway parking lot back home. It was kind of, oh, well. I mention that not to make light of the struggles they have, because the gentleman from Nebraska put it in an appropriate context, it is still very much a dicey place. It is very troubled. Security is their number one issue, and will remain their number one issue for quite awhile. I think what we struggle with back here at home is watching the 6 p.m. news or reading the morning paper and trying to put in the appropriate context what the rest of Iraq is dealing with on a daily basis. And I saw evidence in relative terms, they are starting to experience some degree of normalcy. Life is coming back. Choices are becoming theirs. They have some opportunity. They have that wonderful four-letter word, hope. I do not think we can underestimate how powerful that is. We have all wondered at our own moment in time, are we on the right course, maybe even the right mission. But I at least came home feeling, because we heard it again, that this is worth it, that we do have a plan now. The security mission has changed, or is in the process of changing rather dramatically from us doing it for them and them looking over our shoulder, to them now taking, day by day, an increasingly larger role in their own security, taking care of their own neighborhoods and their own security, and us being more the observer and the counselor. That is a dramatic shift in the paradigm and that is critical to our exit strategy. If we are going to get out of there, they need to take care of their own security operations. A couple of other observations. When we sat by coincidence with their new prime minister, Ibrahim Jaafari, he was in his second day of office. I was so taken by him sitting there and invoking the beginnings of a nation. Remember, this is the Fertile Crescent. This is where civilization began. This is humanity's beginnings, and we are the upstarts by comparison. Here he is talking to us about how he would like to be the kind of nation, Iraq would like to be the kind of nation that Thomas Jefferson wrote about that honored life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That was a humbling moment for me. He spoke with great eloquence in his native language through an interpreter. He spoke with tremendous courage and inspiring vision, and asked us all to bring back a message to the American people. He told us, We realize you did not have to send your daughters and sons over here to do as they have done, spill their blood for us to give us a chance at liberty, but they did. And he told us again, That is the kind of nation we would like to be. He said, Please take home a message to the American people from me. He said, It is a message of love, a message of love to the American people. That is a powerful thing, Mr. Speaker. It is a powerful thing. I remember I asked him, Mr. Prime Minister, it seems we are at a point where the history of the world might actually change. And he said, We realize in Iraq that we are a bit of a candle in the darkness, and as goes Iraq, very well may go the entire Middle East. We do not know for sure. There is a great deal of uncertainty ahead of us. But I submit tonight as we approach Memorial Day weekend, and last week I was home and helped celebrate Armed Forces Day at one of our cemeteries where Civil War veterans are buried, especially tonight as we think about our troops still there in harm's way, as we think about this weekend thanking those who put on the uniform, both current as well as in the past, as we think about how different even our opportunity is simply because they answered the call, they put on the uniform, they went into harm's way, they took the risk, and they are making a difference. I hold in my heart of hope that it is a dramatic difference. I would say to the gentleman, I remember as well our last stop on the way home was in Germany at Landstuhl, the military hospital. We stopped in that room with those two soldiers that the very day before had encountered an IED, an improvised explosive device. It went off under their Humvee and literally lifted that armed Humvee up in the air and turned it upside down and dropped it on its top. They were lying in their hospital beds. And I said, in my naivete, Boy, I bet you are looking forward to when you heal up enough and get sent back home to the United States. They looked at me like I must be the dumbest person in the world. Finally one of them spoke and said, No, sir, we want to get released from this hospital so we can go back and be with our buddies and finish the job we were sent here to do. It is very inspiring to go over there and witness not only the progress that is being made, but especially the patriotism of our young men and women. I want to thank the gentleman from Nebraska especially because I recall the first trip I took over there, and I asked a colonel from Grand Junction, Colorado, what I could possibly do for him. He said, I am committed to this mission and I can sleep at night. I know we are in control, but please go home and tell the truth because, he said, My wife has trouble sleeping. So I think it is important while we recognize the challenges in front of us and the tough days still ahead of us, we also recognize the good that is being done and the progress that is very much being made. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to share tonight and thank the gentleman for leading a wonderful trip to Iraq.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding for the National Endowment of the Arts by $30 million and transfer the funds to the United States Forest Service for thinning projects to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires. As Members of this Chamber will certainly remember, the summers of 2000 and 2002 were the two largest and most destructive fire seasons in the last 50 years. According to information presented by the United States Forest Service Chief, Dale Bosworth, in 2002, some 73 million acres of the 192 million acres managed by the United States Forest Service remain at risk to catastrophic wildfire. That is greater than the size of the entire State of Arizona. The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the National Forest System contain more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre, or 10 times the manageable or appropriate level. Disease and insect infestations have also attributed to an increase in combustible fuels. In Colorado alone, surveys have recorded that approximately 1.2 million trees have been killed by mountain pine beetle outbreaks in 2004. This is nearly 100 times the mortality rate reported in 1996. This is the kind of timber that turns small fires into kinds of infernos that have devastated Colorado and other western States in recent years, destroying homes, poisoning the air, scorching critical habitat, and choking streams and rivers with tons of soot and sediment. Positive steps have been made recently, most notably the passage of the Healthy Forest Act, which enabled forest managers to begin the process of restoring our forests to more sustainable and natural states. This legislation has helped land managers cut through the red tape that has delayed badly needed thinning projects. However, even with increased attention to thinning and fuels treatment efforts, more funding is needed. Since the majority of our forests are federally owned, the burden to protect our States and local communities from the devastating effects of forest fires lies with the Federal agencies designated to protect them. Congress must fully fund their needs. While cooler temperatures and increased moisture have brought some relief to the West this past winter, we cannot forget the need to continue to support responsible forest management. Another dry season is just one hot summer away. The human consequences from past fires have taught us we must continue to be proactive with our forest management. It far outweighs the devastating economic, ecological, and social cost of forest fires. In 2002, hundreds of homes and other structures were destroyed and thousands more were evacuated. Twenty-three firefighters lost their lives, and the American taxpayer spent in excess of $1.5 billion containing 2002's record-setting blazes. Rural economies that rely on tourism suffered significant losses. This amendment is a modest attempt to provide additional funding that can be used on the ground immediately in a way that will help ensure cleaner air and water, protection of sensitive ecosystems, keep western communities safe from catastrophic wildfire, and improve the health of our forests and watersheds. Simply, it reduces funding for the NEA by $30 million and transfers funds to the United States Forest Service for thinning projects. The question arises, why take funds from the NEA. I applaud the progress that has been made recently by the NEA in repairing a very damaged image in the view of many Americans. One of my sons is actually a student of the arts, and my wife and I are certainly avid arts supporters and particularly appreciate ``public art.'' However, a very small percentage of artistic funds comes from the Federal Government. Still, since fiscal year 2000, NEA funding from the Federal Government has increased by 19 percent. In 2001, the NEA budget as a percentage of total revenues in the nonprofit arts sector was less than 0.4 percent. Most of the funding happens to come from everyday patrons of the arts who enjoy them, philanthropists and corporate donations that foster the development of artistic communities. I commend these individuals and organizations for doing so. However, it should be a greater priority of Congress to ensure the safety of our western communities, prevent forest fires, and save lives rather than spend taxpayer dollars for artistic endeavors, enjoyable as they may be. When Congress spends so much annually to put out wildfires, does it not make more sense to spend that money on additional thinning treatments that could help prevent forest fires from starting in the first place? I was pleased when the Healthy Forest Initiative was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. However, I worried that we still lacked the economic incentives that could make the management of our forests, the removal of dead fuel for an inferno, an opportunity. That incentive now exists. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``aye.''

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an important accomplishment in Colorado. The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District earned its second consecutive Platinum Award from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA, formerly the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies) for its second consecutive five-year period without a single numerical violation of its discharge permit. The award was presented May 1, 2005 at NACWA's 35th Anniversary Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. According to NACWA, earning two back-to-back Platinum Awards has been achieved by only five other wastewater treatment agencies in the country. Two Platinum Awards represent 10 perfect years, during which the Metro District has discharged almost 530 billion gallons of treated, high-quality water into the South Platte River and completed more than 100,000 chemical and biological analyses that verify there were no permit violations. The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District's 345 employees have every right to be proud of this accomplishment. It places them among the elite protectors of the environment in the nation. These accomplishments result from the efforts of many. The District has an outstanding maintenance department, a well-engineered plant, great support groups, and management who always strive to do the best for their ratepayers. They also have a dedicated operations staff that continually gives examples of their ability to get things done no matter what the challenge. The Metro Wastewater Reclamation District serves approximately 1.5 million people. Its service area includes most of metropolitan Denver and encompasses 380 square miles, including all of Denver and parts of Adams, Arapahoe and Jefferson Counties. Arvada, Aurora, Lakewood, Thornton, and part of Westminster are included. The Metro District collects and treats about 130 million gallons of wastewater a day at its 185 million-gallon-a-day Central Treatment Plant five miles northeast of central Denver. This plant is the largest wastewater treatment facility in the Rocky Mountain West. Formed under Colorado law in 1961, the Metro District provides wholesale wastewater transmission and treatment service to 57 local governments, including both cities and sanitation districts in metropolitan Denver. The Metro District began treating metro Denver's wastewater in 1966. NACWA implemented the National Environmental Achievement Awards program in 1983 to recognize the excellence that was occurring routinely at many wastewater treatment agencies across the country.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and commend her for organizing this hour that we can talk about this energy bill, but we all hope we not only hope can pass on this floor but can actually in this Congress become law because we have waited too long. The American people have waited too long to have an energy policy that is a little bit more than one day at a time. So I do, again, commend the gentlewoman. ANWR has been an issue in this Congress and much of the United States for years and years and years. When I got elected to Congress in 2002, ANWR was very much on my mind because one of the first issues we talked about was an energy bill. I had an opportunity to go up and see that much talked about, much described, very valuable piece of real estate in August of 2003 with a few of my congressional colleagues. I have in front of me tonight a map that puts Alaska in relative size to the lower 48 States in proper perspective. ANWR is in this region. The area we are actually talking about exploring is represented by that green dot, just 2,000 acres. 2,000 acres is roughly the size of the St. Louis airport that most of us and many Americans have landed in. I have also heard that in relative size it is about like Dulles, which we are all very familiar with back here in the Washington, D.C., area. It is about the same size as the land dedicated to the Dulles airport as compared to the entire State of Virginia. So we are talking about a relatively small part of a massive piece of real estate. This map very quickly puts in perspective one other key thing, the amount of oil represented by 1 million barrels per day coming from that one small piece of real estate, and that is a conservative estimate of the amount of oil that can be generated from this ANWR reserve, over 1 million barrels a day. Several other energy sources are addressed in this bill, wind power, which I certainly embrace coming from Colorado. We produce a little wind power ourselves, but so do our friends from Rhode Island and Connecticut represented in gray by about 3.7 million acres dedicated to wind energy. To generate the same amount of total energy is 1 million barrels of oil from ANWR. In red, down at Lake Okeechobee, where they utilize solar, as we do also in Colorado, but some 448,000 acres are dedicated to solar energy generation, to again apply the energy to 1 million barrels from ANWR in one day. Or in green, again the coastal plain, or in black the acreage, as I mentioned, from the Lambert Airport. Ethanol is in yellow. Massive piece of ground. We have heard much about ethanol already tonight on the floor of the House. Ethanol is also of interest to the eastern plains, especially in Colorado, where we grow a whole lot of corn. I see one of my colleagues from Iowa here tonight grinning a bit. I know it is important to him. But you see the massive amount of land acreage, 80.5 million acres that would have to be dedicated to growing corn to produce as much ethanol as we get from a million barrels of oil a day in Alaska. Now, to the point I really wanted to address, and this is the point. We ought to remember that there are precious few people who actually live in that very difficult, very hostile environment in the world, ANWR, which is literally on the coast of the Arctic Ocean. I went up and visited that. If I can put this map back up, I will put it in proper perspective. Prudhoe Bay, which we often talk about, is located here, again literally on the edge of the Arctic Ocean. A small village of Kaktovik is roughly where that green dot is. We actually flew over in a very small plane, landed on a gravel runway and visited these people in Kaktovik; about 270 of them actually manage to survive in that very, very difficult environment. How do they do that? They still hunt the whale. They go out when the Arctic Ocean opens up a little bit and get in the open water and they are allowed to get three whale a year. They fish for Arctic char and they survive on them. And, yes, they hunt and kill and eat the caribou meat, as they have for generations and generations. That is how they survive. I submit to this body and submit to the American people that if anyone is concerned about preserving that environment, it is these people. Not because it is pristine, not because they like the view, not because the air is very, very clean, but it is about survival. It is about their very existence. If that environment changes, these people have a very, very serious, life-threatening problem. If anybody is interested in maintaining that environment unchanged, it is them. And we all know what the environment is supposed to look like. It looks like this for a small window of the year. It is covered with caribou and a little bit of short grass, as I saw it in August when I was there. And, actually, the caribou, from 1972 to current days, in about a 30-year window, have increased, not decreased. Since we did the Prudhoe Bay development, they have actually increased by about tenfold, a thousand percent. And we have heard much about that. That is how ANWR looks some of the year. This is how ANWR looks most of the year. That is not the moon, that is actually ice, and that is about all that is there. It is frozen and it is ice covered. How much oil is there? The experts, the scientists tell us that if we would develop ANWR, and frankly, had we gone ahead and done it in 1995, when Congress actually approved it and President Clinton vetoed the bill, today we would be bringing over a million barrels a day to the lower 48 from ANWR. How much is a million barrels a day? Actually, they project almost 1.4 million a day from ANWR. That is almost as much as we import daily from, yes, Saudi Arabia, our largest single source of imported oil, almost a direct offset to Saudi Arabia. Now, what do the people in ANWR think? Final point. We asked Fenton Rexford, who is the President of the Native Indian Corporation that populates that little piece of real estate, well, that very large piece of real estate but very small group of people. What should we do with ANWR? I asked him the question. Two-word answer: Drill it. I said, Really? He said, Yes, drill it. I said, Is that what your villagers think? He had already told us there were 271 people living there that day. He said, well, at least 270 of them agree. That is close to unanimous. One of my colleagues said, but what about the caribou? This was after he told us how they depend on the caribou for their very survival. He said, What about it? Well, my colleague said, If we happen to drill there, explore there, develop there, we might scare them off or change their migratory pattern. And the president looked at us and he said, You are missing something here, and we all leaned forward in eager anticipation. He said you are missing something here. We said, What is that? We hunt them and kill them and they come back. And we all said, Oh, yeah, you do. We hunt them and kill them and they come back. You are not going to scare them off by exploring for a little bit of oil out here. He said again, Drill it. With that, Madam Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for all of his leadership, especially for bringing this resolution to the floor today, but for all of his leadership throughout the years. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as well for his leadership, similarly a champion of justice and a compassionate individual who speaks with tremendous moral clarity. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened today, as a lifelong Catholic, at the thought of the death of our great Holy Father, John Paul II. As I stand in the well of this Chamber, it also strikes me as curiously ironic that we come to commemorate the life of John Paul II, who spoke with enormous moral clarity, and I stand staring at the image of Moses, the first of our lawgivers, who defined moral clarity for us in those early beginnings of civilization and humanity. The early years for John Paul II were a journey of hardship and sacrifice. Born Karol Wojtyla in a small town outside of Krakow in 1920, the same year of my mother's birth, by the way, he was the second of two sons. His mother died when he was but 9 years old, and by the time he was 21, he had lost his dear brother and his father as well. Young Karol found himself alone. He worked in a rock quarry and then a chemical factory to earn a living and to avoid being deported to Nazi Germany. To fulfill a wish that his father had, young Karol began preparing to give his life to the Lord by studying at an underground, clandestine seminary in Krakow, doing so in secret to avoid the wrath of the Nazis. His faith and belief in God eventually led him to the very chair of St. Peter. As the head of the Holy See, a position he held for more than 26 years, he led his flock longer than any other Pope and certainly longer than any in recent memory. I was always humbled by this man who was able to exert so much influence on the politics of our world and the direction of mankind, yet had the ability to do so with such a quiet, gentle hand. One must look no further than the collapse of the Soviet Empire for an example of how much influence he had. While no one person can claim that they were the lone force behind the collapse of communism, there should be no argument that the extent to which John Paul II played in defining it and defeating it was enormous. Along with another great man of his era, Ronald Reagan, they confronted their adversaries face to face and helped defeat this evil, and did so without war. This man of God, who was once an avid outdoorsman, who skied and hiked the Italian mountainside, who aggressively traveled the globe more than any other Pope, became almost like a family member to everyone in the world, regardless of faith. He embraced the modern media. John Paul entered the homes and touched the hearts of countless millions with his message of love, truth, devotion, and courage. He was unwavering in his defense of all life, limitless in his forgiveness, including of his own would-be assassin, and without peer as he embraced all the world's faiths and humbly asked forgiveness from our Jewish brethren for a Church and a world that did too little for too long. Those of us privileged to serve in this hallowed Chamber have the opportunity to meet presidents, prime ministers, kings and queens, the famous and the fortunate of the world. Twice I was in the presence of this Pope, in 1993 in Denver and at the Vatican in 1995. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the essence of this humble man from Krakow transcended humanity. His essence emanated peace, holiness and a sense that surrounding him was a glimpse to all of us of our Creator's promise for eternity. Without so much as a single word, his spirit overwhelmed all who witnessed his being. ``Be not afraid'' became the motto of his remarkable Papacy. Inspired by his commitment to peace, freedom, compassion for the poor and oppressed and for a culture of life, may we also carry on his legacy of truth in our very own lives.