voters registered that it was to worry about some of them being improper or false. who specifically who would it -- this specifically what it communicated that? >> the political directors and management. we would have meetings of acorn political operations and that would go over what was needed for the drive. one of the things they said they did not mind is set some cards were bad to get to that goal. the thing was getting to the number. >> who are the directors communicating that? >> the head of a corn political operations. jessica and this -- angus. her first name is clear. >> we appreciate so much your

willingness to come forward. have you been threatened to, are arrested all for coming forward as you have? >> when i first came board i had some problems. but things are getting better the more that i get out there. . we may want to provide some of that information to louisiana. it may help with the claims. >> ok. thank you all so much. >> thank you, gentlemen. certainly part of the reason we're holding this forum today is so that we can shed light on the lack of fire corporations -- lack of firewalls for these corporations perhaps making the case these corporations do not deserve separate identity. normally piercing the corporate veil has to do with is it operating as a separate corporation or not. and with that i would recognize for his questions the gentleman who will probably be sundown as the acorn king -- probably be known as the acorn king. >> thank you, mr. issa, for pulling this forum together and working in cooperation with the balance of the people in this

committee. first reflection is, i better come to the end and do that. i'd like to conclude with ms. moncrief. it really caught my ear when mr. von spakovsky made the statement about the now white house counsel bob bauer as and i would ask to the two parts of to the question, have you reviewed the letter he wrote to the justice department a year ago that i referenced in my opening statement. you may recall in the last paragraph of that letter -- you may recall in the last paragraph of that letter that he requests a private, personal meeting between himself and the attorney general, the attorney general mull casey at the time. i never did find out whether that meeting took place or what might have been discussed that would have accelerated the fierceness of this. but i pose that question if you have some answers to that or any indication. then the other component is, is it a stretch to speculate that

mr. bauer was hired at least in part to help scrub the links between the obama campaign, the obama white house, and acorn? >> i have read his letter. i don't know the answer to the question of whether there ever was a meeting between mucasey and bob bauer. i mean, i don't know the answer to the other question. i mean, that would be speculation on my part which i don't really want to do. i do know he's a very good lawyer. and he would do whatever it took, i think, within the legal bounds, to do the best job he can for his client. and if that meant making sure that there are no problems in the connection between and the prior connections between the president and acorn of which there were many, i mean, i think he would work on that very much.

>> i thank you. and then in turning to mr. rokita, and i wanted to say publicly here thank you for your valorant and successful effort to clean up election law in indiana. it's something i endeavored to do in the aftermath of the 2000 election in iowa and then i chaired the senate and state government committee. and many of the things you accomplished there was legislation i was able to push through the iowa senate that actually failed in the house. so this index is right down the line and very well done. just -- and it adds integrity. as you said it's not a democrat or republican issue. and you mentioned that you're working with the u.s. attorney for the northern district of indiana. and that there have been a number of communications there. and i would just ask you if it is so that this panel knows how to recognize people that are working together, can you tell us the name of the u.s. attorney? >> oh, sure. his name is david capp.

>> thank you. i want to watch the news as this unfolds. i'm looking for allies that care about our constitutional underpinnings and i want to be able to pat the right people on the back when the time comes. i know you're one of them. and i got to do that just a moment ago. and then to attorney general caldwell, that was a bold decision to go in and do the -- and subpoena that information and go in and pick up the 178 hard drives and the other documents that you talked about. just out of curiosity, i haven't been down there since the first part of july. at that time there was a large -- we call it a barn sign campaign poster for obama in the front window at 2609 canal street there at the national headquarters of acorn. do you happen to remember if it was still there the day you went in to serve those warrants? >> i haven't seen. we've been by that location a few times over the past few months. and i have never seen that sign. i'm not saying it wasn't there at one point. so that's probably been for at

least a couple of three months. i did not see any political campaign signs. >> put it on the floor in a poster often enough i imagine that was an inspiration for them to pull it down before you arrive with your subpoena. just a little aside for my own information. but you also mexicoed in your oral testimony that there were documents that you had formerlily subpoenaed in the blanket i'll call it a raid on acorn's headquarters in new orleans. are you at liberty to tell us what documents they did not produce when they were specifically subpoenaed? >> well, we really to be honest with you didn't get that far. because we issued a subpoena. and this is all in the public record. because when they filed their motion for protective order we issued a subpoena for the accounting records. and we directed that to their accountant. the duponche firm. we heard back from them in written and oral correspondence. they said look we want to comply

but our client is telling us to assert an accountant-client privilege. that's not under federal law. that's under state law. and so they filed a protective order. and as part of that protective order they put in a correspondence from acorn, the attorneys for acorn saying, well, we're going to comply with the federal subpoena but not with the state subpoena. and that caused concern, simply because with this amount and this type of massive investigation, i mean, if we have to litigate that before a state court judge who's got to review hundreds of thousands of documents in camera it's just never going to get done. so that caused us concern. and now in discussing that initial conversation with acorn's lawyer, that's when she told me, she said, i just want to let you know that we've had a couple of hard drives that we're in the process of trying to get back but we weren't successful. and she did say those may contain information that would be relevant to you. and so that caused us concern. because while we had heard other things around the country regarding potential destruction of documents and that type of

thing, all of that was to attenuate it. that additional piece provided us with probable cause. so we were not able to get -- it was very early on. as soon as we heard about it we executed that warrant two days later because we wanted to ensure. now, they have been making rolling production. and one of their responses other than the protective order to us is that, look, we'll provide you with stuff but your subpoena i very, very broad. so you need to tell us and we'll do a rolling production. so i will say this. the lawyers have complied with that part of it. but they can't control an entire organization in terms of destruction of documents. if somebody wants to run off with something then they'd be able to, it doesn't matter what their attorney says. >> can i ask for unanimous consent for additional minute? >> without objection. >> i thank you. i promised i'd get to ms. moncrief. i wanted to make a comment i think everybody else in the panel has some kind of support team that they work with.

i'm hoping that you have a support team as well. and i want to encourage you to continue to do what's right and speak for the truth. you've seen the films i will presume, at least some of them that were released to america by james o'keefe and hannah generals. and could you tell this panel, do you believe that reflects accurately the culture of acorn? >> honestly, i think it does. even though the videos were extreme, what happens is that acorn allows for people to kind of blow the lines in order to get the job done or to help the movement. and eventually what happens after you've blown the lines so many times you have what you see in those videos where people are overstepping boundaries and they're very comfortable with it. unfortunately, those offices were like that. there are some offices where people are genuinely trying to help the poor. but usually those people do not last long and they end up leaving acorn. the ones that stick around tend to become jaded and they would

give that type of advice. so i wasn't shocked but i was very saddened to see that's what it had come to. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. thank the witnesses. >> thank you. and now we recognize a man who issued more subpoenas than any other chairman in his time and perhaps in history. and if he had the ability to seize documents before destruction before his tenure i'm sure he would have done it. the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton. >> i only signed 1209 subpoenas. i did get writer's cramp, though. i just have about three quick questions. first of all, from mississippi moncrief, do you have any idea how much money was involved in all these things that you were witnessing? i mean, when you met with these people they were talking about allocation of funds and getting people registered and so forth. do you have any idea of the commingling of funds or how much was used? >> i know that just for the

voter registration drive last year it started off at $28 million. by the time i left it was upwards of 33 to $34 million. and that's just on the project vote side. >> now, that $33 million, do you know where that money came from? do you have any idea of how it was split up? >> foundations. most of the money came from private foundations and major donors. very little came from the government because of it being a voter registration drive. they did have a couple of election assistance commission grants, but the majority of that money came from private foundations. it was then cycled through c.c.i. and disbursed to acorn because project vote doesn't have the capacity to run the voter registration drives. they could not do them unless they were contracting out to acorn to get the people out there. >> but they obviously were working very closely together. >> yes. >> yeah. todd, secretary rokita, there's a couple of questions i wanted to ask you. the state attorney general and the u.s. attorney's office were

contacted regarding these cases as well as the f.e.c. whatever happened with those? i mean, did the state attorney general do anything? the u.s. attorney? you said he has up in the northern district. >> right. at the time that we -- this was right before the 2008 fall election, we did send the report that we attached as record here to the indiana attorney general, u.s. attorney, federal bureau of investigation, and the letter we got back from a deputy at the attorney general's office in indiana was that if the local aid county prosecutor or if the u.s. attorney want our help we'll do it but we're not going to get involved before that. >> you're kidding me. >> no. >> didn't they have the authority to go ahead as state attorney general and move on that? >> again in indiana, every state is different, of course, the state constitutional office holders are very limited in their criminal investigative powers. and those are reserved.

and the prosecutors are very protective of this because i've tried to get a -- thank you for your compliment, congressman keene but i've tried to get criminal jurisdiction over elections and got pushed back very hard by the prosecuting attorney's council in indiana because they file criminal charges. >> but you said -- so the state attorney general really couldn't do anything without the consent of the local prosecutor? >> both of our offices could be deputized by either u.s. attorneys or local prosecutors. >> but fe chose not to do that? >> not yet. >> not yet? well, there's still hope. and finally, i just want to ask mr. von spakovsky one question. you said there are many connections between acorn and president obama. i have heard of a few. can you enumerate some of those? >> i'm sorry. between acorn and -- >> and president obama.

you alluded to connections. the only one i've heard of was he was a counsel for them or an attorney. >> well, yeah, he represented -- when the national voter registration act was first passed in 1993, he represented them in the lawsuit they filed in illinois. but my understanding is that there is video of him speaking at many of their conferences, that he was actually a trainer for them. also like i said last year they gave a lot of money, i think it was $830,000 to one of their affiliates to do voter registration, get out the vote for them. there are many connections over the years between these two organizations that have tied him into them. i mean, they are supposedly community oers, something that he started off at -- as in his career. and i think he helped get training from them and then was training their people.

>> mr. chairman, thank you once again for holding these hearings. i really appreciate you people being here. thank you very, very much. >> i thank you and )@@@@@@@ @ >> in your state, to the republican and democratic parties to voter registration? >> absolutely, and when they are presented with funds to do that registration, they are required to take all registrations that come their way. they cannot say, the you want to register republican? >> right, that is not based on any funding. that is based on indiana laws. assuming it is valid or you think you should turn it in. >> when the republicans and democrats in indiana and through voter registration, they take

all the registrations that are incomplete, and they turn them in? presume they turn them in a little less at the last minute than acorn has tended to. >> absolutely. again we weren't responsible like political parties to do voter registration. >> i want to get into something that concerns me a great deal. when they take money it's not tax deductible, isn't that correct? it's campaign money. parties are not tax deductible to individuals or corporations when you give to them. >> no. >> and yet acorn's voter registration division was getting tax deductible, 40% paid by state and federal tax deductions to those contributing. isn't that your understanding? >> yes. >> so let's see. here's an organization that i believe only registered -- let me rephrase that -- regsters and then turns out votes only for democrats even though they

obviously accept all registration that is come in. but they turn them out for one party and yet they're able to have a 40% advantage in money. their money is charitable, tax deductible foundations very named foundations are able to give them money where they can't give the republican or democrat parties or libertarian or people for freedom money, right? >> i think that's the case and i believe it's ridiculous. >> well, ms. moncrief, from your time looking at the accounting and so on, was that an advantage that was often sold? in other words, when acorn's fundraising went onto foundations, was that an advantage to foundation that is you can give us money where you couldn't give money to the republican or democrat or libertarian parties? >> yes. acorn was specifically targeting progressive funders or liberal funders. most of the people that they were trying to get the money from wanted them to go after democrats and they knew that if

they gave money to acorn it was just like giving money to the d.n.c. or giving money to a candidate. >> so $38 million essentially given to a democratic movement around the normal restrictions on charities and charitable deductions for that. so rich progressives and progressive organizations could do this with a huge advantage. because this money cost them less to get. it was charity money. >> correct. >> amazing. and if project vote, as you said, employed you and had you specifically doing things which were not allowed to a 501-c-3, and it was discovered, wouldn't they lose their tax-exempt status? >> you would think so. but there's been some hesitancy from the i.r.s. to investigate even though we presented some information to them last year. >> also amazing. you know, when you were giving

your statements on the pattern, i couldn't help but think that as a freshman when i came to congress and we were in the heat of enron and worldcome debate and they talked about how enron cooked the books, how enron had to get certain numbers and the accounting essentially over time turned into a con conspiracy to get a number rather than get the truthful number and how outraged both parties were here. and yet there doesn't seem to be much outrage or enough outrage that you had a group that created 1.4 million registered voters when in fact they had very little regard for whether they were legitimately registered. ms. moncrief, let me go into one last question on which you're an expert. acorn, i was on together with better that lewis. and she -- bertha lewis. she continually talked about the

400,000 members of acorn. would you run me through? how do you get to be a member of acorn? and i don't want to lead you excessively. but my understanding is that if you come to acorn for help you usually end up a member, isn't that true? >> that's correct. when they do their housing counseling sessions, they would have -- they used to have an option to where you could either pay $20 for a credit report or you could sign up to become a member of acorn. the membership dues equal about $110 per year. >> about 10 bucks a month, probably. >> they were losing out on that one. but a lot of people chose to sign up. they also had what they called provisional members. you would tacted by acorn. they would come back and contact you and sign up as a full member. this is a lot what they did during the voter registration drive. they actually had an acorn membership card attached to the voter registration cards and they would use them to drive up their membership. >> so let's run back through. this the government and foundations and other groups contribute money to various

acorn affiliates to do community work, to help the poor, to help the disadvantaged. and in the process of giving these briefings and so on on loan restructuring and other advice that they were paid by grants to give, they basically signed people up either then or immediately following to a $10 -- 8 to $10 a month membership so they not only got a pretty good amount of money when you aggregate it to 400,000 but they got to claim that they had membership of 400,000. is that basically true? >> yes. >> how sophisticated were these people? were they aware that -- my understanding is it's done by automatic debit. that the way you get to be a member is they get your bank account and then your bank account gets hit every month for the same amount. is that right? >> yes. >> so were these people sophisticated enough to understand that once they turned that over, they were essentially automatic members for as long as they had that bank account?

>> i don't think so. i saw numerous times when i would go to the fax machine and there would be angry letters from people saying, please stop debiting my account. you're overdrawing my account. and acorn had a problem with actually going in and taking these people out of the system. sometimes they would have to request two to three times to stop the direct deb its. >> well, i'm fog to allow the other members to ask a second round. but thanks to the work of people who when the attorney general gave the san diego office plenty of notice that they would be coming down to look for information, it all went in the dumpster. thanks to those who harvested it, our committee does have a number of those angry letters. this pattern of being put on when you didn't even know that it was going to essentially cost a poor person money for a long time being put on as a member in perpetuity. so we do have some of that evidence. and it's of particular concern to us. because again, this is an organization touted to care about the poor rather than make the poor poorer.

mr. king, would you have another round? >> i would. thank you, mr. chairman. i would just comment first that a person with zero knowledge of acorn could walk in or could have walked in here off the street today and listened to this testimony and walked out of here wondering how a nation with all of the machinery that's here to provide justice in this country, cannot at the federal level have a full court press investigation on acorn and all of its affiliates. i mean, this says there's a blind eye turned, there's a deaf ear turned, there's a frustration that's an undercurrent in the discussion here in this testimony that comes from people who are probably i look across essentially nonpart people that care about our constitution and justice. i was thinking here that attorney general caldwell, you testified that your i'll call it

the raid on acorn headquarters was november 6, that was a friday, not that long ago. and four business days later, anita dunn, the white house communications personnel, stepped down unexpectedly. it wasn't predicted. she stepped down. and right then i thought, there must be some connection here because of the affiliations that she has. and then it was only three days after that on the 13th of november that bob bauer was named to become white house counsel. now, so i make that point, the chronol sunny of this seemed to be too coincidental for me at the time. and i issued press releases that said so. this isn't monday morning quarterbacking this is real-time calling the plays. as i listened to the testimony of mr. von spakovsky, can you think of an individual in america that would be better positioned to defend the white house from the lines of investigation that could lead to tie acorn into president obama and this white house as well as

the obama campaign? but that transition from election to elected office? can you think of an individual better positioned than bob bauer? mr. von spakovsky? >> well, no. and in particular because of one very specific fact. and that is that if you look at the testimony again that anita moncrief gave about receiving this list of maxed out donors from the obama campaign and then using that at project vote and acorn to do basically further work for the campaign, you have potentially not only an evasion of federal campaign donation limits, you have potentially illegal coordination going on between the obama campaign and acorn. those are violations of the federal campaign law that the f.e.c. could engage in civil

penalty against the campaign, and it's something that if it was done knowingly and intentionally would be a criminal violation of the federal election campaign act which would be normally investigated and prosecuted by the public integrity section at the department of justice. the leading campaign finance lawyer on the democratic side in this city is in fact bob bauer. >> thank you very much. and i would turn to ms. moncrief. this is courageous testimony on your part. and on the part of everyone. but you're the one that i'm worried about your support network. and i hopefully it's formed and it's getting stronger. two things stand out in my mind as i listen to this testimony. this thing that echos as i read back through the narratives on the community reinvestment act and the shakedown of lenders and a lot of that that took place in chicago and that's been documented i think pretty well in the media, there's an expression used "get in their face." and we read articles about how

acorn and their operatives bragged about going in and shoving a lender's desk off to the side and surrounding him and getting in his face. i remember during the campaign when president obama said about three weeks before the election to his supporters "get in their face." now, that echoed in my ear as something that maybe was lifted right out of the handbook of acorn. and there's another phrase that happens to come back and echo in my ear, and that is i left it out of the fox news report -- i lifted out done by megan kelly on acorn, a special that was done a month or so ago when she was interviewing wayne rafke and she asked him about the script of the mission statement of acorn. and in that mission statement it said "share the wealth." share the wealth. exactly the language that president obama used when he was confronted by joe the plumber. so i bring you back to those two things that echo, get in their face and share the wealth. i'm going to say those are lifted out of the culture of acorn and put right into the

public record by now president of the united states. and then the question, though, that i had for ms. moncrief, you said at one point in your testimony that poverty is big business with acorn. can you explain to this panel how that functions? how poverty becomes big business? and what their motivation then is? and i don't think i understand the flow of money. >> acorn receives money from like community block grants or neighborhood revitalization grants. that money goes into the national acorn coffers. if they were to actually go out and fix the things they said they were going to fix that money would eventually dry up. but they've been able to draw this out for 30 years by saying that the people need a voice, the people need power. but they've taken all the power and consolidated it at the top of acorn. and that's also where all the money sits. so they're not really helping. they may have a housing counseling session. but it's usually run by a

poorly-trained worker whose main goal is to get -- increase acorn membership. they're not really doing anything with the money that they're getting besides using it to fund the political machine. what little that they do use for actual programs is still not -- doesn't justify what they've gotten from the government and from private foundations over the years. and as long as they keep people poor, they will continue to get that money to fix the same problems in the neighborhoods. >> so it's essentially a perpetual motion machine that swallows up taxpayer dollars and dollars from charitable donations through foundations that empowers and strengthens acorn and their affiliates for political purposes and that strengthens democratic candidates in the places where there are swing districts in particular across america. would that be a fair analysis? >> yes, it would. >> thank you, ms. moncrief. i very much appreciate all your testimony. i yield back. >> the gentleman from end. >> i'm just going to make a real short statement. that is i was chairman of the government oversight committee for six years.

and i watched as the justice department was manipulated in many cases by the attorney general for political purposes. and now we have a justice department that's not looking into these things. and it really, really concerns me. not just about acorn but about justice and the freedom that is we enjoy. liberty and freedom. if our justice department doesn't investigate corrupt activities on a scale like this, then what in the world do we need a justice department for? it's extremely important that the laws be enforced and people who break the laws be brought to justice. and i see right now here a huge hole that's being created during this administration that jeopardizes the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy. i'm not being dramatic right now. i really mean this.

you know, our forefathers fought for, i don't know, what, eight years to defeat the british because they didn't want taxation without representation? and here we are right now seeing all these things just being frittered away, taken away because we're not enforcing the law. i just think it's -- it's criminal quote unquote to not really do what we should be doing or the justice department doing what it should be doing by investigating all these things that are obviously illegal. and the president appointed the attorney general, and the attorney general's not going to do anything without the president's approval. and there we sit. and i think it's really unfortunate. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. one last question before closing. as we've gone through the thousands and thousands of pages we recently got from san diego, we're picking up new information and perhaps a new pattern. and ms. moncrief, you perhaps could shed light. this document i have in front of me is only from this year from a

san diego resident. but it appears as though -- and if you can't answer i'd understand -- but it appears as though information comes from banks to acorn saying, please reach out and help these people. and as they're reaching out, they're turning into members. is this happened during your watch with other banks? this bank probably wouldn't be. it's in california. but is that something that you saw a pattern of that? .. .. they also worked to encourage members show. he was like a community

relations officer that had a good relationship with acorn, more of a good relationship then response will business practices he was supposed to be i noticed it was not really when informational sessions to help people get home since. >> you mentioned bank of america. citibank and any other bank's panama >> i know they had a sub prime package. i am not sure what they did with it, but they said they would use the subprime package, right around the time they started seeing the first cracks in the housing vogel and acorn said they wanted to be there when it occurs. >> never pass of an opportunity. i want to thank you for the work

you are doing. i want to make sure we make the record complete as much as we can. attorney general's are welcome to work with us on this as long as we throw out personal information that should not be shared public. we will make those documents available. i want to go on record saying the tens of thousands of pages we took from california we made sure that a complete copy was given to the attorney general's office and that the originals are here in washington and available. anyone who wants to go through them in -- we will make these

available as long as we have this flow you can achieve digitally. we want to make sure we lead to a full understanding and an end to this practice in every state. at the same time, we are not law enforcement. we understand that once we shed light, it really is for the various states and u.s. attorney's office to do what is right. hopefully, we are shedding light. we are hoping to get nine additional whistle-blowers to help understand the code -- the scope and to make sure this end. i would like to say one other st.. where the committee of whistle- blowers, not just when it appears to be an organization

doing something partisan. our job is to look at miss use of government funds or activities anywhere, and when we looked at the private sector we try to let them in relation with government, but our whistle- blower operations are available always. we would hope that our committee does far more far-reaching activities related to the growth of government and a waste of the taxpayers' money. i will close by saying a corn's money they receive from the government was rather small. how they leverage if with private-sector money we are only beginning to understand. we hope to see more of that, and unless anyone has any final remarks, i thank you for your

service and presence, and this forum stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> up next, senate floor debate on health care regis -- legislation. after that, a rally in new york city concerning the upcoming terrorist trial, and malcolm gladwell. on december 7, 1941, a surprise japanese attack on pearl harbor left 2003 hundred 90 americans dead. the national park service has been collecting survivors -- 2390 americans dead. the national park service has been collecting survivors' testimony. >> we waited at the largest aircraft carrier.

monday, the ship was scheduled to come back to the states, and i would have gotten out, and i saved $400 to go to medical school. the day before was non-eventful except i did not go ashore because honolulu in those davis was not a favorite port because there were no women. -- in those days was not a favorite port because there were no when then. people said, what are all those planes terrain on a sunday morning -- doing on a sunday morning? about the time i looked up, i was almost positive there were six of them coming information.

i saw the bomb dropped, and then i saw this huge red plane and black smoke, and i thought, those are real bombs. i thought somebody really made mistake. about the time, i felt it. we were being hit by torpedoes on the opposite side. >> if you would like to see extended interviews with the survivors, go to c-span.org. the senate was in session began today debating health care legislation, and a portion of the debate beginning with mitch mcconnell of kentucky. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: first, i want to extend a welcome to the

president who is coming up to the capitol today to meet with democrats on the suggest of the health care bill. so far, they have voted to cut medicare three times, cuts they previously described as immoral and irresponsible. cuts that made it impossible for the president to keep his pledge that people who like our plans can keep them, cuts that will reduce the quality of home health care, cuts that will reduce benefits for nearly 11 million american seniors on medicare advantage, cuts that raid medicare instead of fixing it, cuts the american people vehemently, vehemently oppose. democrats are in a tough situation on this bill, mr. president. they want to expand the government's reach into health care, but they don't have the money. and they don't have the support more importantly of the american people. so what did they do? they decided to take the money they need out of medicare, and that's only made their health

care plan even less popular with the american people. now, the gregg amendment which we'll vote on later this afternoon would help reverse the damage of last week's votes. the gregg amendment says that democrats can't raid medicare, which is already in serious trouble, in order to pay for their $2.5 trillion bill. the money going out of medicare is hospital insurance trust fund already exceeds its annual income. it's already drying up. by 2017, the hospital insurance trust fund won't be able to pay full benefits, and that's before our colleagues get their hands on it. this program needs to be fixed, not pillaged, to create another one. so the gregg amendment prohibits using money from medicare to pay for any new government programs, for expanding existing programs, or for subsidies. instead, it directs that any money from medicare be put back into medicare to strengthen and preserve it for future generations so that we can keep

our promises. frankly, this is just common sense. americans don't want this bill to pass, and they certainly don't want it to pass at the expense of the roughly 40 million american seniors who depend on medicare. the gregg amendment would keep that from happening. a vote for the gregg amendment is a vote to keep our promise to seniors. we're also going to have another vote today on the ensign amendment. the amendment is simple. it is designed to ensure that injured patients, not their lawyers, receive the vast majority of any settlement in a medical malpractice suit. it says that since lawsuits should benefit patients, not lawyers, lawyers can't take more than one-third of the recovery their clients receive. in other words, the lawyers can't take more than one-third of what the client gets. these are responsible limits. moreover, they were written by a democrat and supported in the past by 21 of our current democratic colleagues as well as

the vice president. and they would drive down costs, the original purpose of reform. the independent congressional budget office has said that comprehensive liability reforms would save the taxpayers more than $50 billion. the ensign amendment is a step in that direction, and we will offer a better step-by-step reform to end junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals later in the consideration of this bill. i'm hopeful my democratic colleagues will support it again since so many of them have supported it in the past. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in leader time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i would -- senator reid contacted me earlier today and was unable to be here for the opening of the session, and i told him that i would be here to open, and i would just like to say briefly in response that the comments that have been made by the

minority leader, senator mcconnell, continue to raise question about the future of medicare. i hope that senator mcconnell is sensitive to the fact that this last week on december 3, we voted 100-0 for the amendment offered by senator bennet of colorado, which said that nothing in the amendments to this act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under the social security act provisions related to medicare. and he went on to say that any savings would be used to extend the solvency of the medicare trust fund, reduce medicare premiums, and other cost sharing for beneficiaries, and approve or expand guaranteed medicare benefits and protect access to medicare providers. we voted 100-0 on a bipartisan fashion to make sure that we protect the medicare pt 60 minu. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak on the bill and in part respond to the minority

leader. at the end of the day, why are we staying around the clock discussing this bill with the intent that we are going to pass the bill? it is simply that we cannot continue as we are. we are in a system whereby insurance is not solving the nation's health needs. all you have to do is talk to a doctor, and if they haven't already pulled their hair out, they are about to, in that when they want to give a certain treatment to a patient, they feel like they have to negotiate with the insurance company and, in fact, the insurance company often is dictating to them what treatment and what drugs they can or cannot do.

or, look at the simple little cases that we hear about that are just absolutely simple cases but catastrophic because someone is in the middle of treatment of something and they get a notice that their insurance company is going to cancel them, or they have lost their job and they are desperately trying to get health insurance again and an insurance company uses as an excuse that they had a pre-existing condition, and it may be a flimsy excuse. i gave the example yesterday of it may be something like a skin rash. that's a pre-existing condition that they can't get health insurance now on their own. so we have a system that's out

of control. now, when it comes to -- you hear a lot about costs out here. we hear a lot about costs, and indeed if we don't do something about the costs of health care, none of our people are going to be able to afford it. talk to corporate america and the c.e.o.'s and listen to them what the insurance companies are saying to them, how they are jacking up their rates on their employer-sponsored group policies, and oh, please pray that you are not an individual who can't get a group policy and you're having to go out there and try to find an individual policy because the likelihood is that you're not going to be able to afford it. so cost is critically a factor here, and it's a factor also to

the united states government, because we cannot -- the u.s. government cannot afford the cost of medicare as it keeps exploding into the future. we have to bring these costs under control. and when you mix that in with the horror stories that you hear of 46 million people don't have health insurance, but when they get sick, where do they end up? the emergency room. they get that care at the most expensive place, and the rest of us pay, and that is a hidden tax on average in this nation. that hidden tax is $1,000 per family health insurance policy, and i can tell you in my state of florida, it's even higher. it's $1,400. so in florida, a family that has

a group insurance policy, they're paying $1,400 more per year to take care of those folks that do not have insurance but end up getting sick, and the bill is paid by everybody else. now, what i have just described is a system that is in tilt. it's not working. and the whole purpose of this bill is to try to make it work so that, number one, it's affordable, and number two, that health insurance is available. so at the end of the day, we're going to pass it, and at the end of the day, poor old harry reid, our majority leader, is going to figure out a way to get 60 of us to come down here to shut off

the filibuster so that we can go to final passage and get it down into a conference committee in the house. and at the end of the day, after that conference committee comes back, we're going to get those 60 votes again because this is so desperately needed, despite all of the supposed arguments that you hear on the other side. now, can this product be improved? of course it can. and i certainly want to share -- as i did in the finance committee -- an amendment that would cause the pharmaceutical industry to come up with some more money. they have pledged -- and to their credit -- and let me just say that billy tauzin, the head

of the pharmaceutical association, he is smart, he knows what he's doing, and he's trying to play ball with the leadership and the white house, and i want the pharmaceutical industry to know that this senator appreciates that because, with everybody else, like the insurance industry, trying to kill it deader than a doornail, at least they're helping. but, the pharmaceutical industry said that they were coming forth with $80 billion over ten years they were going to contribute. the hospital industry said they were going to contribute about $150 billion over ten years. and so forth. but, in fact, mr. president, the pharmaceutical industry is not contributing $80 billion. here is a morgan stanley analysis for investors of

pharmaceutical stocks, their analysis of what's going to happen to the pharmaceutical industry in the future. and morgan stanley has said these guys are so smart, they're not contributing $80 billion. they're contributing only $22 billion. why? because when they say this -- we're going to contribute discounts to allow half of this so-called doughnut hole to be filled, that means there's going to be a lot more drugs sold. and, oh, by the way, the bill takes medicaid from 100% to 133%. that's going to be a lot more drugs sold as a result of this bill. so the real loss -- or contribution, if you will -- of the pharmaceutical industry is $22 billion over ten years, not

$80 billion. and that doesn't even include -- remember, they just raised their prices 9%, three times the rate of inflation. so they're going to make up a lot of that, anyway. well, what i want to plead with the leadership in the white house and the leadership of the pharmaceutical industry, come back to your $80 billion real figure over ten years. and one way to get there is the amendment that i offered in the finance committee that was rejected on a nature revote of 13--- on a narrow vote of 13-10. out here on the floor, it is my intention to offer that amendment. i filed it. it would produce, according to c.b.o., $106 billion of taxpayer fund savings over ten years

because the discounts would have to be there for the medicaid recipients that are entitled to discounts but now since they buy their drugs through medicare, they can't get those discounts because we changed the law six years ago in the prescription drug benefit. and that's just simply not right. now, i'm not out here to try to punish anybody. i am out here to try to make this work and to get 60 votes, so we can go to final passage. but everybody has got to do their part, and everybody has got to contribute their part. and i look forward to the future discussions, as we close in on what probably is going to end up being -- the presiding officer: senator's time has expired. mr. nelson: -- the final passage of this, probably a week or eight days down the road. and i thank you, mr. president.

mr. specter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. specter: mr. president, the schedulers have allocated 15 minutes to me, so i would ask unanimous consent at this time that i may speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. specter: i thank the chair. i have sought recognition to speak in opposition to the ensign amendment. the authoritative statement on attorneys' fees has come from the national association of insurance commissioners in a document -- a 2008 document entitled "countrywide summary of medical malpractice insurance." and these are authoritative figures on how much the defense lawyers have taken and how much the plaintiffs' lawyers have taken, and it shows that the plaintiffs' lawyers on the state of the record are underpaid,

paid less than defense lawyers; hardly the cause for an amendment to lower attorneys' fees even more for plaintiffs' lawyers. these are the statistics by the national association of insurance commissioners, as to the attorneys' fees. the attorneys' fees for defendants were $2,110,000,000. the total recovery by plaintiffs was $4,090,000,000. calculated attorneys' fees at one-third would mean that the attorneys' fees were for the plaintiffs' attorneys $1,340,000,000, substantially under the $2,110,000,000 for

defense attorneys. the attorneys who take on cases on a contingent fee do so because, unlike insurance companies which have the funds to retain lawyers on an hourly basis, most plaintiffs are unable to pay attorneys' fees, do not have the capital to do so, and the arrangement is worked out that the fee will be paid by a share of the recovery. now, if there is no recovery, there is no fee. and beyond the absence of a fee, the plaintiffs characteristically cannot afford the costs of litigation. when depositions are taken or filings are made or various other costs arise, it is up to the plaintiff's lawyer to pay

those fees and those are not reimbursed. an effort is being made now to have those deductions on an annual basis. the plaintiff's attorney can't even take them in thier when they are paid. so that if you see a situation where in absolute dollars plaintiffs' lawyers on contingent fees are paid less than defense lawyers, and you have added to that the risk factor that the plaintiff's lawyer may get nothing, there should even be a greater compensation for plaintiffs' lawyers and defense lawyers, and as these statistics show, it is lesser. i have had experience -- most of my experience in the courtroom has been as a prosecuting attorney. but some experience working for a big law firm, represented the pennsylvania railroads,

defendants; represented insurance companies. and in the firm practice on that kind of representation, there is frequently a senior lawyer or junior lawyer, an associate and a paralegal at multiple tiers running up the costs. most plaintiffs' lawyers do not have large firms. many single practitionering pra. and postulate a situation where the fees would be cut even further is just not reasonable or not realistic. when the contention has been made -- just made by the republican leader, repeated earlier contentions -- that there are senators who voted in favor of the kennedy bill on liability reform, it is not so as represented. first of all, senator kennedy's bill in 1995 was a much different, much different bill.

secondly, it was a tabling motion. and those who voted against tabling were willing to consider the issue, not that they agreed with what was in the bill. procedurally when there is a motion to table, if it's passed, the bill is off the floor. if@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @b are in agreement it ought to be enacted. the issue of attorney's fees and malpractice litigation really ought to be left to this faith in our federal system, -- left to the states in our federal system, and pennsylvania is my

state. in pennsylvania, there was a rule change made to require the before a malpractice suit could be brought, there had to be a certification from a doctor that the case fell below applicable standards of care. standards of care. kno carrierringconnect 1200

.

>> we are united with firefighters and police officers and military. anyone who tells you that the civilians are not part of this are not telling you the truth. the 9/11 families stand united against the decision to try these terrorists in new york's federal court. you can always find a handful of people in 3000 families who

disagree, but those are not to the majority. the last time i checked, this was still a democracy. [applause] help us tell our government that the majority rules. what the majority wants is these trials out of new york federal court. tell your congressman, go to your local offices, get your friends to do it all so. let's change this decision now. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, i direct your attention to the jumbo tron. we have a video montage of eric

holder. [boos] >> can you give me a case in u.s. history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in civilian court? >> i don't know. i would have to look at that. i think that the determination we are making -- >> i will answer it. the answer is no. why would you take something different with k.s.m.? >> i don't know. >> does it matter about the law enforcement component? if we captured bin laden tomorrow would he be entitled to

the miranda warning? >> that depends. >> if you are going to prosecute anyone in civilian courts, the law is clear, the moment until custodial interrogation begins, the criminal gets a lawyer and is informed of their right to remain silent. if we got bin laden tomorrow, we could not turn him over to the cia, the fbi, or military intelligence. we are saying that he is subject to criminal court in the united states. you are confusing the people fighting the war. what would you tell the military commander who captures him? would you tell him that he must be read his rights? >> you have said your decision

to try kelaita shaikh mohammed in our courts is because that's where you have the best chance to prosecute, that the chances of success are enhanced and that you have access to all the evidence, so you are in a better position to judge than those ignorant of the evidence. how could hyou more likely to get a conviction in federal courts when he has already asked to pled guilty and to be executed? how could you be more likely to get a conviction this leg? -- thias way? >> are you concerned a judge may say that you have made an election to try these terrorists as criminals?

and you cannot go back to revert to the war is a blocked -- revert to the rules of war? >> military commissions are a legitimate way historically that other nations have used as well as the united states to try people who violated the rules of war. >> that is correct. when appropriate, i will make use of those commissions. >> i think this is causing quite a bit of concern. i see today that the new jersey gov. who cerda the ninth is/11 commission -- who was the chair of the 9/11 commission feels this is a mistake and

would cause sympathizers around the world. the u.s. attorney under president clinton says it may take three years to try these cases. the decision has been strongly criticized by rudy giuliani, the mayor of new york when the attack occurred, also served as a jattorney general. he has complained about former attorney general mukasey has also criticized this decision. i don't feel the american people are overreacting. i don't think they are acting fearfully. i think they see this as war. the decision you have made to try these decisions in federal courts represents a policy or a political decision. >> i don't agree.

>>the decision was based on the evidence. based on the case. >> with regard to the specific decision that you made, i noticed yfirstthat you referredo a case in which a military person was killed. isn't it true that the u.s. pentagon on 9/11 was directly attacked by the people who declared war on us? >> that's true. that is one of the factors i considered in making this determination. the number of people killed on 9/11 were largely civilian, though it was obviously a very heinous act that occurred at the pentagon. because of the fact that this was an act that occurred on our

shores with the victim population that was largely civilian, among other things, including my desire to ensure that certain evidence would be admitted, it was my determination that bring in that case in an article 3 court made the most sense. >> military personnel were killed on 9/11. they attacked the pentagon. i don't think we should give a preference to military commission trial simply because the enemy attacked civilian people rather than military people. >> i think you get the idea, folks. do you believe this man is attorney general of the united states of america? god help us. is he still going? they are cutting its.

my next speaker is a man who is amazing. a former federal prosecutor. he has prosecuted rahchman. he is the co-chair for the center of law and counter- terrorism. he works for the national review institute, where he is a senior fellow. his book "willful blindness" is something you must read. he is my friend. he is brilliant. and the mcy mccarthy. >> we heard the attorney general. does that make sense to everyone? we are back here because he

feels it is a crime. we know that it's a war. we are back here in the spot where they declared war against us 16 years ago. when they declared war with us they were using bombs. we answered with subpoenas. they attacked. we indicted. we brought them to that building where they could have a trial before a jury of their peers. now they want to give khalid shaikh mohammed a trial before a jury of his peers. when i look out at my fellow new yorkers i don't see khalid shaikh mohamad's peers.

i see him come -- muhammcolli'. there are people up here who before 9/11 were facing down terrorists when the people running this government now were pardoning terrorists. there are people here who after 9/11 were fighting terrorists while the people running this government or at guantanamo bay representing terrorists. >> that's the truth. >> we are not fera out of fear -- we are not here out of fear.

we want justice. the attorney general does not understand what the rule of law has been in wartime. in wartime the rule of law for terrorists and for enemies is war crimor * in wartime trial ba military tribunal. it's not to bring them to a federal courts and give them all the rights of the americans that want to kill. the rule of law for wartime enemies has been military commissions since the beginning of this country. it was the right thing for george washington. it was the right thing for andrew jackson. it was the right thing for abraham lincoln. it was the right thing for franklin delano roosevelt. it is the right thing now.

it has always been the right thing. it never told be the right thing. f-word is a war. the war is not a crime. you don't bring your enemy to a courthouse. -- a war is a war. come away with one thing today. the people who made this decision are not your rulers. the people who made this decision are your representatives. the justice department is not eric holder. the american government is not barack obama. the government and that court house belonged to new -- b elong to you. we have to light a fire under congress because they work for you as well. congress is a jurisdiction of

the federal courts. if they don't want this trial to happen, if they vote against it, it cannot happen. but they will not change unless they hear from new. will they hear you? >> yes. >> thank you for coming. it is an honor to be here with you. let's get this changed. >> thank you. ladies and gentlemen, curtis sliwa. [applause] >> first off, let me extend to my brother in solidarity, our master of ceremonies involved with these campaigns before, let's give a great round of applause. beth, a sister in solidarity,

pounding the pavement for years, seeking justice against our enemies trying to destroy our freedom and democracy, and to many of you who have joined us side-by-side and rubbed shoulders before. can there be any more of an outrage? the attorney general of new york city attorney general eric holder born in queens, bringing these jihadists to nyc, adding insult and injury to those who have suffered before? to give them the pulpit. we want to honor those brave men and women in far off afghanistan and iraq, pouring hot lead into the valleys of death because of these jihadists.

they don't worship their religion. the worst of the cult of death. if it is desk they want, then it is dusk we shall give them. let them go straight to hell. >> usa. >> the cia operatives in pakistan and other countries, our men and women are oftentimes killed in action, never to be recognized. we universally salute them as they follow the enemies until the end of time, until every last one is killed and extinguished. ladies and gentlemen, as we see on aljazeera, osama bin laden

and al qaeda terrorism, if they want the paradise express to go up to the side of allah, then let's speed up the process. to the brave men and women of the nypd, the court officers, the federal marshals, the fbi agents, all those who will be charged with public safety here and abroad, they will have to continue to risk their lives. those on the front lines of our defense, we honor their service to america and to our great city of new york, because they are the ones who will help to keep us safe and sound.

let me tell you about this criminal justice system. many of you know that this -- that we saw trials against john gotti jr, who tried to take my life on two occasions. how are we going to find a jury who can feel safe and secure with khalid sheik mohammed when the jurists in the mafia trial were afraid? as i sat there during the deliberations, i heard a lawyer said, what a career break it

would be to represent khalid shaikh mahomet and the jihadist s? what an opportunity to report each and every day what goes on in that courtroom, said a reporter. the u.s. attorney said but what a great opportunity to prosecute khalid the shmuck. this is not about career opportunities. this is about freedom, justice, the american way. muhammed wanted to come off the airplane and have a press conference to talk about destruction. remember, his nephew was the bad

seed ramzi yousef, who started this in 1993 with the first attack. i am asking all of you, in honor of all the brave men and women who have perished, the 9/11 victim's, their families, sons and daughters who will have to continue to battle the terrorists, let's say to eric holder and to barack obama our president -- [boos] we want justice. we want penalties. we want them to note the rassa

of america -- the wrath of america. at every madras around the world and to the future ramzi yousef and khalid sheik mohammeds, let them know until the day we die, that we will trail them until the end of time. finally, when thcmuhammed and the jihadists the load to kill every american and every jew, when they go before the judge, let us hope that the wheel of fortune is for law and

order and not a friend of terrorists, that we put them all on the paradise express and send them right up to the side of allah. god bless all of you. >> usa, usa! >> ladies and gentlemen, i want to reduce four of eight whifathr is who make up the band of dads. each lost a firefighters' sun on 9/11. they stayed there and helped and served for weeks and months after the terrorist attacks.

lee and terry. dennis, george, jack. [applause] >> thank you. i was asked to come up here to say a few words about what this group of dad's did. it's a powerful story. when i got there i met a lot of fathers and sons looking for their dads or their sons. i met a lot of police officers that will looking for their sons. i met a lot of port authority police officers that were looking for their sons and relatives. a small group of us stayed together and we worked together. some of us are on the stage and some are in the audience. our mission was to look for the

folks that were lost at this site on 9/11. the process went on for many months. we stayed together as a group of dads. we became an inspiration, i'm going to say, because it was a very difficult place to work. if you can imagine what it was like. the men and women that we can never say thank you to in enough ways would look at us and say they have a mission here, so we should stay with them, band together, and we will work as hard as we can to find everybody lost at this site. that is how we work together and stayed together in nine months of recovery work. i have said this before, that i was blessed to be able to bring

all my son, some of the data that are geared to day to this day have not been that fortunate. -- some of the fathers still have not been able to bring theirs home. the easier thing to say is to hate. we cannot do that. we have to stay positive. we don't want to lower ourselves to the standard of the people who did this to us. i am not about to do that. why am i up here? because on september 11, a war was declared on america. we sent our troops off to fight this war. we have lost a lot of beautiful young men and women in fighting this war.

many more have been wounded. in this process of fighting in this war are military and some of our agencies captured terrorists. they have captured combatants that are at war against us. my feeling is they deserve a fair trial in a military and tribunatribunal, not on our soi. guantanamo is where this should be. that simple, nothing more, nothing less. thank you. [applause] >> ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen, i say let's roll, you know what i am referring to. the heroic captain of flight 93, which was crashed in pennsylvania, thanks to the heroic efforts of the passengers, led by todd. let me introduce to you right now, his father david. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. why i am very thankful to be an american and none to have the freedoms of assembly and speech today. the brief remarks i have are primarily directed to our president. mr. president, it is one thing

to break a campaign promise. but quite another to break a solemn vow that you made in your oath of office. you pledged to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of these united states. this trial decision is wrong. if you allow this to proceed, you will be breaking a sacred oath. it will be a second attack on nyc and america. it will be september/11, the sequel. mr. president, do not be a party of september 11, the sequel. right this wrong. stop this attack.

mr. president, do not convey constitutional rights to the enemy. right this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, do not erect barriers to victory on the battlefield still raging. right this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, do not risk our security, our intelligence,r our safety. ight this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, do not make or showing the world a priority. right this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, do not put america in harm's way. right this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, do not provide ammunition for our enemy propagandar enemyight this ron.

-- right this wron -- to not pe ammunition for our enemies. don't put an economic bordeurden on america. to do not allow the enemies to step foot in america. right this wrong. mr. president, do not violate your sacred oath. right this wrong. stop this attack. mr. president, i would have given my life to prevent sep/11, 2001. i merely ask you to exercise leadership. right this wrong. stop this attack. commander in chief, sir, once

upon a time a young man issued a call to action, to do the right thing, to fight back, when he said, "let's roll." the three people on flight 93 did that successfully. commander in chief, sir, on this day his old man is calling you to action. stand up, commander. issue a command. and do the right thing. reverse this attackr. ight thi -- reverse this attack. right this wrong. our attorney general has demonstrated that any confidence

placed in him is misplaced. he needs to be removed. [applause] mr. president, holder must go. [applause] commander in chief -- [crowd chanting] holder must go. >> commander in chief,tw two commands, stop this attack. pfeifer eric holder -- fire eric

holder. >> ladies and gentlemen, all decent americans agree with us. all decent muslims agree with us. we have many muslim supporters. i want to introduce to you a doctor, chairman of the board, founding member of president of the american forum for democracy. he was featured in "islam vs. islamists"which at first was not broadcast. >> thank you. i stand before you today as a father, husband, a doctor, and the soldier. i served 11 years in the navy probably. on navy scholarships.

i stand before you as a devout muslim. most importantly i stand before you as an american. [applause] while i don't have a personal family member that lost their life or sacrificed on 9/11 or on 11/5 at the massacre in texas, i'd share deep feelings with all of them, especially the last 13. they attacked the very ideal of who we are as a country of liberty. these barbarians seek to destroy our country that my family came from syria that to their muslim land would not give them. like all americans on 9/11, my heart sank for the loss of our countrymen, the men and women that gave my family of a god- given right to practice their

faith freely here like no so- called muslim nation would do. it was at the hands of muslims this was done, each time i heard that i felt a greater responsibility to act. i promise you, most american muslims, despite relative silence, do feel the burden to claim back our face from these extremists, the vehicle and theological ideology, radical islamism. they are at war with the ideals of this country and there are at war with what defines me as an american and as a muslim. this war has a kinetic element. mr. mohammed asha the device per above what we are fighting. the enemy is not terror.

-- mr. muhammed is what we are fighting. it's between freedom and suprematism. between democracy and fascism. i am here to tell you as a devotional muslim, that while my family escaped much of this conflict in the 1960's and left the fascism of the syrian government, it was clear on 9/11 that they followed us to united states. we have dedicated our lives to fighting this conflict. our leaders in washington need to stop being ideas. these are not a run-of-the-mill criminals. -- are leaders need to stop being naiive. these are enemy combatants. our enemies are k.s.m, hamas,

hezbollah, the taliban, the bureaucrats in iran, some of those leaders in saudi arabia and others. i had the honor of serving in the u.s. navy 11 years after a military scholarship. the whole time i never once felt hyphenated or labeled. i served proudly as an american. let us not to give this platform to al qaeda and mohammad. let us not give that to them. we formed the american islamic form for democracy to build a future of our faith that is not in conflict with liberty, or democracy. this is a clear and present

danger to muslims in the free practice of islam. after the fort hood massacre, despite what was presented as the overwhelming concern, most american muslims actually asked not about what would happen to us but about how we could prevent the next attack. that is what we are dedicated to. it is time for congress to formally declared war on radical islam is soism. it's time to declare war on al qaeda and all of its brethren. we ask for military justice. let me be the first to say i hope k.s.m and other radical islamists meet the ultimate penalty, the death penalty. i'm asking you to call, right, protest, engage your community,

engage your muslim and interfaith communities to speak out against islamist islam and this radicalism and speak out against sharia law and other types of legalities at the core of denying liberty and democracy. last, let me assure you, just as you see my values as a father, husband, and citizen, as an american muslim, there are thousands and thousands of other american muslims who come out of the same dick fuld i do. we need your help. connect us together. these terrorists are real. yes, they are muslims, but there are many muslims ready to take up the challenge for a civil war of ideas within the faith. thank you for including our voices. god bless you.

god bless america. we will never forget 9/11. >> ladies and gentleman, a couple more speakers and a couple songs. 3 summerlin --teresa mullen is the mother of a 9/11 firefighter. he perished in the world trade center on 9/11. let me introduce to you along with other 9/11 mothers who lost loved ones, firefighters. threesome molleresa mullin. >> good afternoon. standing with me today are a group of mothers who lost their sons on 9/11. how old does a mother get up here and talk in two minutes about her beautiful son? i will do my best.

michael had basketball, bowling, swimming team, boy scouts, music lessons, with daily games of or fall on jordan street. it seems michael had a knack for sending his schoolmates into laughter and his teacher's hair to turn permanently greg. michael was a very repentant face and would tell me, "mom, i'm sorry, i will neverhe do it will had a kind and thoughtful maj. he was always helping the neighbors and he had his own paper route, earning his own money. at the age of 16, summer jobs were tough to come by. michael's signed up for as a

repro palsy cerebral palsey cam. hthey needed the thibathing and everything else. he carried out all those tasks. his nursing groups were planted. he joined the united states army after graduating from holy cross. it turned out to be a good fit for him. he responded well to the discipline. he learns to be focus and set goals. his adventurous spirit earned him a paris to the bad for completing three jumps. -- a parachute badge. he returned home on leave. he was able to show his

teachers and how proud he was in his uniform. after well-wishers at the school, he said goodbye. on his way out, he passed the detention room with 12 sad face students with their heads down, visibly riding a torturous assignment. michael, as mysterious as ever, stepped into the room to say in a very authoritative voice, "gentleman, you are dismissed.' the 12 students picked up their books, flew past michael, nearly knocking him over in their rush to the front door. michael stood there dumbfounded, what did i do? i better get out quick before the brothers, back. he ran to the front door as well. when brother stephen returned to an empty classroom, he quickly

discovered that a man in an army uniform dismissed everyone. during the last six months of michael's military career he took the new york city firefighters exam. windier was waiting for his name to be called, he went to college to become a registered nurse. michael's wife continued to be filled -- michael's life continues to be filled with music, song, and dance. he did a terrific interpretation of jerry lewis. the attempt -- obtained a bachelor's degree in science and nursing from hunter college. his goal was to become a nurse practitioner. this was michael's life. as brief as i could tell you in the time allotted to me. by the will and hand an admission of these terrorists,

michael was murdered on 9/11 at the age of 34. the city has been denied its bravery and protection as a firefighter. the nursing profession has been denied it is compassion, caring, and skill. the country has been denied his courage, military commitment, allen loyaland loyalty as captae u.s. army reserve. as a military man, the privilege of serving military justice. [applause] we the people of the united states of america demand a reversal of the decision to holds a criminal trial for these terrorists.

9/11 was a declaration of war againsta war. nd as such -- and as such must be dealt with by a military justice. god bless america. >> [applause] >> ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, our final three speakers lost their sons in iraq. kyle was an american hero. ron and robin griffen has kept up the fight and they are here to speak with us right now. ron and robin. [applause] >> good afternoon.

it's a great honor to be here today to join with all of you in sending a clear and unmistakable message to attorney general eric holder and president obama, that their decision to allow the five terrorists to step foot on american soil is an abomination. [applause] it is beyond despicable. it is sacrilegious. it is inconceivable to me that at some date in the future of these terrorists will stand in a court room of our country and have bestowed on them all the rights of the country they want to destroy. this is more than a debate about the finer points of law. it is about the raw emotions of the american spirit. 9/11 to us is a connection

because 9/11 was ckyle's birthday. in 2001 on 9/11 he was in georgia at the fort, training. when i watched that television and saw the first airplane did the tao work, i had no idea what it was. -- airplane hit the tower. then i saw it coming toward the second tower, then i knew we were at war. i turned to someone and said my son is going to war. we did not hear from him two days. i brought with me the letters that he wrote from basic training. very simple and very much to the point.

september 13, two days after his birthday. "we got back to the barracks and the captain gave us a briefing of what happens. it is strange to me how i took the whole thing. when i was a civilian things like this did not affect me. now that i defend this country, it affects me in a very serious way. i don't want to scare any of you, but [unintelligible] after i graduate from basic and airborne school. this is from his second letter, september 15. he says, "kindest and congress has approved president bush's request to use discretion on getting revenge. now every unit is on alert. he called up 30,000 reservists to active duty. in the near future we most likely will be going to invade afghanistan. i will most likely end up going because this is going to be a

long campaign, which they expect it will be, since i am most likely going to be in the 82nd airborne. i will be deployed. this is the way i see it. i don't wish for a war. but if there is one, you bet your ass i am going to be there. that is my job. it is what i sweat and lead for. it is what i trained for so hard day in and day out. all my drill sergeants said if you go to war, they are going to beat up the private so they can be relieved from drill sergeant do so they can go fight as well. if the funny thing is i believed them." it is amazing to me that on that day i saw the first casualties of a war on terror. it my son came back to new york

in december of 2001. we walked around 9/11. a young man now a soldier, he knew what was going to happen. he loved what he did. the new the fireman, the first responders, the police officers and everyone there were the first casualties on the war on terrorism. he was going to fight what they died from. thank you. [applause] >> ladies and gentleman. i cannot tell you how proud i am of all of you for coming. but this is not the end. not the end of our program. the great daniel rodriguez singing for us. this is beginning of the fight. we won't let this court house be used for the propaganda of the

people that hate america. call your conscious people. call your senators. fight with the ballot box. fight through the e-mails and the telephone. keep strong. this is only the beginning. you will hear from us again. america will be hearing from you. ladies and gentlemen, god bless you all. the the great talent of daniel rodriguez, ladies and gentleman. >>[applause] >> ♪ if tomorrow all the things were gone i worked for all my life and i had to start again with

just my children and my wife i would thank my lucky stars to be living here today because this flag still stands for freedom and they cannot take that away and i am proud to be an american where at least i know i'm freee i won't forget the men who died to give that right to me i will gladly stand up and defend that right because this no doubt i love this land god bless the usa ♪

from the plains of minnesota to the hills of tennessee across the plains of texas from sea to shining sea detroit down to houston new york to los angeles from the pride in every american heart it's time to stand and say that i'm proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free adult forget the men who died who gave that to write to me and i gladly stand up next to you and defend her until today there ain't no doubt i love this land god bless the usa

yes, i am proud to be an american where at least i know i'm free and i won't forget the men who died who gave that write to me and i gladly stand up next to you and defend her till today because the rain no doubt i love this land god bless the usa ♪ [applause] [crowd chanting usa, usa, usa] >> as the storm clouds gather

across the sea let us stand allegiance to a land that is free let us all be grateful for a land so fair as we raise our voices in a solemn prayer god bless america land that i love stand beside her and guide her through the night from the light from above from the mountains to the pr airies to the ocean

god bless america my home sweet home god bless america my home sweet palhome ♪ [applause] >> [crowd chanting] >> ladies and gentlemen,911neverforget is the

website. stay safe. god bless you. >> ♪ next, author malcolm glad well. after that, your calls and comments on "washinton journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> on december 7, 1941, a surprise japanese attack on pearl harbor left 2390 americans did. the national park service has been collecting survivors' stories about the dead. here is one of them.

>> we came into the port on friday afternoon on december 5. we waited in mid channel for the lexington, which at the time was the world's largest aircraft carrier. as soon as it got underway, we took her fast. monday the ship was scheduled to come back to the states and i would have gotten out and i have saved $400 and i was going to go medical school the day before this event. i did not go anywhere, i did not go ashore. honolulu in those days, waikiki was not the favorite sports because there were no women -- not a favorite port. somebody said, what are all those airplanes in their? what are they doing out on a sunday morning? i could hear them groaning, which was not unusual because it