Vicky Hartzler

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Great, great words. Thank you, James. What a word of encouragement, how to commit and to keep on going and to be good dads and the need to strengthen marriage in this country. So thank you for those very, very excellent comments. Now I would like to call on another colleague from Oklahoma, a freshman this year who has hit the ground running, and we are really glad he is here. Jim Bridenstine, I would like to yield to you and hear what you would like to share about the importance of fathers.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you so much, Phil. That's well spoken from a proud grandfather as well as a father, and certainly brought up the importance of fatherhood as well as these decisions that are coming up from the Supreme Court. You know, the people have spoken on that. The people of California spoke two times, and they said, This is what we think is wise public policy for the families and the citizens of California. And the people spoke on the Defense of Marriage Act through their elected representatives here in Congress, a huge vote, bipartisan. And President Clinton signed the bill. The people have spoken on this. And what we don't want is to have the Supreme Court impose their view or be activists and impose their view of what marriage should be on the citizens who have spoken, so it's going to be interesting to see how they rule. But certainly, I agree with you, Phil, that it's very important that the people have spoken and that we uphold marriage. Next we have a Representative from Oklahoma, a friend of mine, James Lankford, who not only is a great dad and father, but has worked with teenagers for many years and, I'm sure, has seen the importance of fatherhood as it relates to young people. So go ahead, James Lankford.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you so much, Tim. I think you spoke so eloquently to the importance of fathers and the cost that we have, as a society, when fathers are not present and why it's important to have a policy that promotes the father being there for their children. And now I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia and hear what he has to say about the importance of fathers. Thank you, Phil Gingrey.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. We do a lot of things here in Washington and discuss many types of legislation, and sometimes the impact of what we do gets lost in the debate. Today, I want to remind my colleagues that this bill impacts people and why it's important. There is an injustice occurring in our society. One unborn baby who is 6 months along develops a medical condition. The doctor gives anesthesia in the womb to that baby because it can feel pain, and an operation is conducted to correct the problem so the baby can be brought to full term. Another unborn baby who is 6 months along, down the street at a clinic, does not receive anesthesia, and is ripped apart limb by limb by an abortionist, who crushes the skull to complete the abortion. This is wrong. I rise today in support of H.R. 1797, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit an abortion of an unborn child who has surpassed 20 weeks on the basis that children at this stage of development can feel pain. In light of the recent trial of Kermit Gosnell, we have seen firsthand the very gruesome nature of what is currently taking place in America's abortion industry--the reality that abortion involves not a choice but the taking of a human life. Late- term abortions are agonizingly painful, and they are happening all around the Nation. A leading expert in fetal pain has said ``the human fetus possesses the ability to experience pain from 20 weeks of gestation . . .'' and that the pain felt by a fetus may be more intense than that perceived by full-term or older children. This pain is inflicted through a procedure known as D&E, in which the doctor literally tears apart the little body of the child after removing him from the womb and finally crushes the child's skull. Science and the American public are united on this issue. This gruesome practice has no place in our society. In fact, a recent poll found 63 percent of women believe abortion should not be permitted where substantial medical evidence says that the unborn child can feel pain. There is also a risk to the mother. Drawing a line at 20 weeks is not arbitrary. The child suffers great pain, and the mother is placed drastically in danger. A woman seeking an abortion at 20 weeks is 35 times more likely to die from abortion than she was in the first trimester. At 21 weeks or more, the chance of death is 91 times higher. Jennifer Morbelli was the recent victim of such a dangerous abortion procedure, at 33 weeks, in Maryland. This abortion was done in a residential condominium complex in Baltimore last February--a tragic end to a young mother and an agonizing death for her child. As a society, it is time to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves and to stop this heinous practice. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 634, the Business Risk Mitigation and Price Stabilization Act of 2013. This bipartisan, commonsense piece of legislation is critical for commercial end users like farm credit companies and rural electric cooperatives to be able to use swaps to manage their long-term risks. Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 2136, the School Business Credit Availability Act, to address this very issue. I'm pleased that my colleagues have put together this important legislation which addresses the concerns that I have with clearing and margin requirements for rural electric cooperatives. It's important to every family in my district to be able to count on reasonable and stable electric bills without unplanned price fluctuations. This bill ensures that the rural electric cooperatives in my district will be able to manage their long-term risk without the burden of costly clearing and margin requirements that would ultimately be passed on to my constituents. I want to especially thank the chairman and ranking member of both committees for including language ensuring that cooperatives that have clearing exemption are also excluded from costly margin requirements. Dodd-Frank never intended for end users like rural electric cooperatives and farm credit companies to be subject to clearing and margin requirements. Rural cooperatives in my district provide a great service at the lowest rates possible. Requiring these rural cooperatives to post margin on their swaps merely ties up working capital and will unnecessarily lead to higher electricity costs across the U.S. I was pleased to see that earlier this year the CFTC included many of these end users, like rural cooperatives, in their proposed rulemaking on the clearing exemption. I support this legislation's directive to close the loophole by granting margin exemptions to those same entities as well. Again, I support H.R. 634, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the inexcusable actions taken by the IRS. Their decision to target conservative groups based on their political beliefs transcends party politics and represents an indefensible abuse of power. These actions indicate that the agency was operating with political agendas in mind--and not the best interests of the American people--and that must change. We must refuse to tolerate this egregious behavior, and we must provide major oversight into the IRS so the American people remain protected and can trust that the Tax Code will treat them fairly. The American people demand answers--not just an apology--from the Internal Revenue Service. That is why Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Oversight and Government Reform Committee have led, and will continue to lead, vigorous and thorough investigations into this issue, seek out those responsible, and ensure that they are held accountable for their actions. Federal Government officials should implement the law fairly, not abuse their power for political gain.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 21, 2013, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 164, ``yea;'' on rollcall No. 165, ``yea;'' on rollcall No. 166, ``yea.''

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 20, 2013, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 161, ``yea;'' on rollcall No. 162, ``yea;'' on rollcall No. 163, ``yea.''

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, leave it to Washington to leave a severely outdated government regulation on the books where it can continue to be a thorn in the side of hardworking Americans all across the country. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938--yes, 1938, 3 years before our country entered World War II--American workers in the private sector are not allowed to choose to be paid for overtime with extra time off instead of extra wages. There's no denying that our workforce has changed since 1938. Nowadays, 59 percent of American families have two parents that work, and 8.5 million workers are single parents. When you're balancing work and family, time can be just as valuable as money. The Working Families Flexibility Act, which House Republicans have introduced, will amend the 1938 law to give more American workers the choice to be paid in extra time off. It's your time and you deserve it.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act. This legislation would remove an outdated Federal mandate that prohibits private sector workers from benefiting from the personal option of flextime. Public sector employees have had the flextime option for 30 years, and it's time private sector workers had the same opportunity to spend more time with their families or more time engaged in other interests away from the workplace. The State of Missouri has allowed flextime for years for a variety of State agencies like the Missouri State Water Patrol. The Lake of the Ozarks is in my district and is a destination for many during the warm summer months, and the Water Patrol work long, hard days over the summer to keep order on the lake and ensure safety for boaters, skiers, and swimmers. With Missouri's seasonal climate, these State workers have taken advantage of working long summer days and saving flextime in the winter months for extended vacations or other seasonal work. These workers enjoy the flexibility and income stability of their jobs, and it works out to be mutually beneficial for the employees and the State. This commonsense labor provision makes the Water Patrol officer a very popular career choice and encourages the type of competition that has led to continuous quality in the force. The Working Families Flexibility Act would modernize outdated regulations to allow private sector workers in Missouri's Fourth District and elsewhere to voluntarily choose paid time off as compensation for the overtime hours they work. It will remove the obstacles standing in the way of working families and will allow working women to better balance their work and family obligations. As a working wife and mother, I understand how important it is to have a schedule that is flexible when children unexpectedly get sick or when high school graduation nears and mothers need extra time to celebrate the child's accomplishments. I support this commonsense legislation that allows flexibility for American workers and gives the power back to the workers and employers to voluntarily work together and find a solution that works best for everyone. Again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this pro-family legislation.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very much, Blake. I'll look forward to hearing how it goes in August with your daughter there. I think you made a really great point about the important role of protection and how firearms provide a very practical and very, very vital role in self-protection. Estimates range anywhere from 83,000 times a year up to perhaps 1 million times a year citizens of this country use firearms in order to protect themselves. In Missouri, let me share with you just a couple of examples. In 2008, there was a woman in Cape Girardeau who endured a horrific crime. Someone broke into her apartment through a window and she was raped. Two days later she came home and that person was there again. She had the window repaired, but they were there. This time, though, she was prepared. She had borrowed a friend's shotgun, and she protected herself this time with the shotgun and the outcome was totally different and the person is in jail now. There's another example in Kansas City. There was a man who had a restraining order against someone who was trying to do him harm. He entered his home and, once again, he was attacked by this person with a knife. But, thanks to having a gun in the home, he was able to stop him, and that person is behind bars as well. We could go on with many, many examples, but Americans every day use their Second Amendment rights to protect and defend their families and themselves. It is so important that we keep that ability to do that. That's why our Founding Fathers established this right. Now I would like to turn to my friend from Michigan, Tim Walberg, to share your thoughts on the Second Amendment. Gentleman, thank you for being here.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. Well said. I like how you point out that the right to life is tied to the Second Amendment--to be able to defend ourselves and protect that life. That is so true. Also, it's not a safety issue. In fact, violent crime has dropped by 72 percent since 1993 in this country; and, actually, there has been a 47 percent increase in U.S. households that have guns. We now have 47 percent of us who own a gun, and crime has gone down. So an excellent point there. I would like to yield to my friend from Louisiana, Representative Steve Scalise. He is a champion of our Second Amendment. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you very much, Steve. It's very helpful, I think, to be reminded of the firsthand account of what can happen and what did happen in Louisiana when the government came to take the guns away from the citizens there. We don't ever want to see that happen again because, like you said, it's imperative for personal protection besides its being a personal right. So thank you for sharing that. I appreciate it.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Well, we have my friend and colleague from Indiana, who's come to join us here, Marlin Stutzman. You brought a couple of guests here with you today to be a part of our Special Order?

Mrs. HARTZLER. Very good. Well, I yield to you. I want to hear what you have to share.

Mrs. HARTZLER. Absolutely. Very well said. I appreciate your comments, and I'm so glad you brought Payton and Preston along. I was sharing earlier that I got my start on the farm with my BB gun as well. I'm glad to hear you're well on your way to having a lot of years of fun hunting and doing it safely with your father teaching you. My friend from Indiana brought up so many great points. The quotes from the Founding Fathers really bring home what this is all about and why it is so important that we as a country retain the right as citizens to be able to protect ourselves, not just from individuals, but from the government even. Well said there. As far as the Senate vote, I think you brought up an excellent point as well, that the American people really did speak. I think overwhelmingly the American people understand that taking away guns or putting new restrictions on law-abiding citizens is not going to address the problems of violence in our society, and it would not have prevented the tragedy that occurred in Connecticut or any of the other shootings that we have experienced. So we need to, as I said earlier, focus on the facts and not on emotions. I wanted to share with you some of the comments from people in my district. I think lots of times people in the country have the pulse of what is common sense and what is wise policy for our country, more so than in the heat of the moment sometimes with some things that have gone on here at the Capitol. This is an example from Samantha of what happened recently in our district in Randolph County, and I think she has a very interesting perspective on this. She said: I am a citizen of Randolph County, and on Easter Sunday, two men went on a crime spree in our area and shot two very close friends of mine, pistol whipped an elderly lady, and killed a woman from Moberly. These suspects were on the run from police for over 12 hours, including overnight. The residents of this area didn't sleep well not knowing what was going on. Houses were on lockdown. It was a horrible feeling knowing the armed men were able to get away from police officers for several hours and not knowing where they would go next. As a mother, I was terrified for my family. Knowing that we were protected in case these perpetrators came in our neighborhood was the only thing that made that night even bearable. Please vote to keep our Second Amendment rights. It is our right to protect ourselves from these criminals who will always be able to get guns no matter what they do, such as drugs, because drugs are illegal as well. If they want them, they will get them. Let normal, law-abiding citizens keep their guns to protect themselves. We should not have them taken away because there are people who are irresponsible for them. Those people will get guns no matter what, but law-abiding citizens need to be able to protect our families. It is our right, just as freedom of speech is, and should not be taken away. Well said, Samantha. I think that is a perfect example of what happens potentially when a crime is occurring, and how important it is for families to be able to defend themselves in that event. Here's a comment from Carol from Lowry City. She said in an email to me: By definition, criminals do not care about laws. They will acquire guns and whatever weapon they want to use for their nefarious activity regardless of what the law is. The only thing that this unconstitutional gun grab will do is put innocent, law-abiding citizens in harm's way by preventing them from protecting themselves, their property and their family. If stringent gun control which stripped Second Amendment rights from the people were the answer to alleviating violence, then the city of Chicago would be a model of safety. Instead, Chicago, which has some of the most strict gun control laws in the Nation, led the country in number of deaths related to firearms at 532. The people could not protect themselves against the criminal activity around them, and many paid for it with their lives. I wanted to share some statistics from the World Health Organization. It lists, and you probably can't see it, but two pages' worth of countries here that have a higher percentage of murders per 100,000 citizens than we do. You have countries everywhere from the Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Jamaica, Panama, Brazil, Greenland, Costa Rica, Russia, British Virgin Islands, Philippines, Uruguay, Thailand, and on and on. Two pages of countries that have very high murder rates, and yet here is the United States below all of them. And you know what all of these other countries have in common? All of these countries have banned guns 100 percent from their citizens. So this validates what Carol from Lowry City said to me in her email, that when you take guns away from individuals, crime rates actually go up because criminals will have the guns and the law-abiding citizens won't be able to protect themselves. I thought that was a really good point that she makes. Here's a comment in an email from Vicki Jo from Clinton, Missouri. She said: I would like you to know that I do not support more regulations on any guns, accessories, or ammunition. These items are only tools some people choose to use as weapons against others. I feel the Second Amendment gives me the freedom to own and operate any firearm that I choose. I'm a hunter and, if needed, would use my firearms for protection from harm. I feel that more attention needs to be spent on those dealing with mental illness and pose a threat to others' welfare. We law-abiding citizens don't need more laws to take more freedoms away from us. Please pursue the violators of these crimes and not their ill-chosen tools. Well said. Larry from Mexico, Missouri, said: Guns can do no harm by themselves. They are no more harmful than any large vehicle like a truck or bus that has mass or weight as a part of their structure. It's interesting that Larry would say that because yesterday I saw a clip on the news of someone who actually went after someone else in a car. The other person was on a bicycle, and they tried to kill them. They were able to save the person. Thankfully, he wasn't hurt, but they are still looking for the person in the car. So are we going to ban cars because they can be used to kill people? Of course not, because what we need to do is find the person who was trying to commit the crime. Continuing on, Larry says: Sick individuals can take any truck and drive it into a school or mall, killing our loved ones just as a gun can. I don't want anyone to be hurt or die, but feel that this path of legislation is wrong. As others have suggested, we need to focus on people. People are the motor driving the gun, truck, bus or any other object. The focus has to become helping the mentally ill. And we have Jessica from Warrensburg. She said: If a fraction of the time, energy, money and passion that went into debating gun control went toward establishing a more efficient national or State mental health outreach campaign, perhaps we would have less heartbreaking tragedies involving individuals who felt unheard, isolated, and alienated. A commonly heard phrase is guns don't kill people, people kill people. If that is true, What are we doing to help people? I think that brings up the point of mental health issues in our country and how we should be focusing more on these killers and what caused them or led them to do it. What about violent video games? If you look at the Newtown, Connecticut, shooter as well as the Aurora, Colorado, shooter, Madam Speaker, you'll find that both of them spent an inordinate amount of time playing violent video games where they actually were carrying out scenarios of shooting people. How come we aren't hearing proposals talking about that from gun control advocates or from those who say that they want to do this to help children. Let's get to the heart of the issue here. We have Kelly from Sedalia who adds: The one thing all of these misguided proposals have in common is that they won't reduce crime. Criminals by definition are law breakers. They are not deterred by laws against murder, rape, armed robbery, et cetera; and they won't be affected by additional gun control laws on top of the tens of thousands of existing laws we have on the books at every governmental level. Again, I urge you to oppose any and all anti-gun legislation that will simply penalize law- abiding gun owners and instead focus on improvements to our Nation's mental health system and enhancing school security while respecting our Second Amendment rights. The gentleman from Indiana brought up some really good points awhile ago, and we share a lot in common. We both come from a farm background, and we both still have a farm today. We both have children still in school, and we enjoy sharing our heritage. I say to the gentleman, my daughter, we've had a lot of fun with her, teaching her how to shoot a gun and going out also in our pasture. We have an area that we've blocked off, and we target shot, and it's a lot of fun and she enjoys it. But just as importantly as it being enjoyable, I think just being familiar with guns and for the potential of having self- protection is so important, as well. And I know you would agree.

Mrs. HARTZLER. It's certainly a deterrent, I think, from any government who would want to take on their citizens. And you look at this list that I was sharing, two pages of people and countries who have very high murder rates. I feel for the people of those countries. I can't imagine what that would be like to live in a country where you're basically helpless. You and your family are helpless. You are totally open to and vulnerable to anyone, whether it's somebody in government, a rogue government, or a criminal who wants to do yourself or your family harm, and you don't have that ability to protect yourself. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, gentleman. That is well said. Tragedies should not be used for political gain. That is so true. We want to get at the heart of what causes violence and how to protect children, and not just pass laws that wouldn't even address the problem. I'm glad to see my colleague from South Dakota here. She is quite a champion of gun rights. We're looking forward to hearing your comments, lady, about the Second Amendment.

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank you, gentleman. I think well said there. Our rural heritage is based on our Second Amendment rights, and well said. Certainly, being from Missouri, I appreciate your work--and we've worked together on this. This is a very real concern. I call it the Department of Revenue debacle. I certainly appreciate State Senator Kurt Schaefer and others there in Missouri who have been on the forefront of getting to the bottom of this and how our conceal-carry list was released to Federal authorities without all of the permissions and all of the safety guards in place. That is very, very disturbing. So thank you for your work on that and for your comments. I would now like to yield to a new Member here, who has just hit the ground running and who brings so much to our whole delegation with his service. I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Collins), and I would be happy to yield time to you, gentleman.

Mrs. HARTZLER. When I was 10 years old, I got my first job. It would require skill and perseverance and patience, and it would have a real potential economic impact on our family hog farm. My dad hired me. He paid me 15 cents a unit. What was my job? It was shooting sparrows around our farm. At that time, there was a disease going around rural America, and sparrows were taking it from farm to farm. So it had a real practical purpose. But, as I'm a parent now, I look back on it. I used to tag around with my dad all the time, and I wonder maybe if he just kind of wanted to give me something to do, in addition to a job. But I had a lot of fun that summer going around the grain bins and the sheds on our farm and our buildings and trying to catch that bird unawares. And I think over the entire summer, I may have earned around 45 cents. So it wasn't a big moneymaker, but I sure had a lot of fun. And I learned some important things. I learned that using firearms can be a fun hobby and hunting can be fun; also, that using firearms can have a real practical purpose. And over the years, I've shot a lot of different kind of firearms now and different sizes, but I really appreciate what our Founding Fathers did when they established our Second Amendment and gave us that as our basic right. This afternoon, my colleagues and I want to highlight not only why the Second Amendment is important to us and to the people in our districts, but how it is also important to this country. We want to dispel the myths that decisions about how to address violence are based on facts and not emotions. As a lifelong gun owner as well as a former public schoolteacher, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion that our country has been having after the tragic school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. My heart has gone out to those families, as I know everyone in America's heart has, and our prayers as well. We want to understand the desire to stop the violence. I share that goal but believe that many of the proposals being put forth miss the mark. So let's look at some of the proposals and compare them to the facts. One proposal that is being talked about and has been talked about is to ban what's called assault rifles. Well, the fact is that lawbreakers ignore the laws. Banning firearms would only take guns away from our law-abiding citizens and ensure that lawbreakers have guns. I was watching TV a couple of weeks ago, and I saw the sponsor of the Senate bill to ban these assault rifles and she was giving a rationale why she thought it was important. She was saying, Well, gangs in California have assault rifles, and we've got to get these off the streets and out of the hands of our gang members, so we need to pass this bill. And I just kind of scratched my head and thought, Do you really believe that gang members are going to listen and pay attention to a law that Washington, D.C., passes? They break laws every day. I really can't see them getting together and having an organizational meeting and saying, Well, let's have the legislative report and have the gentleman, the gang member, say, Well, they passed a new law in D.C., so I guess we can't use assault rifles anymore. We've got to look at the facts about whether passing this law would really address violence. In this case, it certainly wouldn't. As far as that legislation, also the word ``assault'' is an adjective. It is not a gun. What gun control advocates call an assault rifle is actually a regular rifle with only a few cosmetic differences on the outside, such as a pistol grip, a hand guard, and a removable magazine. It is misleading to label firearms with negative words in order to advance a gun control agenda. The fact is that more deaths have been inflicted using fists and knives and baseball bats than with a gun. In fact, one-and-a-half times as many homicides are committed with blunt objects such as a baseball bat, over two times as many homicides with fists, and five times as many with knives. So why aren't proponents of bans on firearms calling baseball bats assault baseball bats or assault knives? Well, the reason is because the American people know that objects are only tools of people who wish to do others harm. They are not the cause. Now, it's a slogan, it's a bumper sticker, but it is true: guns don't kill people; people do. So that's one proposal that I think misses the mark. Another proposal is to create universal background checks. Well, the fact is that the vast majority of gun sales already have background checks with the sale, because all firearm sales through dealers must complete the instant background check. The only transactions that do not require the background checks are sales between individual gun owners; and they are not the problem. Requiring law-abiding citizens to have to go to a dealer and get a background check on their neighbor in order to sell him a gun would do little to stop mass killings. Imposing the new law would not have stopped the Sandy Hook killer. He stole the guns he used to carry out his evil scheme. The same with the Aurora, Colorado, shooter in the movie theater. He actually had passed a background check. So passing a new law like this does not really address the issue. It's time for all of us to address the real issue of how to protect our children and schools rather than to use a tragedy to impose more government control on law-abiding citizens or infringe on our Second Amendment rights. Several of my colleagues are going to join me today to share their insights into why the Second Amendment matters to them and their constituents, and to discuss how to address the real issues of violence in our country. I would like to start off with my fellow colleague from the great State of Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer). So gentleman, what would you like to share about our Second Amendment rights?

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, lady. It was sure important, I think, that those voices from South Dakota would be heard and how it is a part of a heritage of so many people in this country and how it has very practical and real benefits to the citizens. We need to focus on solutions that are based on facts and not emotions. One thing that the lady talked about is that it is a constitutional right. And I wanted to just reiterate that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that gun ownership is an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that D.C.'s complete gun ban infringes on the Second Amendment rights of the D.C. citizens, and it clarified that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental individual right to have a firearm in the home. So this isn't something just that was talked about and established years ago when our country was founded; it has been upheld recently. We are very thankful for that and want to continue to protect that right. We have a gentleman here from Texas, who I'm sure knows all about rights and wants to share a little bit about Texas views on why it's important to have our Second Amendment rights. This is Blake Farenthold, and I yield to the gentleman.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. I rise today in response to a situation which is currently causing a great deal of concern among law-abiding citizens in my home State of Missouri. We have learned, through the diligent work of State Senator Kurt Schaefer and others in State government, that the Missouri Department of Revenue, which issues concealed-carry permits in our State, has improperly allowed this sensitive, personal information to be shared with the Federal Government. This egregious disregard for privacy rights led last week to the resignation of the director of the State Department of Revenue. While Missourians are pleased that this inappropriate sharing of information has been discovered, we are still trying to determine why information on who is legally licensed to carry concealed firearms was surrendered to Federal authorities in the first place. I stand with Missouri's elected representatives as they pursue all legal avenues to learn why the Missouri Department of Revenue displayed such blatant disregard for the rights of our honest, law-abiding citizens.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Archie High School Whirlwinds girls basketball team for finishing with a perfect regular season for the first time in school history. I want to commend them for their outstanding teamwork, sportsmanship and training throughout the 2012-2013 season. I applaud each and every one of them for their contribution to the team and the hard work necessary to achieve this accomplishment. The team was astutely guided by head coach Troy Schulte, and assistant coach Charles Plattner, and the basketball players included seniors Kara Fisher, Kaily Kurzweil, Stefani Simms, and Mallory Wiskur; juniors Leslie Iseman and Jordan Schulte; sophomores Tiffany Greenwood, Samantha Ogden, Taylor Plattner, and Mary Kurzweil; and freshman Arely Guajardo, Mallory Lyons, Brooke Wiskur and Quincy Young. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me in applauding the history, goals and accomplishments associated with Archie High School girls basketball, and extend to the 2012-2013 team the most heartfelt congratulations for completing a perfect regular season.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. I thank the gentleman. I really appreciate you holding this special time, where we can show our support for the coal industry, as well as condemn the Obama administration's current war on coal, because that's what it is. In Missouri, coal is our preferred source of energy for electrical generation due to its abundance and its low cost. Coal provides over 81 percent of Missouri's electric-power generation, and Missouri ranks 11th in the Nation in energy affordability. So that means the people of Missouri have more money that they can spend on other things for their family. It also attracts businesses to our State. We want to keep it that way. We love coal in Missouri, and we appreciate the role that it plays in having affordable, safe energy in our country. I wanted to show this picture to you and my colleagues here because a lot of people think in Missouri that we don't have coal mines. But I want to tell you, in the Fourth District of Missouri, we have a coal mine. This is a picture. My husband and I had the opportunity to go there and I snapped a few pictures, and let me tell you we are so proud of it. These hardworking people here are doing a great job in getting coal out of the ground and taking it to our local power plants. This coal mine is providing great jobs in my district. These are high-paying, skilled jobs. I know some of the people that work here, and they appreciate this opportunity. This mine is also bringing in property taxes to our local schools, and it's helping the economy of the entire county, this region of the district. Plus, it is powering two of our local power plants nearby. So this is very exciting for us. We want to see this continue rather than having the current administration, through the EPA, try to rein us in and to force us to rely on more expensive, untested energy sources in our country. You know, President Obama and the EPA are pushing this over- prescriptive, regulatory agenda without adequate cost-benefit analysis, workable timelines, and input from the industry. Both of the proposed and current regulations being promoted by the EPA are having sweeping negative impacts on coal-fueled electricity generation in this country. Now, according to the National Economic Research Associates, it is estimated that compliance costs for these EPA regulations on the electric sector will average $15 billion to $16 billion per year. Who pays for that? Who's going to pay for the extra cost to our electric industry, $15 billion to $16 billion? I'll tell you who: it's the families in my district who are living from paycheck to paycheck and who are struggling to put food on the table. When they see their electric bill go up every month because of the EPA coming here from Washington, D.C., imposing these regulations on our electric industry, that's who ends up paying, and it's wrong. It also is costing jobs. The same group estimated that these regulations are going to cost half a million jobs just next year. Now, we have too much unemployment in this country already. Why would the government administration from this President be pushing regulations that's going to kick out half a million more people from being able to work? Just in Missouri alone, the cost is expected to be $500 per household in higher electricity bills. It's wrong. I want to just point out two of these regulations that are driving this cost and impacting them--and several of my colleagues have mentioned several of them already. But these two I wanted to bring to your attention. The New Source Performance Standards for new coal units are establishing new guidelines that control carbon dioxide emissions from any newly constructed coal and natural gas power plants. This proposal requires new coal units to meet a standard so low that it effectively is going to ban new coal plants. My friend and colleague from Kentucky did a very good job of illustrating this. I wanted to reiterate, though, the quote from our President about this administration. He admitted in 2008 that his goal was to bankrupt new coal-fired power plants. Now, that is wrong. Here's what he said: If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. Now, it's frustrating to me that the Obama administration, our President, would target an industry that is providing clean, affordable energy for our country, providing jobs in my district and all across this country, and keeping that electricity bill at home low for our families, but he is. The second regulation that he is talking about is going to impact what's called coal ash and try to make it a hazardous waste. Now, this is something that is not hazardous. It is going to increase the cost of cement. Now, we need cement. We're building new highways. We need it in building new homes. We need it for our businesses that are building. Why would we do this? It's going to increase the cost for that. We have in Missouri five cement plants that provide 12,000 jobs. Yet if this continues to go through we're going to see an increase in cement cost. So here, gentleman, we have two examples of regulations coming out of Washington here that are increasing the cost for our families at home and that are killing jobs and increasing our electricity costs. It's wrong, and I will continue to stand against it. And I appreciate all my colleagues as we stand together tonight against this and we make a stand for low-cost, reliable energy, and that is coal. I commend you for having this, and I encourage all my colleagues to join us in this very important effort.

Mrs. HARTZLER

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you so much. I appreciate this opportunity to share today, as we look at the national media coverup of this very, very horrific act. As we gather today to bring awareness to the trial of Kermit Gosnell and to the horrific actions he has been charged with, we remember the many who were murdered at the Women's Medical Society clinic and denied the chance to be our siblings, playmates, our friends, our peers. We mourn their losses, and we mourn the deep pain and confusion that abortion has inflicted upon women, men, and their families. This trial provides revealing insights into the abortion industry, and it specifically highlights the reality that abortion involves taking a human life. These killings expose the very gruesome nature of what happens in abortion clinics all across this country where over 1.2 million unborn children die in abortions every year. As a legislator, I will continue to speak in defense of the most basic human right--life. I will continue to support legislation that would stop the Federal funding for abortion providers, and I will continue to champion the inherent human dignity of every life born and unborn.