Mark Souder

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional minute. Reclaiming my time, you said can you just offer your substitute, and we knew we were going to have that vote on the floor. But what I said was I had a series of amendments, and in discussion with the majority and the minority, I'm not objecting that I didn't have the right to do it; I certainly had the right to do it. What I am objecting to is we had a process that both sides had roughly agreed that we weren't going to challenge the underlying bill. We keep hearing that the underlying bill passed unanimously. It did not have unanimous support in the committee. If we would have had a forced vote, we would have polarized on this, as we would have on the bill. We have moved the bill forward, and that was my point. I believe we are having that debate tonight, but it should not be taken by Members of Congress that there was a unanimous vote in support of this bill as opposed to the substitute that is coming from Mr. Childers. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a senior member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I want to remind people again not to forget during this debate that Washington, D.C. has been the murder capital of the United States 15 of the last 19 years, and the other four they were in the top three. Let's don't act like what we are doing is making it dangerous in this city.

Mr. SOUDER. To answer the gentleman's question very directly, my assumption was, after the Heller case, that my bill was dead and that we would not have to revisit it in Congress. I was outraged by the actions of the District of Columbia, and that led to the process of working with those who signed the brief, including Mr. Childers, who's doing the amendment, Mr. Ross, on your side who had been there to act. I did not believe that the District of Columbia was going to do such an egregious bill that said you had to be in imminent danger that put most of those controls in.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself 1 minute. Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District.'' That was done by our Founding Fathers. Two hundred and fifty Congressmen signed the amicus brief that said that they felt the DC gun ban should be overturned. Fifty-five Senators signed the amicus brief that said that the DC gun ban should be overturned because it violated a basic constitutional right and, according to Heller, was a pre-existing right to defend yourself, even without the constitutional question. This is not about being a City Council. I don't believe, obviously, you could do gun limitations. The Heller case said there can be limitations. But DC came back with, in effect, a total ban all over again. The reason you have to have interstate commerce is, guess what, they passed a new ban, but there's no gun stores with which to get one gun. The Childers amendment, as I understand it, has a temporary ability to get guns elsewhere because there is no way to defend yourself in the District of Columbia because you can't buy a gun and bring it. And that's why that particular clause is in, regardless of the claims contrary, that this is not about being a State government because in fact----

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself an additional minute. That this isn't about whether or not we're usurping State government powers because the State, there isn't a State. We are, in effect, the State government. Normal cities have a State with which to work a check, and it's not a matter of city. When it comes to a constitutional right, whether it's freedom of speech, freedom of religion or any basic right, no City Council has a right to take away.

Mr. SOUDER. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. SOUDER. Reclaiming my time, it's Mr. Childers, and obviously the Congressional process has started. I have no faith, that the current is a gimmick, that it will stand.

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. And thus we are at this point in the process. Obviously, if the DC government enacted legislation that Congress had faith in, that this bill would likely not go through the Senate and be signed by the President. But we are now moving a bill through that had been agreed upon a number of weeks ago, that I believe is necessary, that I don't believe the DC Council acted in good faith. But we shall see. But the vote's here. We're voting on a Democratic amendment tonight that's been agreed to, that the majority of this House, that the majority of the Senate agrees with, and I think, at this point the United States Congress has lost faith in whether the----

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds. This Congress has lost faith in the willingness of the District of Columbia to defend the second amendment which is a constitutional right guaranteed by a Supreme Court decision. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. SOUDER. May I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides?

Mr. SOUDER. I yield myself 2 minutes. We earlier had an exchange with my distinguished colleague and friend from Maryland about whether it was needed for us to pass legislation. Let me read from washingtonpost.com right after the Supreme Court decision. ``Mayor Adrian Fenty and his feisty Attorney General, Peter Nickles, stood on the steps of the Wilson Building this week ostensibly to announce how the District will comply with the Supreme Court's rejection of Washington's ban on handguns. But really, they were delivering very much the opposite message. With only the narrowest of exceptions, we're sticking with our gun ban. Don't like it? Sue us.'' Quote, ``I am pretty confident that the people of the District of Columbia want us to err in the direction of trying to restrict guns,'' Fenty told me, smiling broadly at the suggestion that what he's really trying to do is make it as hard as possible for Washingtonians to keep a loaded gun at home.'' Nickles, the Acting Attorney General said, ``it's clear the Supreme Court didn't intend for you to have a loaded gun around the house.'' Quite frankly, that isn't what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court says you have a right to have a handgun in your house to protect yourself; that if this bill was, in fact, just what the D.C. City Council was doing, then it won't harm for us to pass this bill. The only danger is if the City Council really doesn't mean to protect the second amendment. We have lost faith. Statements like this were outrageous after the Supreme Court decision, and that a coalition in this House, something that's rare, a majority of Members working together on both sides of the aisle, working--and NRA has been spit out of some people's mouth like it's some kind of evil organization. The NRA represents gun owners and people who believe in family protection all over America. I am not ashamed to be proud that I work with the NRA. And there are Members on the Democratic side, Mr. Childers is offering the substitute amendment with the support of the Blue Dogs and we've worked together, 250 Members, 55 in the Senate. And it's made to sound like it's some kind of little minor group that wants to take over the City Council of D.C. It's a majority of America. It's a majority of the House, the majority of the Senate, this administration who say the second amendment should be protected. And just because you live in a city that wants to take it away doesn't give that city the right to take it away. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Lewis is certainly the most respected advocate for civil rights in this United States Congress. No city has a right to deprive a constitutional right, even if the majority of people in that State or city favor depriving you. I don't know how D.C. could be less safe. It's the murder capital in 15 of the last 19 years since they instituted the gun law, and the other 4 years they were in the top three. They were not before they instituted the gun law. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. Does the gentleman have any additional speakers?

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I will yield myself the balance of the time. Anybody watching this debate can feel the passion, and they can see some differences based on where people are from. And can you hear the passion from many of those in the urban cities who are very concerned about the violent crime. I believe this solution is not only wrong and doesn't work; it's unconstitutional. But I do want to say a few words that we do need to get control of the challenges in our urban areas. As my friend from Chicago knows well, we've worked together on prisoner re-entry programs; we've worked together on education programs. We need to make sure there are job opportunities. And there are many things we need to do to try to address the problems that the inner cities face. I do not believe the taking away of the constitutional right to bear arms is the way to go. I don't believe it will work. I believe Washington, D.C. is a model of a gun law not working. And besides that, it happens to be the constitutional right of American citizens to defend themselves. The Supreme Court ruled clearly. The City of Washington attempted to defy that ruling; 250 Members of Congress, 55 Senators who signed the amicus brief believed that Congress therefore has to step reluctantly in to try to pass this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. And I also want to thank the dean of the House, Chairman Dingell, who has been a hero to gun owners all over America for many years, for his willingness to stand up. And I want to thank our new freshman Member, Mr. Childers, and those who are standing with him, because this is, indeed, a historic night. And unless you're a Member of Congress or somebody who is kind of a political junkie, it's hard to figure out exactly what's happening tonight. In fact, a discharge petition is something that, when you sign it, basically would turn the House over to the other party. And if you're willing to stand up to your own party, you could force a vote. I know this because, when we first became in the majority, I was one who was often pulled into a side room, threatened that by bringing down a rule or other things that I was going to destroy the party. In fact, sometimes it's your only way to force things. There is a certain number of votes that are allowed on each side to let a bill go through. But what we're seeing tonight was the courage of some Members on the majority side to stand up and say, look, we want a bill. And as these negotiations move forward, it came to me, as the Republican author, along with Mr. Ross, of the bill to overturn this, of, will you accept somewhat less than the whole, but a bill that actually has a chance to be law. Now, as a Republican, I could have said, you know, I think we'll let them fight and we'll go into the election with no bill, with no vote in the House, and put those who are so-called Blue Dogs in a real spot. But that isn't the way we should legislate. We have Members who stood up, even in their own party, and said we want to broker an agreement. We had Members on our side, in our leadership, agreeing that we will be willing to negotiate. And we had a Democrat leadership willing to sit down and work it out even though the majority of their party doesn't agree with this, and obviously many of them are passionately upset. So tonight is a historic debate. Tomorrow will be a historic vote: Will the will of the House be allowed to work its will as it did on campaign finance reform? And I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his leadership.

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi. I wanted to clarify for those watching the debate and for the Congressional Record that the one hearing we did have, there were four witnesses. Three of them were Federal witnesses, and Mr. Issa asked each one of them whether the bill that this amendment is amending had any impact on them. All of them said no. They were never asked another question during the hearing, because they weren't relevant to the hearing. The fourth witness was the police chief of Washington, D.C., and she did have an opinion and doesn't agree, obviously, with this amendment. But she is a political appointee of the mayor, and while it may be her personal view, if she held a view different from the mayor or city council, she would have been removed. So it was somewhat inaccurate to present that at our hearing, that somehow the witnesses all felt that there was this imminent danger in the Federal sector, because all three of them said the bill had nothing to do whatsoever with their positions.

Mr. SOUDER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi have the right to close?

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, it has been 7 years since the terrorist attacks that took the lives of over 3,000 men, women, and children. I join with my colleagues to offer sincere condolences to the families of the victims. We must never forget these tragic events; they have left a wound that will never heal. I also rise to remember and honor the first responders who acted with bravery and heroism on that day and during the recovery period. During one of the worst tragedies our Nation has faced, we witnessed the most remarkable acts of self-sacrifice, courage, and compassion. It is a testament to the American spirit. Since 9/11, we have taken steps to help anticipate and deter future attacks and prepare for a quick and effective response following an emergency. One benchmark of the progress made is the absence of further acts of terrorism on U.S. soil during the past 7 years. This has not been an accident. The men and women serving in our Nation's Armed Forces are pursuing terrorists overseas and warrant our utmost respect and appreciation for their faithful service. Additionally, the 216,000 employees of the Department of Homeland Security deserve our gratitude for their efforts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to gather and analyze intelligence, coordinate with State and local law enforcement, harden our borders, secure our transportation systems, and enforce the laws. We all recognize that our foes are extremely determined and patient; even now they are looking to exploit our open and free society to carry out additional attacks. Our resolve must be even stronger to detect, deter, and respond. There is much more work to do to bolster our security and counter changing threats. Today is a day to renew our commitment to improve our intelligence capabilities, secure our borders, support our first responders in communities large and small, and intensify our vigilance. While the attacks occurred in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the Nation felt the reverberations and stood together in unprecedented unity. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan differences and make the security of our Nation and the well-being of our military personnel fighting the war on terrorism top priorities.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points I want to talk about tonight on energy. But first I want to say that sometimes people get the feeling that we Republicans refer to alternative energy as something that's kind of window dressing because all we want to do is drill. I have been working with alternative energy issues for over a decade here in Congress. In my district we now have the largest integrated soy diesel plant in the world that Dreyfus has put near Claypool just outside of Warsaw, Indiana. I recently gave an award that I have, a Johnny Appleseed award, who's actually a real person buried in Ft. Wayne, to a local company, Sweetwater Music, which is the greatest online music company in the United States and in the world because it looks like they are going to be certified as the first gold business building in the State of Indiana, at full green standards, first gold higher than platinum. And they're doing it and they did it in a way and the reason I wanted to highlight them is they can pay for the cost of their building with what they've saved in energy. I mean it pays for itself. A green building does not have to be a drawback. At the same time, Merry Lea Environmental Learning Center done by Goshen College also has a platinum standard building. I believe that the wind power is a real alternative. Parker-Hannifin in New Haven, Indiana, I have an earmark set aside to help them with their project. They do coolant systems, and they believe they can get 20 to 40 percent more energy out of each wind turbine by changing the coolant standards. I have worked with solar energy in my district. Water Furnace, a company just highlighted in the New York Times in the last week, by recycling water for heating and cooling, can save an untold number of power plants in the United States if we do that. Nevertheless, representing the number one manufacturing district in the United States. Let me just say this: We need coal, nuclear, and drilling as well as all these alternative energies. I have the largest pickup plant in the world that does the Silverado and the Sierra. You aren't going to power this if we don't have enough oil and gas. I have two huge SDI steel plants that take more energy to make the steel than cities of probably 75,000 to 100,000, possibly even double that, to 200,000, and everything in those cities to power those steel plants. Five new core facilities. Valbruna Steel. We aren't going to do this with a windmill standing up. Those are supplemental power systems. But if we're not going to have every company moving to China, we have to have more energy in this country. The motor homes are not going to be powered by a little solar panel. And they're getting hammered right now, and 58 percent are in my district. The international trucks are not going to be powered by alternative energy. We need basic energy. And I want to talk specifically tonight about one. We hear about shale oil. This is what it looks like: layers of rock, and then there is a layer that has hydrocarbons that are packed in much like other oil that are in a solid piece like this. This basically is the equivalent of a gold nugget in the gold area because you can see here it is a piece of basically oil that by heating technology, this turns into high grade oil. We have 800 billion barrels of this. We pump right now in the United States 20 million. We have 800 billion in just the west Colorado, southwest Wyoming, and Utah basin. This is not the Rocky Mountains. It's not by the Grand Tetons. It's not by the Rocky Mountain National Park. It's in the big basin in between the mountains because that's where you have the foliage and things that are packed together to do this. Now, you can do it in open-pit mining like tar sands, and that's what you see a lot in the news. But the Mahogany Research Project that Shell Oil has, and you can find it on the Internet because they have now gone public for a reason I will mention in a minute, and Chevron have ways to do this in the ground so you don't have open-pit mining. They've already extracted enough in their pilot projects that we were able to use it in our planes. We don't need oil at $120. Obviously at $40 it isn't profitable. But in between there we have a lot of room to work to get this out of the ground. The reason they have gone public, because they were nearing the point of a larger scale project, the House of Representatives and the Senate banned shale oil drilling. The project has stopped cold. They have laid off the engineers. Chevron and Shell have had to stop. One project has gone ahead on the open-pit mining. But the new stories in Colorado-- this is a huge debate right now. Just about a month ago I went out. They have now opened it so Members of Congress can see it because they were trying to keep this technology from each other and the different companies, but basically Shell and Chevron have gone public with this technology because they were about to make it public. But we banned it, 800 billion barrels in the United States that does not have open-pit mining, that in the one experimental that they did already, they have already done the recovery of. It's intense when they do it, but down in the ground, they basically freeze the area around it, as you can see in the Mahogany Project, and get it out. If we're going to keep industry in America, we have to come up with American energy strategies. Do everything, including shale oil.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. I thank Ranking Member McKeon for his leadership and yielding the time, and I also want to thank Chairman Miller for working with us to develop a bipartisan bill. You hear a lot about the controversies between the parties and the partisanship, but here is a huge piece of legislation that we were able to work through in a basically unanimous way between the House and even the Senate. I want to talk about a few amendments that I worked with. In fact, there was controversy on each one of these things, but we were able to come to reconciliation. One is GEAR UP, which is widely supported, and my good friend, Chaka Fattah, developed this concept. I was an original cosponsor. We moved it with a Democratic President and a Republican Congress, then a Republican Congress with a Republican President sustained the program, and now a Democratic Congress with a Republican President. But in that we've made some significant changes that allow GEAR UP to put a 2-1 match for scholarship money because one of the intentions of this was to get actual cash to help students get to college who were low-income, and we wanted to give them a commitment in junior high that we will back them up. And this will help balance that back more to cash to those students. It also allows them to work with the first year of college and to connect with TRIO and others and not just get them there. In the Drug-Free Student Loan provision, which has been much aligned by pro-drug groups around the country, we've clarified the Department of Education's confusion on how best to implement this plus added a warning that the universities and colleges are to tell the students that they're at risk of losing their loan if they're convicted of a drug crime. They can get it back with a drug test. They can get it back the third time. You can go to college but not at taxpayer expense. We also had an amendment dealing with for-profits' cohort default rates. One of the unintended consequences if you make it too difficult for how many students don't graduate, that for-profit schools would have stopped seeking minority, low-income students, or any subgroup that shows any risk of more defaults of student loans. And we would have had the unintended consequence if we didn't delay the implementation of the 3-year averaging, which we also worked to get, and I appreciate the chairman working with this because this is very important in many of these for-profit technical schools or others that are serving higher-need, less historically graduating percentages. Our goal with GEAR UP, with TRIO, and others is to increase those percentages, but you don't want to punish the colleges that reach out. We also changed in distance education. We made it easier for basically Internet universities or colleges and universities that use that to get accreditation because if you choke the accreditation, you will cut off the expansion and the accessibility. And this is very important for many colleges and universities. Lastly, I had an amendment in committee that was defeated, but Senator Gregg proposed it in the Senate, and this is the Academic Bill of Rights. I'm pleased that not only it passed the Senate but that the House in effect receded to the Senate. This is something that David Horowitz had advocated for many years, and I'm pleased this is in the bill, too. I want to thank Chairman Miller for his work and Ranking Member McKeon.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I, Mark Souder, am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599--The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs FY09 Appropriations bill. Included in H.R. 6599 is a $5,600,000 earmark that I submitted for the construction of Aircraft Ready Shelters and Fuel Fill Stands for the 122nd Fighter Wing located at 3005 Ferguson Road, Fort Wayne International Airport, IN 46809. The funding will be used to construct a two aircraft bay parking shelter addition to the existing two aircraft bay parking shelter providing a total of four parking spots under shelter as required for a base A/C Readiness Shelter. Project consists of the following: Construct reinforced concrete foundation and painted floor slab with grounding points; masonry and metal siding walls; steel frame; and standing seam metal roof; include a high expansion fire suppression system and overhead infrared heating; provide hangar style doors for drive through capability; remove existing asphalt and provide new concrete taxiway entry and exit; provide asphalt transition to the south apron area; construct stainless steel underground piping, reinforced concrete for curbed access pavement, and refueler fill stands. The base requires adequately sized, appropriately configured, and functional aircraft readiness shelters with supporting taxiway system to support four-ship F-16 aircraft mission requirements. Due to previous funding restraints the current shelter facility was constructed with two parking spots with a plan to add two more at a later date. Readiness shelters are necessary for mission support, operations safety, and protection of aircraft and flightline personnel from inclement weather. The project will also provide a refueler vehicle fill stand on the operational side of the railroad tracks to support the flying mission.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, I wish to speak in support of this resolution. Ten years ago, Mr. Speaker, I worked with Congressman Fattah to author GEAR-UP, and it has been a delight to continue to work with him throughout my congressional career to support this important initiative. For example, as part of the ongoing higher education reauthorization, we were recently able to improve the program to encourage more funding for college scholarships. So I was very pleased to be able to introduce this bipartisan resolution with the Congressman expressing support for the designation of a National GEAR UP Day. Over the past ten years, GEAR UP has sent countless disadvantaged students to college, including many participants in Indiana's 21st Century Scholars program. It is fitting now to look back and appreciate all the success we have seen. According to the U.S. Department of Education, for example, more than 85 percent of the second class of GEAR UP students graduated from high school in 2006, a rate 20 percent higher than other low-income students and more than 10 percent above the total average for all students. Madam Speaker, as we mark GEAR UP's 10-year anniversary, it is also fitting to discuss the many challenges that still face lower-income students attempting to finish college. These challenges are many and varied, but there is certainly more that the Federal Government can do. GEAR UP is an excellent example of the type of program that can make a real difference in kids' lives, but it is also a reminder that tough work lies ahead. I look forward to working with Congressman Fattah and other members on both sides of the aisle to find more solutions to the problems facing these communities. Madam Speaker, I congratulate GEAR UP for a very successful first decade, and wish it even more success in the years ahead. Once again, I strongly support this resolution and ask that my colleagues support it as well.

Mr. SOUDER

Mr. SOUDER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to commend Laura Wegmann of Woodburn, Indiana. Laura won the 2008 Indiana Right to Life Oratory Contest and recently participated in the national finals held in Washington, DC. Laura is a terrific role model for young adults in Indiana. She has excelled both in school and various extracurricular activities. I am especially proud that she has joined me and millions across this Nation in speaking out against the heinous practice of abortion and physician assisted suicide. Her speech is a testament to the value of human life and I ask that it be submitted into the Record. laura wegmann's indiana right to life oratory contest speech In the climactic scene of the movie, ``Judgment at Nuremberg,'' set in post Nazi Germany, Chief Justice Daniel Haywood, of the American Tribunal, delivers the sentence of four Nazi leaders. The men on trial were accused of consigning millions of innocent lives to the infamous gas- chambers of Auschwitz. After the tribunal's deliberation, Judge Haywood ardently declared: ``Before the people of the world, let it now be noted--that here in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth and the value of a single human being.'' Judge Haywood's conclusion was neither new nor radical. It was, rather, an affirmation of the fundamental principle that all individuals possess inherent worth and dignity, simply by virtue of being human. This was the very principle which the German people failed to uphold and it is the same principle that has come under attack today, by those in support of physician assisted suicide. If legalized federally, as it is in the State of Oregon, this act threatens to become one of the most fraudulent perversions of justice legitimized in the wake of Roe. v. Wade. The Supreme Court's decision on abortion stated: ``Only viable human beings who have the capability for meaningful life may, but need not, be protected by the state.'' It is just as Francis Schaefer warned: ``Will a society which has assumed the right to kill infants in the womb--because they are unwanted, imperfect, or merely inconvenient--have difficulty in assuming the right to kill other human beings . . .?'' No. This is where abortion on demand has brought us. Once our Nation swallowed the lethal pill of choice, anything and everything became acceptable. Proponents of the right to die movement have lost all respect for human life. To many of these advocates, Physician assisted suicide is, in the words of Derrick Humphry, Hemlock Society's co-founder, the ``ultimate civil liberty.'' They contend that individual autonomy and quality of life supersede all other considerations. As one of their proponents, Carol Ferry argued: ``The idea that human life is sacred no matter the condition or the desire of the person, seems to me irrational'' This same spirit fueled the Nazi madness. In 1941, German officials removed thousands of disabled children from their families. Among the innocent was a young boy afflicted with Down Syndrome. He was sent to the crematorium because his condition was thought burdensome to society. This little one was Pope Benedict's young cousin. Today's cries for individual autonomy and quality of life are twisted both in their use of language and in their treatment of humanity. They deny the very words which have been declared self-evident, secure, instituted among men and understood to be unalienable, that is, ``. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' We are not mere machines, that if broken, should be discarded. Nor are we animals that if found suffering may be killed. We are human beings created in the image of God and therefore worthy of the utmost respect, love and protection. How then, should we contend with this Industry of Death? First we must address the proper role of medicine. Many advancements have been made in the area of palliative care. Palliative care, takes its meaning from the Latin: pulliave, to cover. It is a form of specialized care that concentrates efforts in reducing pain, stress and the severity of symptoms. We must never allow society to lose sight of the fact that doctors are healers, and when they can no longer heal, their role is to comfort. We must exhort the medical community to uphold the classic Hippocratic Oath which states: ``I will neither give a deadly drug . . . nor will I make [any] suggestion to this effect.'' To accept killing as a medical procedure would grant unprecedented power to the medical community. Such acceptance would ultimately lead to abuse. Let us not forget, that America is an aging society. It is estimated that in a few short years over 71 million Americans will be 65 years and older. Cost cutting agendas combined with dwindling resources would inevitably lead HMO's and other healthcare providers to perceive mercy killing as a form of cost control. Finally, we must do everything in our power to shake this Nation from its ethical stupor. Our message of hope and truth must fill the sanctuaries, echo in the classroom, and ring in the ears of our elected officials. We must flood our libraries with well written books and publications exposing this wretched Industry of Death. We, the Pro Life community, must define for society our firmly set principles. We must affirm, to those who would be robbed, we will overcome this present evil. We too must ardently declare as Justice Haywood did: ``Before the people of the world, let it now be noted . . . this is what we stand for: justice, truth and the value of a single human being.''