Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling of our Financial Services Committee and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt), my friend, for their very hard work in bringing this important legislation to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 1105, the Small Business Capital Access and Job Preservation Act. This legislation addresses yet another misguided provision of the Dodd-Frank Act that will help ensure that private equity maintains its critical role in our economy.

Private equity firms provide capital to Main Street businesses in Missouri and all across our country and, importantly, private equity often invests in companies when others are unwilling to do so. These investments support nearly 18,000 businesses in the United States that employ some 7.5 million workers.

Unfortunately, the Dodd-Frank Act seeks to make it more difficult for private equity to maintain this important economic role. To my knowledge, no evidence has been produced which shows that private equity was the cause of the 2008 financial crisis, or that it presents a systemic risk to our financial system.

It makes little sense, then, to impose unnecessary and costly red tape burdens on private equity investors which will only make it more difficult for them to invest in American businesses and create jobs.

H.R. 1105 is, therefore, a necessary response to an overreach of the Dodd-Frank Act and will help support Main Street businesses and jobs all throughout our country.

I am pleased to support this very bipartisan bill and urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1105.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I have received countless examples of heartbreaking stories from the people of Missouri's Second Congressional District about how government-run health care is impacting their lives.

Today, I rise to put a face on the failures of ObamaCare and to tell Pam and Dennis Hopmann's story, who hail from Chesterfield, Missouri. This is their story in their own words:

We are livid that President Obama broke his promise to us

about keeping our doctors. The Federal Government has very

few success stories at running programs, and this is a prime

example. Not only am I going to lose my insurance, but I also

received a letter that I would lose care from my OB/GYN

doctor, whom I have seen for 30 years. I wanted to stay with

my plan. There was nothing wrong with it. It was not a

``junk'' plan, which Obama so frequently likes to call them.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of millions of examples of real people being hurt by ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, I have received far too many heartbreaking stories from the people of the 2nd District about how government-run healthcare is impacting their lives.

Today, I rise to put a face on the horrors of ObamaCare and tell Jim and Kim Curtis's story who hail from Arnold, in Missouri.

This is their story in their own words.

We, the working middle class, are the ones who are being

hurt by this law.

We struggle every day to make ends meet.

But now, because of Obamacare, we received a notice from

the insurance company that the plan we currently pay for does

not meet the guidelines and we will no longer be covered on

January 1st, 2014.

``Now we have to find an extra $500 to $600 minimum per

month to cover the insurance that is comparable to what we

had before. I have no idea how we will afford that kind of

money and pay our bills and mortgage each month ``

This is just one of the millions of examples of real people

being hurt by ObamaCare.

This story is from Kim Curtis, a Senior Underwriter at an insurance company in Saint Louis, MO:

We, the working middle class, are the ones who are being

hurt by this law.

We struggle every day to make ends meet. The one bright

spot is that the middle sized family owned company that my

husband works for paid 100% of both of our health care and

dental premiums on a very good PPO plan. That was a huge

benefit and a saving grace.

But now, because of Obamacare, we have received notice from

the insurance company that the plan that they currently pay

for does not meet the marketplace guidelines and we will no

longer be covered effective on January 1st, 2014. They are

not paying anything towards our insurance at all.

So now we will be trying to scramble to come up with an

extra $500-$600 min per month to cover the insurance that is

comparable to the plan that we had. I have medical issues so

I have quite a few doctor visits and bills each year so I am

not cheap to cover so it may even be more than that.

Thanks for your time and again thanks for standing up for

us. Someone needs to help us before we all go bankrupt and

lose everything we have worked so hard to build up during our

lifetimes.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, I have received far too many heartbreaking stories from the people of Missouri's Second District about how government-run health care is impacting their lives.

Today, I rise to put a face on the horrors of ObamaCare and tell Jim and Kim Curtis' story, who hail from Arnold, Missouri.

This is their story in their own words:

We, the working middle class, are the ones who are being

hurt by this law. We struggle

every day to make ends meet. But now, because of ObamaCare,

we received a notice from the insurance company that the plan

we currently pay for does not meet the guidelines, and we

will no longer be covered on January 1, 2014.

Now we have to find an extra $500 to $600 minimum per month

to cover the insurance that is comparable to what we had

before. I have no idea how we will afford that kind of money

and pay our bills and mortgage each month.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of millions of examples of real people being hurt by ObamaCare.

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank Chairman Hensarling and Chairman Garrett for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank my Financial Services Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work and support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, we have been caught up in a fierce debate over the imperiled balance sheet of our Nation. It goes without saying that for a Nation that is $17 trillion in debt, getting our Federal balance sheet under control remains of extreme importance for future generations of Americans.

We must also keep in mind these days that it is not just the Federal balance sheet that is upside down. Indeed, the household balance sheet of American families is under some of the greatest stress we have seen in decades. Median household income has declined by $2,400 since the previous recession ended in June of 2009. Millions of Americans remain out of work, and an alarming number of our fellow citizens have flat- out given up on their search to find a job. Recent studies have shown that an alarming percentage of Americans do not have adequate savings set aside for their retirement. The fact is that many families in Missouri and all across the country are struggling just to make it to the 15th and the 30th of every month, let alone finding the ability to put something away for retirement or for a rainy day.

Regrettably, despite all of these economic challenges, two Federal agencies are on a path towards making it even harder for our fellow citizens to save and invest money for the future. At issue are attempts by the Department of Labor and the SEC to increase the liability of financial professionals that provide services to hardworking families all across our country. These new rules are likely to impose tremendous new burdens on Main Street businesses and will take choices away from hardworking families who understand better than anyone else what investments are in their ``best interest.''

For example, when the Department of Labor originally proposed the new ``fiduciary'' rules in 2010, it was pointed out by several commentators and by Republicans and Democrats in Congress that the likely result would not have been enhanced investor protection. Rather, scores of low- and moderate-income Americans would have suddenly found themselves unable to work with a financial professional and unable to make investments that would help them achieve financial security for their future.

Similar dynamics are at play with the SEC. Without providing any evidence of investor harm, the SEC is heading towards a rulemaking that could disrupt the valuable relationship that Americans have with their financial professionals. Perhaps most concerning, these two agencies appear to be on a collision course with one another and could end up issuing two very different and conflicting rules.

Recently, the SEC issued a 72-page request for information to support a rulemaking, but nowhere, nowhere in this request did the SEC mention the Department of Labor's fiduciary project or its effect on the SEC's work. So despite the claims we have heard from both agencies, it doesn't appear that there is much coordination going on at all. This suggests that we are heading toward a situation where rules come into conflict with one another, creating a great amount of confusion and cost for businesses and retail investors.

That brings us to H.R. 2374, the Retail Investor Protection Act, which passed the House Financial Services Committee in June by a bipartisan vote of 44-13. To those who are just tuning in to this debate, it may help to understand exactly who it is we are talking about when we use the term ``retail investor.''

``Retail investor'' could describe two young working parents that are trying to figure out ways to save for that first home. It could describe a single mother who has scraped together $1,000 to open up an IRA or an educational account for her child. Or it could describe a new dad looking to set up an insurance policy for his family.

It is these Americans that will be hurt the most by overbearing and misguided rules that prohibit them from making investments they both want and desperately need.

So the underlying legislation is quite simple. First, it requires that the Department of Labor wait for the SEC to act before issuing new fiduciary rules. I would note that a recent letter from 10 Democratic Senators to the Office of Management and Budget made this very same request.

Second, the legislation requires that the SEC identify whether investors are being harmed or disadvantaged under current regulations. In other words, the SEC would have to identify a problem it is trying to address. The SEC would also have to identify whether new rules would restrict investor access to financial products and services and show that any final rule would actually reduce any confusion investors have over standards of conduct within the industry.

In short, this bill brings much-needed checks and balances to a regulatory process gone bad.

We must remember what is at stake here. Americans invest trillions of dollars through IRAs, education accounts, and other investment vehicles. The Retail Investor Protection Act would require that Federal agencies act in the best interest of all investors and would go a long way towards preserving access to financial services for Americans of all income levels.

I thank my colleagues again for their support, and I urge passage of the bill.

Chamber of Commerce

United States of America,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2013.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business

federation representing the interests of more than three

million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as

well as state and local chambers and industry associations,

and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and

defending America's free enterprise system, strong supports

H.R. 2374, the ``Retail Investor Protection Act.'' The

Chamber believes that ensuring retail investors have

continued access to their choice of financial products and

services that best meet their needs will help meet investment

objectives, secure retirement security, and bolster long-term

economic growth.

If enacted, the Retail Investor Protection Act would

require that the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'')

complete a rulemaking on fiduciary standards for broker

dealers before the Department of Labor (``DOL'') finalizes

its rule redefining a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement

Income Security Act, as the two agencies have shown to work

at cross-purposes on their fiduciary initiatives. Due to the

increasing overlap between the DOL and SEC in the area of

retirement plans and the related nature of each agency's

fiduciary initiative, the Chamber believes that the two

agencies should coordinate and work in a systematic manner,

allowing the SEC to complete its rules first to avoid

investor confusion, regulatory conflict, and one rule being

usurped by the other.

H.R. 2374 would also require that before the SEC

promulgates new rules expanding the fiduciary standard in the

retail investor context, it must first (1) identify any

issues with the current fiduciary structure; and (2) identify

whether uniform fiduciary standards for broker dealers and

investment advisors would have any adverse impact, resulting

in reduced products and services for retail investors. These

are all common sense measures that would ensure the

appropriate balance in investor protection while mitigating

potentially harmful consequences.

The Chamber also opposes an amendment expected to be

offered by Rep. George Miller and Rep. John Conyers, which

would completely undermine the intent of a provision in H.R.

2374 by giving DOL free reign to promulgate rules without

prioritization and consideration of the SEC's fiduciary

initiative. Moreover, the Miller-Conyers Amendment would also

deprive owners, directors, and shareholders of the ability to

manage a business by authorizing the DOL to set compensation

for investment advisors and financial services providers,

thus shifting some securities oversight away from the SEC and

to the DOL.

The Chamber strongly supports the Retail Investor

Protection Act and opposes the Miller-Conyers Amendment. The

Chamber may consider including votes on, or in relation to,

this bill and the Miller-Conyers Amendment in our How They

Voted scorecard.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten,

Executive Vice President.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The language of the amendment attempts to sound benign, but its inclusion would undermine a key tenet of the legislation, which is a requirement that the Department of Labor wait for the SEC to finish any rulemaking in this area.

It has been noted time and time again by Chairman Hensarling and others that 10 Democratic Senators recently sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget requesting that Labor wait on the SEC. So there seems to be bipartisan and, as we have stated before, bicameral consensus for the process here.

I also must say that I find some of the terms in the amendment particularly troubling. The amendment would allow the Department of Labor to define what constitutes a ``financial services provider,'' a term that I believe is broad and which I am not sure the Department of Labor has either the expertise or the jurisdiction to rule upon.

Paragraph 3 of the amendment also states that the Department of Labor's rules should provide for ``reasonable compensation'' within the industry. I, for one, do not believe that it is up to the Federal Government to determine what constitutes reasonable compensation. That is a determination that belongs to consumers and to investors who I believe are more than capable of determining for themselves what is reasonable.

The Retail Investor Protection Act would require that Federal agencies act in the best interest of all investors and would go a long way towards preserving access to financial services for Americans of all income levels. This, Mr. Speaker, is about access. It is about availability. It is about affordability for hardworking American families and investors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to actually agree with President Obama that his signature health care law is indeed much more than a Web site riddled with technical glitches. Just ask any hardworking family in the Second District of Missouri who have seen their premiums skyrocket, wages decreased, insurance coverage canceled of late, and hours cut back at work. The simple truth is the President's Web site is just a sign of what is to come: ObamaCare is a disastrous law for the American people.

One of the most valuable lessons that I have learned over the last 9 months as a new Member of Congress is that more government is never the answer to the problems facing our Nation. ObamaCare makes the real problem of health care costs worse. ObamaCare has made offering health care for small business worse. ObamaCare raises premiums, destroys the doctor-patient relationship, and makes the quality of our health care worse.

When President Obama promised the American people in 2009: ``If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,'' well, we now know that this claim was a blatant falsehood.

Time and time again, the President has only offered broken promises to the American people. President Obama recently spoke in the Rose Garden about who is benefiting from government-run health care; yet he failed to talk about the millions of Americans who are suffering from it.

I would like to take a moment to talk about a small business owner from Missouri's Second District who is facing the harsh realities of ObamaCare. Jenn is the owner of Cotton Babies, a small business that makes high-quality diapers for consumers all over the world. As a result of ObamaCare, her premiums are projected to double, not only putting her livelihood in jeopardy, but her employees' as well. Now Jenn is facing a difficult business decision regarding the employment opportunities and the price of her products going forward.

Jenn wrote to me recently and said:

We can't afford the change in health care premiums. We

manufacture in the USA. We collectively cause the employment

of thousands all over the United States. Hundreds of small

retailers depend on my brands for revenue. We make American-

made cloth diaper brands that help families who literally

choose between diapers and food.

Jenn later went on to say:

I believe in affordable health care. I believe in taking

care of the needy. We provide great health care insurance to

our staff. We pay for 70 percent of the premium for the staff

members and their entire family. We operate on microscopic

margins and have valued taking care of our employees over

taking a profit. I simply don't know how we, as a small

business, are going to be able to shoulder the load with

these changes.

Madam Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, this is just one of the many examples of real people being hurt by ObamaCare. It is time we realize that no matter how many tech experts President Obama hires to fix his $600 million-plus taxpayer-paid Web site, it will never stop ObamaCare from hurting the American people.

As your Representative, I will never stop fighting until ObamaCare is replaced with free market-based solutions that expand access without destroying our economy and lowering the quality of care.

Mr. Speaker, moments ago, I joined veterans from all over Missouri's Show Me State at the sacred grounds of our Nation's World War II Memorial. This memorial is a monument to the spirit and sacrifice of our veterans, and yet Harry Reid and the President decided to slam the door on the American people and block the House from providing benefits to our Nation's heroes and keeping our national treasures open.

Time and time again, the House has voted to keep the government open and provide fairness for all Americans--fairness from an administration that believes they can pick and choose which laws to enforce, while subjecting the American people to the heavy burdens of ObamaCare; fairness from a President who thinks ObamaCare doesn't apply to Members of Congress or the White House.

As a result of partisan bickering and gridlock, I have waived my salary for the duration of the government shutdown because Congress didn't get the job done. Those who make the laws should live by the laws, and I will continue to fight for the people of Missouri's Second District.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate the Fireman's Fund Insurance

Company, which on September 24th of this year will celebrate its 150th anniversary in O'Fallon, Missouri. As the representative of Missouri's 2nd district, I am honored to recognize such an innovative company with a long history in the state of Missouri and throughout the country.

Since its founding in 1863 by retired ship captain William Holdredge, Fireman's Fund has been involved with several important events in our nation's history. Fireman's Fund has insured construction of such national treasures as the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam, in addition to the renovation of the Statue of Liberty in the 1980's. And for those of us from Missouri, we are particularly aware that it was a Fireman's Fund policy which helped provide for the production of Charles Lindbergh's ``Spirit of St. Louis'' plane in 1927.

The company was also the first to offer a standing grain insurance policy in the United States, and the first to offer nationwide automobile insurance and standardized homeowners insurance. Such innovation has contributed to new ideas for the insurance industry, but more importantly it has contributed to the sustained economic growth of our country over the last century and a half.

Fireman's Fund embodies some of the best values of American business. Not only is the company committed to servicing its customers, it is also committed to giving back to communities all across the country. In fact, the name ``Fireman's Fund'' comes from the company's founding social mission to award a portion of its profits to the widows and orphans of fallen firefighters. This commitment to the fire service was renewed in 2004, and since that time Fireman's Fund has awarded roughly $30 million in grants to fire departments across the country. And in the wake of the May 2011 tornado that devastated Joplin, Missouri, Fireman's Fund was there to offer support for the victims of that catastrophe.

It is indeed an honor to recognize such a great American company on its 150th anniversary. I thank the employees of Fireman's Fund for all they do, and wish them many more years of continued success and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 12 years, September 11 has been a day of solemn remembrance in America. And 1 year ago, it was a day of violence in Benghazi that ended with four dead Americans during a planned terrorist track.

Mr. Speaker, as a former United States Ambassador, I rise today in honor of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Their families and the American people deserve answers; they deserve the truth and, more importantly, justice.

One year later, there are still so many unanswered questions: Why did we not answer the cries for greater security at the U.S. consulate? Why in the days and weeks after Benghazi did the administration lie about the terrorist attack? And who gave the stand-down order?

It is shameful that the Obama administration has refused to track and punish those who attacked and murdered these four Americans. The American people deserve answers.

The Congress should convene a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi. The victims' families deserve the truth. The American people deserve a Commander in Chief that stands for strength, liberty, and justice.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on a series of bills that aim to stop government abuse. Mr. Speaker, it is extremely disheartening that the Federal Government has acted and continues to act in a manner that cultivates distrust. Unfortunately, there are countless examples of misconduct among the Federal agencies, ranging from the IRS discriminating against conservative groups, to denying American citizens their constitutional rights in administrative proceedings.

Over the past month, I have heard from 1,187 of my constituents regarding their distrust in government; and as more activities of the agencies and the executive branch come to light, who can blame them. What is even more troubling than the misconduct itself is the fact that the President stands by it. Last week he called such transgressions ``phony scandals.''

These are hardly phony scandals. These are real and unconscionable actions taken by our Federal Government, and these actions are unacceptable. It is past time for us to do something about it.

We must take the necessary steps to start earning the trust of the American people, and that's why I back and have cosponsored several bills to be considered in the House this week. They are commonsense measures that work to begin restoring confidence in the American people.

I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding and for her leadership on this particular issue, and for the wonderful bipartisan support that we've all shown here today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation that would create a safe reporting environment for military sexual assault victims and would demand accountability from our military leaders.

As a mother with a son currently serving in the 101st Airborne, I know all too well the many hardships and sacrifices that our military men and women face while protecting our country. Every precious moment I have to be able to call or Skype with my son, I am constantly reminded of all of the things that are on his and every other soldier's mind as they are keeping our country safe so that the rest of us can have peace of mind back here at home.

Every servicemember from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard bears such a heavy burden to which we all owe our utmost gratitude, and it infuriates me to think that for many of these young men and women, the situation of sexual assault is one of the things they must deal with as they are preparing themselves to face the enemy.

So it is with incredible sadness and frustration that I come before you all today to speak on the increasing incidence of sexual assault in our military and how very few of those cases end up being reported. For many victims of sexual assault, the fear of retaliation by other members of the military prevents them from reporting these crimes, and as a result, they must bear the burden of their emotional and physical pain alone and in silence.

I stand here today to say that our servicemembers who sacrifice so much for the cause of liberty and put themselves in the line of duty should have absolutely no worries about their own liberties and whether they will face retaliation for reporting reprehensible and abusive crimes committed against them.

This legislation would hold the responsible individuals accountable for their actions and would require an inspector general investigation into allegations of retaliatory actions taken against victims who have reported alleged instances of rape, sexual assault, and other forms of sexual misconduct in the military. Existing law already provides these whistleblower protections for a member of the Armed Forces who reports sexual harassment. And by extending these protections to reporting of more serious crimes of sexual assault, it is not only just common sense, it is simply the right thing to do. And it needs to be done now.

By doing nothing, we are implicitly allowing the continuation of this deplorable behavior and allowing those who have committed these crimes to go unpunished. Not addressing sexual assault in our military threatens to erode our Armed Forces from within and gives people considering enlisting, along with their families, even more to worry about as they consider the great responsibility of serving our country.

I am so proud of my son and the rest of our Armed Forces, and I will do everything to protect the integrity and the reputation of our military. This legislation is the first step we can take in fixing this problem and shows that we take these allegations very seriously.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bipartisan bill that will help protect our servicemembers as they protect us.

As I stand before you, President Obama is down the street at this moment outlining his proposal to tackle climate change, with the centerpiece of his plan aimed at attacking the backbone of affordable energy in America.

While he will not explicitly say it, this is the next step in this administration's war on coal that they have been waging for the past 5 years and which will not stop until all coal-fired power plants in this country have been shut down by the EPA.

I, on the other hand, believe that producing affordable energy and being environmentally sound are not mutually exclusive, and I truly support an all-of-the-above policy that utilizes renewable and clean technology without eliminating our most reliable source of energy.

Instead, the President's current course of action is a direct attack on the middle class who are affected more by rising energy costs, all under the deception of pursuing climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly suggest that the President consider the American people first when making these decisions on our country's energy policies.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of veterans, and one veteran in particular, one of St. Louis' all-time heroes, Stan Musial.

Stan the Man Musial is best known as the greatest player in St. Louis Cardinals history, winner of three World Series as a player and one more as general manager, a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and as one of the greatest players to ever play our beloved national pastime.

However, Stan Musial was also a great patriot. He temporarily left the St. Louis Cardinals during the Second World War to serve his country in the Navy. Stan and the Cardinals had just won the 1944 World Series when Stan left to serve during the war. And after the war, he returned to his beloved St. Louis Cardinals to bring home yet another World Series Championship in 1946.

His athleticism and his greatness as a player are self-evident. His 3,630 hits are the fourth-highest in baseball history. Stan is also one of only seven players to hit 400 home runs and have over 3,000 hits.

A model of consistency, Stan Musial could hit a baseball anywhere he was, home or away, finishing his career with 1,815 hits at home and 1,815 hits on the road. A former teammate described Stan's tremendous talent like this: ``He could have hit 300 with a fountain pen.''

Those who had the privilege to see Stan Musial play baseball swear that he was the greatest player they ever saw put on a St. Louis Cardinals uniform. Yet Stan the Man stood for something more than his two decades of sustained excellence in baseball--he was an exemplary human being.

To baseball fans around the country, Stan Musial represented perfection as a ballplayer and as a gentleman. But to those of us from St. Louis, he represented so much more; he was our neighbor and he was our friend.

There has never been a better representative of the Cardinals or baseball--or, for that matter, humanity--than Stan Musial. Carrying himself with dignity, Stan was always willing to sign an autograph and meet fans, or do anything to help a friend in need.

I recently asked constituents to share some of their Stan Musial memories with me. And while many of them remember watching him play baseball, it was his kindness and his humility that set him apart. One constituent told me that as a child he lived in the same neighborhood as Stan Musial. Stan would play baseball with him and other neighborhood kids during the off-season.

Many from St. Louis remember Stan going out of his way to sign autographs for young fans or lend his good name to charitable and civic events. Others remember his visits to St. Louis hospitals and the joy that he brought to both the patients and the staff. But all remember that he was a happy and a joyful person who made you feel better and made you want to be a better person just by being in his presence.

After he retired from baseball, Stan Musial came to nearly every Cardinals Opening Day because he felt it was his duty to be there for the city and the team that gave so much to him. And each year at the induction to the Baseball Hall of Fame, Stan would play ``Take Me Out to the Ball Game'' on his harmonica. The new inductees would often mention Stan playing the harmonica as one of their favorite moments during the induction weekend.

The best description of Stan was rendered by former baseball commissioner, Ford C. Frick: ``Here stands baseball's perfect warrior. Here stands baseball's perfect knight.'' These words adorn the statue of Stan Musial that sits outside Busch Stadium in St. Louis city.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a part of this bill that names the I- 70 bridge after Stan Musial and our veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a lasting tribute to Stan the Man and all those who have served our country so honorably.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee for yielding and for advancing this legislation.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of life, in support of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Life begins at conception. Throughout the years, as science and technology have evolved and continue to advance, we are changing hearts and minds. We have more and more evidence that life does, indeed, begin at conception.

We know that after 3 weeks, the baby has a heartbeat. After 7 weeks, the baby begins kicking in the womb. By week 8, the baby begins to hear and fingerprints start to form. After 10 weeks, the baby is able to turn his or her head, frown, and even hiccup. By week 11, the baby can grasp with his or her hands. And by week 12, the baby can suck his or her thumb. And by week 20, not only can the baby recognize his or her mother's voice, but that baby can also feel pain.

While killing an unborn child is unacceptable at any time, it is especially abhorrent at the 20-week mark when a child is able to feel the pain of an abortion. Madam Chairman, it is not only the pain of the child that we must be concerned with, but also the pain of the mother.

The other side has deemed abortion a ``sacred right.'' They tout that they are champions for women, telling women they have the right to do with their bodies whatever they want. The problem here is that everyone talks about the right to choose, but no one discusses the implications of that choice.

I recently had the opportunity to speak with Joyce Zounis, who had multiple abortions between the ages of 15 and 26. She told me that the abortionists told her everything would be over very quickly, but they didn't tell her about the physical and the psychological implications that would stay with her for life. Not once did the abortionists relay to her the physical risks that she suffered later. That does not include the emotional damage she also suffered--uncontrollable anger, depression, seclusion, and the inability to trust anyone.

Madam Speaker, I am for life at all stages. I am for the life of the baby, and I am also for the life of the mother. I will continue to work towards the day when abortion is not only illegal but is absolutely unthinkable.

Parliamentary Inquiry

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for putting this Special Order together.

Mr. Speaker, in his time served in office thus far, President Obama has said he's for the reduction of government red tape that places an unnecessary burden on government people. Again and again, he has extolled the virtues of transparency and bipartisanship in an effort to put people back to work; but if we look at his track record, this has simply turned out to be yet another string of broken promises and a failure of leadership.

In his first term alone, President Obama has finalized 130 major rules, a shocking 160 percent increase over the previous term under President George W. Bush. This alarming growth in government is an assault on our free enterprise system and on our individual liberties. Either the President is not interested in keeping the America's people's trust, or he simply does not have a handle on his own Federal agencies. Given recent events, either of these could very well be true.

The truth, however, Mr. Speaker, is that cost from new regulatory burdens on Americans increased by nearly $70 billion during President Obama's first term in office, which is based on his own agency's estimates. It is very possible that the real costs far exceed this number. With major regulations in Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare still yet to be implemented, these burdens on small businesses and the American people will only skyrocket.

Dodd-Frank alone required government bureaucrats to write nearly 400 new rules, and yet 3 years later we have barely completed a third of them. Most of the laws' provisions have little or no connection to the financial crisis that prompted their creation in the first place. As a member of the Financial Services Committee, I have witnessed firsthand how arbitrary and irrelevant these rules can be, and how they cost the American people jobs and their hard-earned savings.

We can and must do more to hold these agencies accountable and stop this governance by fiat and the bypassing of Congress--we the people. This is why we must have the REINS Act, which I am proud to cosponsor. This legislation would rein in the Federal agencies and would require Congress to approve every new major rule proposed by the executive branch having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. It would allow Congress to regain our constitutional authority by limiting the size and scope of the rulemaking powers of government bureaucrats who were not elected.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are fed up with this Big Government agenda. It's time to hold this administration accountable for the gross overreach of their power, whether it's regulation from the EPA or regulations implementing Dodd-Frank or ObamaCare. Enough is enough. The American people are tired of this government overstepping their constitutional authority.