Phil Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) presented that case; and I want to present the real crux of this problem, and let me read a suit, Shields, et al v. Bridgestone/ Firestone, Incorporated in Texas, a suit in Texas. This suit involves customers who had Firestone tires that were among those that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigated or recalled but who did not suffer any personal injury or property damage. After a Federal appeals court rejected class certification, plaintiffs' counsel and Firestone negotiated a settlement which has now been approved by a Texas State court. Under the settlement, the company has agreed to redesign certain tires, a move that was already underway irrespective of the suit, and to develop a 3-year consumer education and awareness campaign, but the members of the class received nothing. The lawyers, they got $19 million. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member for 4 years of the Committee on the Judiciary and an original co-sponsor of H.R. 1115. (Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland), the former minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the gentlewoman from Texas, the Committee on Rules has jurisdiction, and anybody that knows the history of this body knows and understands that the Committee on Rules certainly has jurisdiction. Let me just give a little history for my colleagues and particularly for the gentlewoman from Texas in regard to this bill. Again, in the 105th Congress, Senate bill 2083, the Class Action Fairness Act, Senate held hearing, reported by subcommittee. House Resolution 3789, Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1998, committee hearing and markup held, reported from the House Committee on the Judiciary, 17 to 12. Mr. Speaker, in the 106th Congress, H.R. 1875, Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999. Committee hearing and markup held, passed floor 222 to 207. In the 107th Congress, H.R. 2341, Class Action Fairness Act of 2001. Committee hearing and markup held; passed floor, 233 to 190. In the 108th Congress, H.R. 1115, Class Action Fairness Act of 2003, committee hearing and markup held, passed floor, 253 to 170. No hearings? Indeed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to address the remarks of the gentlewoman from Texas. I want to remind her that the Committee on Rules voted unanimously in favor of this rule and granted an amendment in order in the form of a substitute that includes each and every one of the provisions that she just spoke of. I also would like to remind my colleagues that each and every one of those amendments were also proffered in the other body, and each and every one of those amendments were voted down in a strong bipartisan vote. So to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that had not been looked at and we have not talked about, I would remind my colleague that it was addressed in the 105th Congress, in the 106th Congress, in the 107th Congress, in the 108th Congress, and finally we are here, and we are going to get this rule passed and this bill passed and on to the President for his signature. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to some of the comments that were made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, I want to share with my colleagues some facts. The Class Action Fairness Act contains several provisions specifically designed to ensure that class members, not their attorneys, class members, not their attorneys, are the primary beneficiaries of the class-action process. For example, the act, number one, requires that judges carefully review all coupon settlements and limit attorney's fees paid in such settlements to the value actually received by the class members. Second, it requires careful scrutiny of ``net loss'' settlements in which the class members end up losing money. Thirdly, it bans settlements that award some class members a larger recovery just because they live closer to the court. Lastly, it allows Federal courts to maximize the benefits of class- action settlements by requiring that unclaimed coupons or settlement funds be donated to charitable organizations. In addition, the bill would require that notice of proposed settlements be provided to appropriate State and Federal officials, such as State Attorneys General. Let me also address one other issue raised, and I think this is very important. This myth is being circulated that the Class Action Fairness Act would move all or virtually all class actions to Federal courts, overwhelming Federal judges and denying State courts the ability to resolve local disputes. Well, a recent study examined class actions in the State courts of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New York and Rhode Island, to determine what effect the bill would have on the class actions filed in those respective States. Here is what they found in regard to the State of Massachusetts. Sixty-one percent, 30 out of 49 of the reported class actions, would have presumedly remained in State court. At least 10 of the 19 Massachusetts cases that would be affected by this bill, the Class Action Fairness Act, involved nationwide classes, cases primarily involving citizens living in other states. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary and an original cosponsor of this bill in the 108th Congress.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 96 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues, especially for those on the other side of the aisle, that this Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act does not change the definition of decency, and it is not about censorship. It is about increasing the penalties and the fines for those entertainers and owners of radio and television stations that knowingly and willfully violate, and do it in a repeated manner, what we already know is a definition of decency. So it is disingenuous to suggest that we are trying to impose censorship or redefine what has already been well defined in regard to decency. I want to give, Mr. Speaker, an example. The Member from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) had an amendment, and I do not want to dwell on this too much because he is here and I think he may be speaking about that. But he brought an amendment to the Rules Committee concerning a certain ad that we see many times on prime-time hour on television. And he had great concerns about that. And many members of the Rules Committee on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, agreed that this advertisement was possibly a little on the tacky side, but that amendment was not approved by the Rules Committee because of that question of a redefinition of what is decent. So I just want to remind my colleagues that this is not about censorship or redefining decency on the airwaves, it is making sure that those who continue to abuse their privilege of broadcasting on our public airwaves, that they pay a significant fine and one that hopefully will disincentivize them from continuing this activity.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in 1979, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act to ensure our friends on the island of Formosa would not be isolated because of our Nation's ``One China'' policy. The Taiwan Relations Act sent a strong message to Communist leaders on mainland China, saying we will conduct business with their country but will not tolerate Communist aggression against a sovereign people. It is important to emphasize our commitment to the democratically represented citizens in the Republic of China, because recent reports indicate mainland China is about to enact an anti-secession law with the purpose of reuniting China under Communist dictatorship. This action will not only destroy the goodwill between the peoples of Taiwan and China, it will also provoke unnecessary tension in the Taiwan Strait. By unilaterally changing the status quo, Communist China is also challenging America's will to stand behind the Taiwan Relations Act. After diplomatic improvements in recent years, I believe the anti- secession law is wrong for the region's stability and is a potential misstep that needs to be addressed.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues now know, the C- 130J multiyear procurement contract was canceled in the administration's recent budget proposal. I want to spend a few minutes speaking about the history and the significance of the C-130 Hercules program and why we in Congress need to continue to fund this crucial airlift program. Mr. Speaker, the C-130 aircraft has been the workhorse of the military's tactical airlift fleet for more than 50 years. The versatile Hercules was originally designed in the 1950s as an assault transport. Over the years, however, it has been adapted for a variety of important missions, including special operations, close-air support and air interdiction, mid-air space capsule recovery, search and rescue missions, aerial refueling of helicopters, weather mapping and reconnaissance, electronic surveillance, firefighting, aerial spraying, Arctic-Antarctic ice resupply and natural disaster missions. It has even landed and taken off from a carrier deck without the benefit of arresting gears or catapults. Currently, the Hercules primarily performs the intra-theater portion of the Air Force's tactical airlift mission. This medium-range aircraft is capable of operating from rough dirt strips and is the prime transport for paratroop and equipment drops into hostile areas, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, more than half the fleet of combat delivery C-130s is over 30 years old. Although their longevity is clearly a testament to the value of these crucial aircraft, we should be very concerned that the C-130 E and H models continue to age at alarming rates, putting our tactical airlift capability at risk in the near term. In fact, yesterday, the Air Force announced that they are grounding much of the C-130E models because of severe fatigue in their wings, including a dozen that have been flying missions in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, some of these planes were used in Vietnam, and we are literally flying their wings off in the Middle East. The Air Force has long anticipated the aging of the older models, which only makes it more remarkable that the multiyear contract to replace these planes has been carved out of the budget. Another astonishing fact is that the Department of Defense will not save any money. In fact, the perceived savings generated by the proposed cuts will unquestionably be consumed by over $800 million in termination liability costs and billions of dollars in increased costs to support aging and less capable aircraft. Consequently, this proposal to end the C-130J program could end up costing the American taxpayer more than the cost of completing the multiyear contract, and it will leave our military with far less capable planes. Furthermore, not a single study or any analysis of the total effect of terminating this program was conducted prior to the cancellation decision. And that, Mr. Speaker, is troubling. If left unchecked, this dismantling of our aerospace manufacturing base will also come just when subsidized foreign competitors are jockeying to displace United States manufacturing. Once lost, hard- acquired industrial skills will not easily return to our workforce. In some cases, they will never come back. Once the Department of Defense inevitably realizes they cannot continue to rebuild old planes, their only viable option to replace the medium-range tactical airlift would be to purchase new aircraft from France. Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues realize that the C- 130J is not just designed to replace the older models. In reality, the J model has revolutionized the world of tactical airlift. In addition to being 15 feet longer, the J is faster, more powerful, more reliable, easier to maintain, more technologically advanced and capable of flying higher and farther than ever before. Today, both U.S. and Allied C-130Js are performing operational missions in the Middle East in support of our warfighters, as well in support of the tsunami relief effort in Southeast Asia. The J is performing superbly and testimonials from the pilots using the new planes have been extremely positive. Mr. Speaker, there is a glimmer of hope that the Department of Defense has realized the negative implications of this decision in the short and long term and may be working to reverse the decision. But we in Congress must continue to do everything in our power to ensure America's ability to transport troops and supplies and to perform critical humanitarian missions both today and in the future.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to Carter Wallace, a Brookstone High School student from Columbus, Georgia, who has been named one of the top two youth volunteers in the State. On Tuesday, Carter accepted the Prudential Spirit of Community Award for his inspiring work on behalf of low-income families in western Georgia. Carter is the founder of Habi-TOT for Humanity, a nonprofit foundation that purchases and assembles playgrounds for children who move into Habitat for Humanity homes. Carter motivated friends from his Boy Scout troop and Brookstone High School to lend a hand in building the playhouses. He said he was moved to start this project because many of these children had never had a back yard to play in, and he wanted to make their first one special. Carter's creativity and dedication to low- income children is inspiring. He organized fundraising bake sales and wrote to nearly a hundred community members soliciting support. His efforts paid off. In the first year and a half, Habi-TOT for Humanity bought, assembled, and delivered 36 playhouses to needy families. Carter is a role model for us all. He set a fine example of community service for young people across this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in commending Carter Wallace for this award.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to come to the floor today to speak in favor of reforming our system for asylum and against the move to strike the necessary reforms incorporated in H.R. 418. It has been suggested throughout out this debate yesterday and today that because there is no specific recommendation made by the 9-11 commission to reform our asylum system that we in Congress should do nothing to fix it. That in my opinion is insane. My colleagues and friends on the other side of the isle suggest we stick our heads in the sand and ignore one of the tools used by terrorists to gain access to and remain in our country. Make no mistake, the 9-11 commission report does specifically state that our asylum system was and is used by terrorists to carry out their schemes to kill Americans. Let me quote from the report and its accompanying statements: The report states, speaking of the first Trade Center bombing, ``. . .Ramazi Yousef, who had also entered with fraudulent documents but claimed political asylum and was admitted. It quickly became clear that Yousef had been a central player in the attack. He had fled to Pakistan immediately after the bombing and would remain at large for nearly two years.'' Later in the report it talks about the outdated immigration benefits system, ``. . .when Doris Meissner became INS Commissioner in 1993, she found . . . the asylum and other benefits systems did not effectively deter fraudulent applicants. Finally, ``Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition.'' ``this could be accomplished . . . by applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit (such as claiming asylum) sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.'' So, if I am to understand my friends on the other side, we are to ignore the problem of asylum abuse and do nothing.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the Committee on Rules. I rise in full support of the rule and the underlying bill. I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who keep saying, we are not given enough time and we are rushing all of these complicated issues that we have not discussed, but these provisions I remind my colleagues, they were in the original bill that we passed on the House side, the Intel bill. Unfortunately, they were taken out by the Senate conferees. We are asking to do the things that the 9/11 Commission, all 10 of them, in their unanimous report, asked us to do. Listen to this: ``If terrorist travel options are reduced, they may be forced to rely on means of interaction which can be more easily monitored and to resort to travel documents which are more readily detectable.'' The 9/11 Commission Report, page 65, ``All but one of the 9/11 hijackers acquired some form of United States identification document, some by fraud.'' Acquisition of these forms of identification would have assisted them in boarding commercial flights, renting cars, and other necessary activities. The 9/11 Commission Report, page 390, ``My daughter worked at the Republican Convention this summer. I worried about her. Unbeknownst to me, during the convention an illegal alien from Pakistan was picked up and arrested for attempting to bomb the Herald Square subway station. She rode on that subway every day going back and forth to work.'' He was quoted as saying, ``I want at least 1,000 to 2,000 to die in a single day.'' And that alien had applied for asylum. Mr. Speaker, these are sensible provisions. We are completing the work of the Intel bill, and I support it. We need to get it done and we need bipartisan support.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, in Washington, officials commonly use studies and reports to legitimize various policies, and often the guidelines by which these studies are established can force a researcher into predetermined results. Traditionally, the Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR, has been above this type of sincere process, as it is a serious exercise intended to produce a Pentagon strategic blueprint for defending our Nation from future threats. This year, however, I fear that the new QDR guidelines will overtly deemphasize conventional threats, which would result in long-term setbacks for our national defense. I recognize the need to focus greater attention on the current asymmetric threat of terrorism and the need to drastically rein in Federal spending this year to decrease the budget deficit. However, it should not come at the expense of our ability to defeat well- established threats in the future. Released on Monday, the Pentagon's 2006 budget would cut off the procurement of the F/A-22 Raptor after 2008. With these cuts, several high-tech sectors within our Nation's defense industrial base would be crippled, costing America good-paying jobs, future innovation and, most important, critical military capabilities. Mr. Speaker, under the proposed budget, the Pentagon would buy just 179 F/A-22 Raptors, well short of the original 381 proposed by the Air Force. In exchange for nominal short-term savings, the move would significantly increase the cost of each aircraft at a time when production would otherwise be affordable through economy of scale. Investing nearly $30 billion in research and development in the world's best fighter jet and then buying less than what the Air Force needs to guarantee future air dominance just does not make sense. It is as if we discovered the cure for cancer and then we skimped on the lifesaving drugs. Remarkably, the proposed cuts appear to have been made against the advice of the war planners, because Pentagon bureaucrats are ignoring the Air Force wartime requirement of the 381 F/A-22s, a number that the Secretary accepted in the last QDR. The Pentagon arrived at these pre- 9/11 force levels because the F/A-22 offers unique capabilities against growing threats in the western Pacific and elsewhere. Also, a recent military exercise between the United States and Air Force fighter pilots from India, called COPE India, proved beyond a doubt that the new foreign-made fighters now outmatch our F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s. Furthermore, these bureaucrats are ignoring the impact that the proposed F/A-22 cuts will have on future domestic high technology production and design capacity. The American aerospace industry stands to lose more than 40,000 jobs nationwide, with some 160 suppliers in 43 States. This dismantling of our home-grown technology base would come just when subsidized foreign competitors are jockeying to displace United States manufacturing. Once lost, these hard-acquired skills will not easily return to our workforce; and, in some cases, they will never return. In the end, at stake are vital national interests: American technology know-how, our global positions in the aerospace industry, and, most importantly, the safety of our men and women serving overseas. We must focus our armed services on more than just the asymmetries of a global war on terrorism. We cannot ignore, Mr. Speaker, a rising China, nuclear Iran, increasingly unstable North Korea, and other unconventional military threats that may need to be faced by the capabilities found in the F/A-22. It is the job of any administration to produce an annual budget that satisfies the Nation's immediate needs like the war in Iraq. But we in Congress also have a leadership responsibility to prevent rash and unwise decisions destined to actually increase spending and cripple our ability to effectively defend against future threats.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and today I rise in strong support of the Solomon Amendment and as a proud cosponsor of the resolution that is before us. For the last several years, a growing number of law schools have subjected military recruiters to various degrees of harassment designed to make military recruiting difficult and to frustrate their objectives. Military recruiting on university campuses is one of the primary means by which the Armed Forces retains highly qualified new military personnel; and it is an integral, effective, and necessary part of overall military recruiting. The Constitution gives Congress the power to attach reasonable stipulations to those who accept Federal dollars. The Solomon Law simply ensures that the military has fair access to recruited institutions of higher learning that willingly accept this Federal funding. Mr. Speaker, every year, without fail, the military comes under a great deal of criticism for hiring too many low-income, disadvantaged young adults. However, I find it remarkably ironic that these institutions are obstructing a more balanced recruiting effort that includes a patriotic commitment from all sectors of society. Furthermore, the point has to be made that the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines that are being treated like second-class citizens at these universities are also the same brave men and women that are providing the freedom these schools enjoy. Mr. Speaker, efforts by these universities to restrict military recruiter access can only have the harmful effect of increasing Federal spending to achieve mandated end-strength goals and ultimately compromising the readiness and performance of our military. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. I sincerely hope there will be a strong bipartisan effort of support, and I commend my good friends from Minnesota and Alabama for their leadership on this issue.

Mr. GINGREY

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, as I was waiting for our time to arrive this evening listening to this previous hour, my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle started out by telling us what the President might say tomorrow night about Social Security for the 21st century. Then for 60 minutes the Democrats proceeded to use their typical scare tactics to frighten seniors just as they did last year with the issue of the prescription drug benefit for our neediest Medicare beneficiaries. They have the prerogative to talk about anything they want to during this Democratic leadership hour, and they make a decision or their leaders decide whatever the theme du jour is going to be. After all, my colleagues, remember, our 2006 congressional elections are just around the corner. We have only got 639 days left. So let us be just as partisan and negative as we can possibly be toward President Bush and his Republican majority. That is their theme du jour. As I say, my colleagues on the other side, the Democrats and their leaders, they had a choice of topics tonight. They could have talked about anything they wanted to on this eve of what will be one of the most historic State of the Union addresses in the history of our country. My fellow Members, for almost 2 years now, we have been in a shooting war, fighting to rid the world of terrorism, and to bring liberty and freedom to the long-suffering Iraqi people. These brave souls had an opportunity this past Sunday, just 3 days ago, January 30, to vote for the first time in their lives, indeed a vindication, a renewal of spirit, a new beginning for a great and proud people of the Middle East. I fully expect the President, and my colleagues were predicting what he might say tomorrow night, I fully expect the President to talk about this great, historic occasion. And that, my colleagues, is what we the Republicans and our leadership have decided to talk about tonight to the American people on the eve of the State of the Union address, to talk about the historic election that occurred in Iraq just 3 days ago. I think that is what is important to the American people. It is important to the Iraqi people. It is important to the world. And to delve down into pure, raw partisan politics at a time like this again, as I say, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can do what they want to, but I think they missed a golden opportunity to hear some joy and good news and vindication, yes, of our efforts and the efforts of the Iraqi people over the last couple of years. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the Members' attention to a couple of charts that we have here tonight. The first one, from the Los Angeles Times, Monday morning, January 31, look at it: ``Iraqi Turnout Trumps Violence.'' Yes, there were some people killed, I think some 44. At least half of them were Iraqi security people who were trying to secure the polls and making sure the good men and women, some of them disabled, struggling to get to the polling place in Iraq, could vote and not be harmed. Look at that headline from the Los Angeles Times. Here is another, The Washington Post, Monday, January 31: ``Iraqis Defy Threats As Millions Vote.'' How many million? Eight million, 60 percent of the registered votes. In fact, that percentage is just as high as we had in our recent Presidential elections in many parts of this country, where we do not have to worry about getting to the polling place. We have to worry about maybe missing a son or a daughter's soccer match or being late for work, which of course we are permitted to do that on Election Day; but we certainly do not have to worry about the threat of violence or indeed losing our lives and here, 60 percent, millions, vote, 8 million people in Iraq. And expatriate Iraqis around this world in 14 different countries had an opportunity to vote on this historic occasion and in many places here in the United States as well. So this is what we want to talk about. This is what the Republican leadership, this is what the rank-and-file Members want to talk about tonight as we celebrate and we look forward and we are so happy and grateful for the sacrifices that the Iraqi people have made for themselves and that we have made on behalf of them, and we want to commend this President for having the courage to stand strong in the face of unyielding, terrible criticism of his efforts. So tonight it gives me a lot of pleasure to manage this time on behalf of the majority to talk about something that is really good and positive for this great country and for our world, certainly for the Middle East. I am so pleased that many of my colleagues on my side of the aisle have joined me in this hour, and we will be hearing from a number of them. I want to start out by yielding to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), who serves with me on the House Committee on Armed Services, a great Member of this body who just got back from Iraq, led a small congressional delegation of members of the House Committee on Armed Services to be over there to see, to understand what the people were going through in the lead-up to these elections. At this point, I would like to let him share with us exactly what he saw on the ground in Iraq in the lead-up to these historic elections. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota, and I thank him for being with us tonight.

Mr. GINGREY. Let us come back.

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah, my good friend, for joining us tonight and for bringing some historical perspective. Absolutely, once a history teacher, always a history teacher; but I would say tonight to my colleagues, we are talking about a world-class history teacher, and he gave us a good lesson in Romanian history. I am standing up here listening to my colleague, and yes, I have long since forgotten they went through this struggle less than 15 years ago, in talking about of course the French Revolution and the fact that something historic happened on Sunday. But there is a lot more work to be done, as the gentleman from Utah so clearly pointed out. We are not through, and for us to listen to naysayers as we had to listen throughout this entire recent Presidential and congressional election cycle, about declare victory and come home even if you have not won. Look for an exit strategy. Bring the troops home. Give us a day. How many? What day? This is totally wrong, and I really appreciate the gentleman bringing that to our attention tonight. We have been joined as well by my colleague, the gentlewoman from the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and she is a passionate Member of this body and works very intently for the people of her State and her district and for this great country. It is a privilege tonight for me to recognize her and thank her for being with us.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I share the joy of the gentleman from Minnesota; and I commend him, and I thank him for being with us tonight, and I commend him for his service on the Committee on Armed Services and for his service to our country. He is a veteran, one of the 5 percent of the 435 Members of the Congress who served our country in the military. People serve in other ways, but I have a special place in my heart for people like the gentleman from Minnesota. For him to come tonight and talk about what he saw in Afghanistan a year after elections, 30 percent of the voting in Afghanistan was by women, and talk about that lack of infrastructure, and then to go on to Iraq in the days leading up to the election itself and to see those Iraqi security forces working hard to try to secure, to protect these people who were having the first opportunity in their lives to vote. Yes, there were terrorist attacks, as the gentleman points out. I think there were some 68 or 69 attacks. But do my colleagues know what? Forty-four people lost their lives and over half of them were the Iraqi security forces themselves, the police, not the people standing in line to vote. I have been to Iraq, like the gentleman from Minnesota has, I am sure on more than one occasion. He knows that these improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades and these shoulder-mounted missiles, when these terrorists strike, they do not intend to kill less than one person per attack, and that is what happened on election day in Iraq this last Sunday. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I have a couple of Members on our side of the aisle, a couple of additional Members who have joined me and will be talking about this historic occasion as we look forward to the President's address tomorrow night. One of my colleagues I would like to yield time to now is a dear friend and a fellow colleague on the House Committee on Armed Services, and that is the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, so the congressman actually had the opportunity with that delegation to visit not only Iraq but also Afghanistan and to sort of compare what it looks like a year later after free elections were held and what hopefully the Iraqi people can anticipate for themselves. He might want to elaborate on that for the Members.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to share with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle the poster, exactly what he was just depicting, and I think maybe we can get that up here because this is poignant. This is something that we absolutely need to make sure that each one of us focus in on. I am so glad that the gentleman from Minnesota brought that up, and I think this is the picture to which he is referring.