was which is to address double digit increases in insurance rates were preventing people from getting insurance coverage. so to me the issues of the website and software since it's part of a background i've had before, to me it's about writing code and getting things tested and it's very frustrating for andnd struggling for months months and months to get a scientific way to clean up that resource. that case it's about just getting the code right and making it work and making it function. in that case, governor romney

for and got a three month did he clay. i'm not asking you to comment on that. i know the chairman asked to you comment on that. but i think there is no shame in pushing out a date based on technology. that's my opinion. and i want to note that state's own experience has been more positive. one of the issues that was local press was his issue of not having people have to sign up to enter the ite to get data as they call the amazon model and i'd like to get your comments about that. and then i want to get your comments about this issue of market and ual cancellations. that in the aid individual market only 17% of on an keep their plans annual basis. so obviously there is a huge

churn that goes on in that individual market. maybe we don't have a number or today, but it would be great to get that data and if we ave to get it from insurers we should have a number about what that annual rate has been my sense is we are probably following that pretty today. ame people are saying what is normal churn in the individual and trying to site it as the end all, be all problem and anyway to shed light on those issues. of the the discussion individual market, the data again that continues to be itedes our projection of what would happen with the affordable care account is a look back at market. somewhere between 40 and 60% of turn over on a regular basis.

individual market contracts are year so it's not unusual to policy or e same practice a year later. they're an continuous work benefit. individuals who are in the market want to get insurance. don't have a workplace insurance and they're not medicare eligible and not a veteran. they want insurance, and often truggle with not only price increases at about 16% a year average but everyone is edically underwritten so any illness or disease could block you in the market in the first lace or put you in a pool that could sky rocket and lockout. the protections that the ha that e care act added to the individual market re the very ones that every worker in a small group plan enjoy or in a work site enjoy. locked out because of a preexisting condition. you must be offered the policy.

are in a risk pool so your own disease profile doesn't determine your rates. that's really what is happening with that market. of the peep 50% are not in their policies for a year. a third are there for only six months. it is a very volatile and unprotected very marketplace for way too many folks. senator.you, mr. rockefeller. i have e secretary, watched you today and watched eviscerated over in the house. not for your resignation, your head but your resignation emanated from this panel. it all makes me want to just say some things. number one, i attach some to the fact that this bill which was crafted a lot of

committee, a ance lot of it open and in public, when it came to the floor, there was not one single voted for the plan. this was two years ago. more. a little bit and i try to ask myself how could that be possible. son was asking as i would georgia ask about rural west virginia at a st saturday i was rural health center in a very virginia art of west occurred tocasually me there was $10 billion in a a thousand new health centers all across america. does anyone know that? i don't think in west virginia or generally. prospect unned by the of let's say 100 million people or underinsured,

hat the president makes a couple of statements that perhaps he shouldn't have made, the whole at becomes argument. all the letters, i was promised that, and i'm trying to think of all the benefits that this.rom i work very closely with the chairman and others on this bill finance committee to produce it. a magnificent work. virginia don'tst necessarily share that view right now because i think they have the problem that so many they simply that don't know what's in the bill of the absolutely aniacal and really admirable attack machine including all the television, this has to be the that ever happened to america and then i look at the bill and i said, as you

country re the only that doesn't do something like we've done it very well. i think people will get and the under insured insurance and 80% of consumers change their plans every two years. might be more t than that. republicans are talking about provider shock saying won't be able to keep argument whichan is almost comical and being so you consider en the affordable care account are designed to help people who do health insurance and therefore by definition did not primary care ar physician. single ing every possible dark attack but taking

wo statements, taking the website, which is frustrating to all of us, but if there's worked out t can be it would be the website. it's a technology matter and that will happen. i'm not for delaying unless they in time, in which case maybe a penalty should be lifted. i'm incredibly proud of the incredibly proud of ou and marilyn tavern going before committees and getting viscerated but standing your ground and knowing exactly what ou've done far more than most of us. and certainly far more than most viciously o are making a political attack. writtrisen in the last five years. you can really sour people on ads.ple television

it's not that hard to do and give people a chance to -- i your resignation and hand it in today. those things are so unrelated of underinsured or uninsured americans which this bill sets out to successfully period of years actually solve their problems. talk about tax people saying that they're desperate about it and that ct of the matter is they get 35% of their tax credit of the premium paid by tax credit and after that is 50% on basis.nent you never hear that. you never hear that. so, this is not so much a but a statement of sadness about the ability of the upper body, the so-called

body with the cup and the saucer that sort of routine. hat we can be so maniacally political that we just seek to destroy and forget the agony through, e are going which this bill will cure. senator, very much. chair.nk you mr. i thank you for joining us. have shared headlines they've notice theytly or in the past and relate to implementing to healthcare changes. to that. add we dug up some headlines and one early f as in failure and one is not ready for primetime. a third was confusion reigns. and a fourth headline was pharmacists say some will die. and as you might guess, those

headlines from this month or last month, this was rom 6 or 7 years ago when we were implementing medicare part for.hich i voted i was one of 11 who voted for it. had a huge donut hole. fell into f people it. they didn't get any help from medicare. stopped taking their medicines and got sick and sicker and went to the hospital money.st a lot of with the affordable care act we and fixed a problem and paid for by the industry and created by the original george w. bush proposal which i supported. we're getting a lot of lament bout folks understandably oh throw are a million people who apparently are not going to be ble to continue with their insurance policy. maybe this is a substandard

problem. try to work and help those folks let's keep in mind, a lot of people, hundreds of thousands people, they call my office offices and have problems that aren't worth the paper they're written on and we to be concerned about those 2, 3, 4 erned about the million young people who today not having health insurance because they're aged out. 22, 23, 24, 25 and today they have coverage. in mind as well. i have us keep in mind the the ons of people over years who actually lost coverage. they had coverage but lost it condition preexisting and lost it at the time when they needed it most of all. as we work to try to address the by a couple million people sadly who are not going policies to keep the they want interfacing large increases, that's a problem. e need to try to help them and try to fix that. but at the same time let's try

perspective. the other thing is, over in spend half as much on healthcare as we document they 18%.t eight% and we spend they get better results and cover everybody. last night when people went to to bed ty million went without healthcare coverage and we're trying to do something about it. we had in committee, republicans us.en't able to work with they were sad. e had three republicans that lasted forever trying to get to yes. legislation was signed by the president and has a couple of good ideas that were republican ideas. so some good stuff from the republicans found their way into of law in the end and one those is the idea of large purchasing pools, we call them that's not a and democratic idea. idea k it was republican and the alternative and tried to

it and makeorporate it work. it's a good idea. the idea of the individual that's as i recall, that's i think a heritage that governor , part of the ed and massachusetts. >> we've had i think roughly ten hearings just before the of the law and since on october 1st. i think when we were doing this i think we had two hearings and maybe the first 1 was four months after the was implemented and we then not to harang and harass people. the progressstion, with repairing the federal improvements have seen the americans change and what can we see in the next several weeks?

well, senator, i think i'm admit that the excruciatingly awful for way too many people. get in people couldn't the site in the first place. nd then when they were able to access the site, screens would go down all the time. hey couldn't get from place to place. i would say that those are the areas of focus and we are in a continuous era where on a very with a very rigorous schedule of mprovements we are adding hardware and software to fix the peoplenality and getting from place to place, increase the speed and make sure we are the volume of people who clearly want to use regularss the site on a

basis. o, there have been significant improvements. we are not satisfied at all where we are now. to an end of ed november experience that is better on volume and speed and reliance and making sure we get to people and we have a very specific plan to reinvite people back to the sites who started at one point along the way and may have been so frustrated that they gave up. we don't want to do that until their experience will be significantly better than it was the first time. that a lot of young folks have little patience with that doesn't work and that's what we're doing. >> thank you, senator.

i'll turn to the most patient member of the committee. > thank you, mr. chairman and secretary thank you for being here. >> yesterday the administer testified on the security healthcare.gov which was tested for the hub and the system.ace she testified that there was no end to end testing. fact, she approved a eptember 27th memo to move forward with issuing the operate.y to the memo specifically noted this, quote from a security aspects of the system that were not tested due to the on going development uncertainty el of that can be deemed as high risk or the federal facilitate marketplace system. yes or no were you aware of that memo? >> i was made aware of it

resoepbltsr oh oeu /* /- recently. did you talk mes about the security aspects and specifically this decision to authority d with the to operate? >> we did not discuss the authority to operate. did you at any point notify security house of the concern that's exited about the exchange? would say that there were senator, about risk -- >> did the white house know -- not aware of this and i did not have these discussions with the white house because i them aware of >>white house know there had been no end to end testing of aspects of the exchange? >> i think the white houses was ware of the operational issues involving end to end testing and i don't know the specifics. again, i did not have the discussions about this authority

issue with the white house. >> you testified last week in law ouse that it was the that made you stand up the exchange on october 1st. fact, the statute as i read start ires enrollment to and not the exchange to stand up. legal u given different advice within hhs? >> what the law says is that started on january 1st. the aw also said that secretary shall designate by date of open enrollment and that that to be ion needed promulgated i think it was by 2013?of >> correct. but that did not require to you stand up the website. it required to you open enrollment >> yes and a significant portion enrollment -- not the administer had

done the authority to operate, if he had not signed it, the have stood up 't on october 1st, would it? >> that's correct. short term temporary uthority to operate was done specifically because she had i.t. and m her senior operations team as well as the contract -- > it wasn't the statute that made the website stand up on october 1st, was it? enrollment began and a significant part of it was the website. testified er yesterday that the estimated target enrollment number for the end of november was 800,000.tely and i know that your plans are week that update through last month. when you release that do we have assurance you'll break it own so you'll show whether individuals chose medicare or silver plans, bronze,

and platinum levels and a state by state breakdown? > i can tell you, senator, we'll be able to did he lean ate between my understanding because tryingwhat they're still to determine is how many metrics give.n we'll have the state breakdown and differentiation between medicaid verage and coverage. we intend to give you as much information that we can validate. i don't know if that we can nate the plan. >> what is the enrollment? there are all different kinds of target enrollments. think there was a memo internally that called for about enrolled people to be through december, but i really -- we're updating those targets. early ell you our enrollment numbers will be very low. set the effort to has d straight, secretary

highlighted that premiums are lower than cbo projected. when they made their projections they made care tions because health cost is directly linked to and the owth assumptions they made was that e would have g.d.p. growth in 2011 of 3.5 and 2012 and 2013 of 4.7. the reality is that gdp growth 2011 and 2.2 in 2012 2% in looks to be under 2013. actually hugely isappointing that in fact premium -- premiums have gone up o far because we've had relatively anemic growth in the united states. but there is incredible that were made for dp growth by the cbo that went

into their estimates of insurance premium cost. you. e secretary, i thank >> i would just comment that in overall, the underlying health cost growth market, te insurance the public insurance plans, the two after the president signed the affordable care account this there was a of assumption the very slow ate of cost increase was due principally to the recession. economists have now concluded that there are restrainers ost that were parted of the affordable care act that are our g a positive impact on healthcare spending on medicare spending which is grown at the rate in 50 years, medicaid spending nationally overall and t year private health insurance rates, again, since the affordable care

act were passed have been at the slowest cost increase that has decades.n in so there is now a conclusion provisions the written into the bill about delivery system changes, payment changes, different ways to measure quality out did the --es, some >> i'm sure all of these were ncluded in the manhattan instituted when they completed found s of 49 states and on average premiums in the individual market increased by obamacare and in my tate of north carolina, the manhattan institute estimates 136% higher under the act. dable care >> thank you. >> madam secretary, i think a like a f senators would couple more questions. senator hatch.

keep i very nt to long madame secretary. that misconstrue you said you felt there would be not a lot of people sign up between beginning of the next year. >> is no. i said that the enrollment that we'll release next week which will be the first enrollment will be quite low given the struggles people have had getting access getting te and information. >> well, do you expect the umbers to be very high during the month of november and december is my question? that with the site improvement we'll see more but until the sited is fully improved and we eally kind of open the doors wide to a lot of people, we're strugglehave i think a getting significant numbers to sign up. > i'm not trying to put you on the spot, but what -- i come back to my original concern.

is it so difficult to put this off until we have it up and running right with the right kind of security so and private onal information is not subject to athat come into the system naturally. prepared. re not >> again, senator, i would say that the site has met the standards of security for federal government sites. have taken great care again personally identifiable information in the hub. met the -- testing is 24/7 as each piece of software is added we need to continue to test the site and have a art of why we temporary authority to operate and not a permanent one because the pieces of the system are fully installed and

hen you can do end to end testing at the very end but that won't be for a while, so -- the strategies are in place and it's on going and take privacy and security of the american public ery, very seriously >> don't they have to give personal information, social earnings andber and set set cetera and isn't that put in the system? that's they hit the hub referred back to data bases and social security and homeland i.r.s. and in the place will market retain application information in case there need to be subsequent -- have to get that information now? >> for the application, yes worried what i'm about. wewe don't watch this and if don't have a fail safe system and you pretty much admit you

testingve a third party unit in there trying to make sure -- > we do have a third party testing. >> who is that >> miter is the contract who the third party testing. it tested prior to going live in october. off on going live in october. test.are continuing to we have a security team who is weeklying and performing testing of border deviceed and daily scans of the will ring tools and they conduct a full security test in when the nvironment entire site is loaded. but we don't have the spanish website up. additional piece that will be coming. the shop website is coming. do the end to end testing until the entire system is stood up. testing is going on every day >> that makes my case we shouldn't be getting into this set up.'s all

it would be better and safer and people's cted of rights and their personal information. i'm saying is, i think you need an independent that isn't a hired contractor to do this. raise these to issues. i know this is very difficult appreciated you testifying here today. our e you will answer letters when we send them to you letters out to you i never got any answers on. look, we're not in it to just rough time. we're in it to get it right. >> i would love to work with you get it right. >> thank you. >> thank you. main point t's the of this whole hearing is to get it right. and you just heard senator hatch say he wants to work with you to

right. i mentioned in my opening statement that i am speaking for least majority of the committee to get it right. it's a 2-way street. you have to tell us what's working and what's not working. american people strongly believe in transparency. we do in this committee. the more you don't tell us, the greater the problem is going to be. the more you do tell us, the good, the bad, the more likely gonna get this right at an earlier date. until the end of to ber that we're not going be up and running for the first of december. work with us. this is the law. we want to do this right and points in the law that have not been brought out. believe strongly to educe the healthcare costs in

this country. we move more toward reform and that, in rts of efforts by private entities to control costs we're making head way. one senator mentioned that japanese healthcare costs are eight%. administrative costs are 7, 8,% 18.u.s.ing we have to work to get the 18 now and other problems for fee service in this country. we want to keep working with you. why? our job.hat's we represent americans. we represent people all across country ask they want this to work. the politic.ke they want the dog gone thing to work. let's work together to make it work. >> i would welcome that. thank you. >> just one comment. there's another party that has to be have the attitude, mr. that do you and that

s the republican party in the senate and the house. the republican national committee and all of those people that are doing everything they can to destroy you, the and lots of speculation as to what for that might be. cooperate.o in other words, what the we rman is saying, is that will do everything we can. .ave he was unable quite far-reaching extraordinary bill. add that they have responsibility to help criticized the statements made. senator. you,

> >> look, i think this is a terrible bill. i'm a not because republican or a democrat. i've worked as much on here inre issues around the last 37 years as any number of people. frankly, better than most. things desire to have work. senator e tell you, reid said it well. hey said is this basically -- he basically said that it's just single n the way to a payer system, on a one size fits government run system. that's what worries republicans i think it worries democrats too. and i'm very concerned about a socialized o medicine situation where we

can't control the cost and can't control the system and we denigrate the of helping it. naturally, i'm concerned about t and an i think a lot of republicans that are concerned about it and democrats that are concerned about it. this is an simple bunch of political hacks working at it. this is a very serious set of problems. i don't have envy you to be in your position and have to answer questions and have to be the front person in trying to thing work. all i can say is, yes, i'll try help make it work if can i. but i don't think it's going to problem.that's the without costing america an arm really g and without taking people's healthcare away from them. are sincere here people on both sides who would

like to solve the problems and about, the president said, 85% of america had health were satisfied with. hy didn't we just work on getting the 15% to have the need ratherhat they than have to all these problems away aren't going to go very quickly and may never go away? >> okay, well thank you both very much. let's remind all of us to the ball and the ball that we're keeping the eye on is get this thing working. eight char that's the charge for the day. want to indicate, the senators will have a week to get their i urge you to d respond immediately to those questions so we can keep moving ahead. thank you very much. meeting's adjourned.

this is the first step in what is seen as a shake-up at the with following problems the website. president obama travelled to

wednesday to speak about the healthcare law. visited to meet with volunteers who worked with and outreach. my name is edna temperton. bring you greetings from texas greetings g you also from my pastor brian carter from church.baptist i have distinguished honor to our commander in chief. let me tell you y on january the 12th, 2012, i was diagnosed with cancer. went into the hospital know that iing i had everything all right. do the paperwork right and i was denied service. being healed, god bless me i'm healed through the prayers, you and i would join

many of you to make sure that everybody understands affordable healthcare and no one else will be denied service because they do the proper work like i did. ladies and gentlemen, i know so i won't waiting go through all the stuff i'm upposed to say, i'm going to introduce to you our president barack obama. applause] >> thank you, edna. round of big applause. see all is wonderful to of you and let me just make some special mention of some people edna who are here. irst of all, your outstanding ayor mike raulings is here and outstanding county judge clay jenkins who is doing a great job affordable care and wonderful

congresswoman is here. and we wants to thank rabbi rabbi asher nd knight for hosting us here today. main reason i'm here is to thank all of you. story that is a the country.across people who got sick and didn't have health insurance, folks who thought they had health insure skpapbs then turned out because print or them not filling something out right they were short of what they needed getting healed. office, obviously we were in the midst of a great ecession and my number one priority was making sure that we didn't go into a great that sion and making sure we started putting people back to work. we've now seen the economy begin sometimes although washington's not helpful with the shutdown.

we've seen 7.5 million new jobs exports and a lot of growth in places like dallas and their are starting to get footing back home, prices recover. to but what i also understood was that if we did not start healthcare system in a serious way it would our nue to undermine economy and continue to hurt families and businesses. a reason why it had never been done before. truman with harry people talked about how we were going to make sure that qualityy had affordable healthcare, but there democratic republican presidents and congresses, we couldn't get it done and the reason is it's hard. it's a big chunk of the economy people, even if they don't like what is going nervous about

change. so it was a challenge. but we were able to get it done part because of grassroots folks like you that fought so that we were ure able to deliver on universal thishcare and that is what is all about. politics, , all the all the chatter, sometimes leaves out the fact that the had, the status quo wasn't working for too many people. for us it was important as difficult and challenging as ahead and go go move forward to make sure folks they go to the hospital know not only they'll get good care but their families won't go bankrupt because someone in the family got sick. fighting t we've been for. years er the last three we've already put a whole bunch of benefits in place. a lot of people don't know that

because of the affordable healthcare act but they're already in place. if you got a child who's 25, didn't have health insurance but on the parents' plan the reason for that is the affordable care act. seniors are discounts on prescription drugs and saving we reds of dollars because deepen dz the discount through the affordable care act. companies have to treat customers right because act.affordable care no more lifetime limb i think and no more dropping people just when they get sick. ut to finish the job, now what we've got to do is sign up those olks who don't have health insurance and improve for those who are underinsured and who on't have very good insurance and subject to the whims of the insurance company and that's and that's all b the challenge that we've got ver the next month, three

months, six months, next year. we getet that done, when that done, then we will have whichd a stable system in there's no reason why people shouldn't be getting healthcare in this country. the first to say that he first month i've not been happy with. you've all heard about the website woes. drives me more crazy fact that right now there's great insurance to be there, choice and competition, where people can a better product except too many folks haven't through the get website. this is like having a reel buy good product in the store and cash registers don't work and there aren't enough parking can get through the door and so we are working

overtime to get this fix dz. the website is already better at the beginning of october and by the end of this month, we anticipate it is going working the way it is supposed to. folks are working 24/7 to make sure that happens. but, remember, the insurance is already there. people can't get through the website, they can get on the center and call people can take their application and walk them people this process and can apply in person if they've out ommitted folks who are there helping people to sign up. beens what all of you have committed to doing. it is so important because the is, even if matter the website were working 100%, a still need e would help to navigate through this

stuff. of people who ge don't have healthcare may not have access to womancom paouter or might be confusing ask they would need people to guide them through this process. that's true by the way if hey were buying any kind of insurance. staoeupldz it's a complicated process. he commitment that all of you that congregations and faith-based groups are engaged important and y not going to stop even after the website's running perfectly. we'll still need all of you to make these efforts. make special mention f the mayor's and clay's work and eddie bernice's work to get signed up because that's the kind of commitment we'll ground on a day to day basis. say thankb here is to you. clay has said nothing's gonna

done.us from getting this we're on the right side of history. it is the right thing to do. it is the right thing to do for economy and businesses and families. make i know want to is sometimes this task especially challenging here in great lonestar state. ut i think that all of you understand that there is no this that actually needs more than texas. think about it. the way ust talking on over here that in addition to igning people up for the marketplace so they can buy rivate insurance, part of the affordable care act was working the number of

amilies who would qualify for medicaid. now, because of the supreme it's voluntary which states decide to expand coverage and which don't. dallas area, he 33,000 people who don't currently have health insurance ould immediately get health insurance without having to go even /* if ebsite texas decided to do it. there are over $500 million just for this county that would come get health milies insurance and nothing to do with the website, if the state of made this decision.

states have ing made that decision because they look at it and they say this is no-brainer. why would we not want to take advantage of this? the state of arkansas has number of uced its 14% already just in the first month by signing medicaid, for expanded 14%, state of oregon ten% reduction in the number of already in the first month right away. folks are signed up. ust because the governor and the legislature there made the right decision. this statereason why can't do the same. i mentioned that in the dallas it's 133,000 people who stand to benefit. you've got 1 state million people -- because this -- a million people, citizens, who don't have

insurance that could get health insurance right away if of texas decides to take advantage of it. one of the things that sometimes gets me a little frustrated, although i in rstand it because i'm folks who are complaining about how the is not working and why and all ma fixing this these people are uninsured and leading a million people without health insurance that they could immediately fix. logic to t a lot of that. because we've gone through barriers before. struggles e through before. eventually though if you stick doing the right thing you happen.done it will

you o, i just want all of to remember that as challenging as his may seem sometimes, frustrating as healthcare.gov be, we'll get this done. when we do -- when we do, not when we do, you're gonna have families all across this who will e of texas the well ecurity and being of high quality affordable insurance and that will be good for business. it means that all the providers instead of having to take in folks in the emergency oom, they suddenly have customers who have insurance and that means those of you who insurance e health your premiums will not be

folks who don't have health insurance and people will get preventative care which are likely to le be healthier and that's within power. that's within our grasp. a pretty motivated group. looks like a group that is ready to go. the be right there with you entire way until we get this done and everybody in texas and all across this country have the affordable healthcare that they need. thank you everybody. god bless you and god bless america and god bless the state of texas. on the senate floor senator of new hampshire called or what she called timeout on the healthcare law.

ave examples of aoeurbs you facing her constituent. her remarks are 30 minutes. president.ou madam today i rise to talk about the obamacare is having on the people of my state, the hampshire.ew it's been over a month since the healthcare exchanges have opened in that short time we've problems en so many with obamacare. frankly, it's a mess. the failure of healthcare.gov is revealed that has deeply troubling in confidence in terms of implementing a people can use and have access to and is secure and their private information and frankly, we're really the n where website is nearly the kaary in

mine.al the flaws in this law are much deeper than the website. former supporters of obamacare are telling me it's not working. hearing from my constituent bout this and frankly i feel very badly for them because so much of what is happening to the is as a result of how law is drafted and concerns that years ago t forward at this point. heard from i've someone who lives in new hampshire and she said we hope solution, but instead it will be more of a drain.al the american people are the ones paying the price right now and cancellation g notices and seeing their losing their and doctors. workers are suffering. any of them have seen their hours cut to 29 hours because of

arbitrary mandate to finding full-time workers as those who week. others are fearful that they'll lose their coverage all ored together and business owners emain reluctant to expand worried that they'll trigger the ooming penalties from obamacare. most tragically we know that the american ld to the people under false pretenses. said, if you like your insurance plan, you keep it. fact, yesterday we checked the website for the white house claim is still on there. every day from new hampshire residents that they're seeing their y're health insurance policies cancelled. in the newspaper this morning new he headline in hampshire announceed that 22,000

ndividuals will see coverage cancelled at the end of the year. haves what granite staters been writing me and saying to me. share their country with the entire because i know this isn't just happening to people in new ampshire, but these are the real people who are being affected by obamacare. someone in greenland wrote me, the president was wrong. i can't keep my coverage if i it. and i can't keep my preferred hospital. that s plans are the ones are sub par. tears on a g me to daily basis. please help. one is self-employed. badly when i receive letters like this. he has a rare disease and a high deductible plan. he wrote, i received a notice

rom anthem that they will be cancelling this policy. s that what president obama meant when he says no one who policy r current own likes it will lose it. i'm devastated i'll have to go ut and secure another policy somewhere which could cost me significantly more. jennifer wrote: i received a letter from anthem blue cross my current health insurance plan was being discontinued because it did not the law under the affordable care act. i was r words, the plan promised i could keep was made washington politicians. said, kelly, we have een told this would expands optio option. being told we're what we can and cannot do and where we can go. upset would not be

feel.to describe how i richard said, i'm a small business owner in new hampshire my health en with insurance provider for over ten years. informed that the poll sisy i have had for all i like quite a bit will be cancelled due to obamacare.in when i contacted the company, hey said they are planning to transition me into a plan that osts more and offers substantially less benefits and protections than my original plan. am outraged by this. jamie wrote me, today we received a letter from anthem stating that my husband's individual healthcare lan which he had for 15 years will be changing to conform to a be laws and will no longer

in effect come september 1st, 2014. just wrote me, what happened? i received a cancellation notice rom my insurance company and the coverage i am eligible for expensive. help me. obama has made the promise that if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep doctor, period. for those who are seeing their cancelled, we know that that's simply not the case. there's another issue that new hampshire is facing and matter of choice and keeping not only the doctor that want to keep but also going to the hospital that you want to go to. because in new hampshire there's only one insurer who will

exchanges at the this point, and to keep costs decided to urer has ten of our twork so 26 hospitals are not part of the are excluded. o, for example, the capital of new hampshire is concord. one of the hospitals that's been is concord hospital. i worked in concord for years. concord that the hospital is going to be excluded nd all the people in that area that rely on that hospital and had their children there and ave had treatment there, that they would be excluded if they're now on the exchanges and go to the concord hospital? this is a real impact on people lives and i feel very constituent. a doctor wrote me, he was once a

obamacare.f he described the consequences simply, in a letter to me he patients have one of three terrible options right that's because ever the hospital and that is because the hospital in his area has been excluded from the exchange. first, they can switch doctors and drive considerable distance to a hospital that they included the exchange. insuranceurchase outside of the exchange at considerably higher rates that may could this year. or they can stick with their current doctors, risk having no insurance and pay the government a penalty for being uninsured. with this hospital excluded from is thehange, he said it less affordable care act for his patients.

this is what it would mean for his patients. consider the pregnant woman. she must either drive the twisting new england rose in the dead of winter to a hospital 55 minutes from her home to deliver her baby or pay considerably higher insurance premiums to stay where she is comfortable and safe. she is one of numerous citizens who have expressed similar concerns about local hospitals being excluded from the exchange. share with you some of the concerns that have been written from my constituents. list of doctors and medical facilities that will take my insurance is limited. and my massachusetts doctors are

not on the list. is not onosest to me the list. newcastle wrote that the exchange choice will not allow me to use my doctors including primary care and -- who is affiliated with the portland hospital. all oncology physicians are located in boston and not covered. wrote me, she currently goes to the memorial hospital in rochester which is not part of the exchange. the surgeon who saved my life, emergency surgery was required.

longer visit the same internist. if i develop heart problems, i can no longer go to portsmouth regional hospital. gregory in rochester said that his primary care physician means he will have to go to another hospital. what he told me is that i don't their they have been able to keep the same doctors. it because of obama care, frisbee is out of the loop and this is totally unfair to all the people that live in the area. what gives? me and said that

none of her current physicians, including her primary care physician and her ob/gyn are in the exchange. she wrote that the nearest providers are 45 minutes west, 60 minutes east, 90 minutes north. mes will be very costly to in terms of time taken off to attend appointments at these hospitals. this is one day without income. a single mother also from said,orough wrote me and if my 17-year-old son does get required to take a minimum of half a day off to bring my son to manchester to find a primary care physician

accept insurance through affordable care. not that i can even afford that route. i am also hearing heart wrenching stories about how their premiums are going up. when this was being sold, premiums would go down. that is not what i was hearing from my constituents. my insurance is going to double on january 1 of 2014. even the options that conform to the health act are double the amount i am paying today. it doesn't make any sense that my insurance would go up i double when this is called affordable health care. last year, the sum total of my arely's health care costs

23 hundred dollars. i have been looking at health insurance from my family. $40 and $.30 per month. i will have to pay an additional $6,800. this isn't fair and it is not affordable. i don't know how many people who can budget for an additional $6,800 a year. employed and my wife and i paid for our health insurance through anthem that provides coverage for us and our 15-month-old daughter. about 580 dollars a month for major deductible plans with

a total family deductible of $7,500. we receivedks ago, a letter informing us that our old policies don't meet the requirements of the new aca. therefore, we were going to be canceled. when researching options on the website, we found the deductible is now going to be $1200 -- sorry, $12,000 a year. and at an increased cost of $150 a month. feel the country has been .isled i buy an individual policy to cover myself. it went up 25% on october 21. the letter i received from blue

cross was to cover the implementation of aca. result, i dropped down to a less expensive plan. guess what? i was told i was ok until 2014 when that plan will no longer be able -- available because it doesn't comply with the new rules and regs. patty who said that after her insurance company told her to find a plan, she signed up for at least -- the least expensive blondes -- bronze plan available. be $75 a month higher for a total of just under $600 a month for me, but in addition to that, i have a $5,400 annual deductible.

effectively, that is not a prescription plan at all. is basically a very expensive catastrophic plan and nothing more. it is not affordable and i am disgusted. me.ara in merrimack wrote she and her husband don't yet qualify for medicare. it is just too expensive. the cheapest coverage we could find is in the bronze category and will cost $1228 per month. will have a deductible of and a per individual

deductible of 11,009 hundred dollars per family. $11,900 per family. and 1282 equals and is more than my mortgage. what was supposed to help people like my husband and i who are self-employed, he has a chronic illness. it only hurts us. up $.70 a month -- it went up per month and with a $4000 single. nothing like a 30% increase for

one year. yourself up each day and go to work to try to .arry on is hard enough to pick and choose what bills we can afford to pay. she tried to enroll her son into the federal program . this is what she spoke to me. it was $600 a month. do you know of any 20-year-old who can afford $600 a month? contrary to the original intent of the affordable care act, individuals who obtain insurance on their own are paying basedlly escalating costs on individual coverage for a healthy non-smoking 51-year-old

male available for january 1 of 2014 on the health care exchange in new hampshire. premium 25% increase from 4200 to 5300. fromtible 20% increase $5,000 to $6,000. 82% increase in less than two years. 2012 to $5,300f in january of 2014. hancock.rom eric and he said he saw a 46% premium hike. he wrote to me, what has been done to our health care system? this is the on affordable care act. unaffordable care act.

plans must include coverage for services that consumers don't want based on their individual situation or don't need to based on their individual situation. his premiums will go up nearly 40% because of obamacare. them arethat some of for coverages which my wife and i don't need or want. havenstance, we must maternity coverage. even though we have no children under the age of 18. me thatbedford wrote the maternity issue is a trap for seniors. carolyn wrote, can anyone please anlain to me why i need insurance plan that requires maternity provisions? can anyone explain to me why i

would have to pay for pediatrics when i have no children. the most affordable plan she has seen has been $504 and $.15 a month which she can't afford. and a $6,350 out of pocket premium. if i can't afford the premium, how can i afford the deductible? employers will drop their coverage. benjamin in greenville wrote, my portion currently about $5,000 a year will jump to $20,000 a year.

i make too much money to be subsidized. where do inator, find $15,000 a year? $1250 a month. it is an already tight budget. vacations, no more dance lessons for my kids, no more family date night. what i have seen is the feeling that those in the middle are being squeezed the most. is not canceling the company-sponsored health plan as of january 2014 which cost me $2288 a year. plan, iing for a new have seen the possibility of a

$22 subsidy to help me with the monthly cost of $400. an increase in my health care cost i can't afford. i am a taxpaying and proud american that did not ask for this act and is now suffering because of it. cheryl wrote, not only do i have to pay twice the premiums, but it will be post tax a double hit. be ok orpoor i would if i work for a larger employer, i would be ok. are those of us trying to make a good living, we end up carrying this. this is not the american dream at all. on september 30, i received a letter from anthem informing me that my new payment to keep my current plan which i have had

for over eight years will $.47 on $212 and january 1. that is a 2005 hundred $48.80 -- 2548.80 increase. roberta in nashua, like plenty of my constituents leading for asks to do what you can for us to keep our care and not be forced into purchasing exchange insurance which is so , it is not affordable. patients losing their doctors, i have also heard about another

aspect and consequence of obamacare. from people working hard trying to make ends meet. those are workers seeing their hours cut. many of these employers not surprisingly have decided to reduce hours rather than comply with this new mandate. my constituents are writing me about. these hard-working people trying to make a living. i heard from any mg that wrote my employerid notified the 75 of us that effectivere that january 1, our hours will be cut due to obamacare. it makes it harder for us to buy our own insurance.

the school district and surrounding ones are cutting back professional jobs to 29 hours. now they are no longer entitled to any benefits. many of these individuals have work 15 or more years with a school district as full-time. they told me that the looming is causing them to think about eliminating coverage for their employers. stephen in nashua wrote me that i am a small employer. i would be very tempted to dump my plan for my employees, give them a few extra dollars and get out of the health care business.

causing them to think twice about growing and adding new workers. i would not be able to pay health insurance for my staff members. madam president, these are just that i ame stories receiving from new hampshire about hardships that obamacare is causing for people who are working hard who want to make ends meet and keep the health plans that they have now.

i have worked hard, sponsored many efforts, and voted to the health care law. timeout from for a obamacare. timeout, madam president. because of the concerns i just talked about in this chamber that i am hearing from my constituents. i know many members in this chamber are hearing. we need the president to call a timeout. to the floor several times during the government wrongwn and i said it was to shut down the government to try to defund obamacare. because of the harmful impact of the government shutdown. i even called on members of my own party, please don't go forward and shut the government down.

now it is time for the president to see the impact of this law and understand from someone who on stood up to her own party the government shutdown, i am asking the president of the united states to hear from the people of this country who are being impacted negatively by the health care law and call a time out, mr. president. it is not working and they are worried that their personal information won't be protected. the problems are much deeper. hours are being cut for workers that want to work and make a living in this great country.

this law was passed out of this chamber on party lines. i would argue that the best way to address health care in this country and to address real with the status quo is to bring a bipartisan group they have also taken thetime to point out to me major problems they see. i want to share those as well. competition in new hampshire is effectively nonexistent. we have one insurer on the exchange.

one suggestion i saw is one i .gree with why shouldn't insurance companies have to compete on the national basis? we need to place our focus where it belongs. another constituent wisely pointed out that there should not be a cookie-cutter set of policies like the ones that fromt in coverage maternity care. people should be able to shop for coverage that suits their particular needs. thate should respect different people have different needs in health care. there are many other ideas i know we can work on together.

i know they have written the other great ideas as well. overarching theme i have heard is that americans are tired of being victims of partisan gamesmanship. i agree with them. partisanad too much gamesmanship on so many issues in congress. tired of the politics and they want us to work together to solve tough problems. i agree with them on that. on behalf of the people of new hampshire, iran new my call -- i renew my call for a timeout on obamacare. let's have both parties come to the table and find health care solutions that work for the american people. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. tonight, a case challenging prayer in public political forums.

sebelius about problems implementing the health care law. >> coming up on the next washington journal, a look at renewable energy. then came in and nick juliano ofcuss different types renewable energy and politics shaping the industry. then michael brune talks about the obama administration policy on climate change and the keystone pipeline. explains the u.s. solar energy industry and the plan to create the largest solar project. salerno of the wind energy association looks at a report of the wind industry slowdown.

live everyjournal is morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> a confirmation hearing on thursday for state department nominees, considering nominees for the office of management resources, civilian security, and human rights in public diplomacy. live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern. one of the things that has stuck in my mind is how dallas has changed in general just from a political standpoint. time in the early 1960s and late 50s, there was probably a much less balanced political climate here. perhaps a great deal toward the right side. remember seeing the publication in one of the two

papers, i forget which one, somebody had bought a full-page ad on the day before president kennedy came with his picture on it and said wanted for treason. he came down six months after the assassination and the junior counsel was the one that quizzed me. came it was over with, he out in the hall because he was quizzing me about the entrance. we have people that will testify they saw him shot from the overpass. what we do not believe they are credible witnesses. arcing the 50th anniversary of president kennedy's assassination. the doctors that treated president kennedy and lee harvey oswald.

heart of american history tv on c-span3. >> the senate plans to vote on a bill to aend employment discrimination on members of the lgbt community. susan collins wanted to block a law from affecting religious institutions. >> i firmly believe that no one should be subject unjust discrimination. i support the basic premise. be judged by their experience, qualifications, and job performance. not by their sexual orientation. able to beld not be fired just because they are gay. i believe the legislation will help create that level playing field and ensure on employment opportunities are available to all. it should be improved.

of onemoting tolerance kind should not enshrine intolerance of another kind. religious liberty is an important part of the employment nondiscrimination act already. it includes a significant exemption for religious employers. we have to make certain that in pursuit, those employers are not subject to another kind of discrimination. it would be government retaliation. it protects a church or religious charity or religious school from adverse action by the government on the basis of adhering to its religious tenets in a manner that would otherwise be unlawful. this means the government can't use activities protected by or others exemption buyout

benefit. forrohibits the government punishing a religious institution by adhering to its beliefs. it does something else important, too. it specified broad purposes to addressing employment discrimination. there is explicit reference to the fundamental right of religious freedom. it establishes the basic purpose that workplace fairness must be balanced against and be made consistent. i believe the rentable goes hand-in-hand. when we think about nondiscrimination, many of us think of the great civil rights movements of the 20th century. the fight for tolerance goes back to the very foundation of our republic. on my moms side, some of the

ancestors were quakers. they came in search of religious .reedom at first, it was hard to find in this country. their practices were viewed to be unorthodox and even strange. prison,s they were in books burned. colleagues did not want them inside their borders. they knew something about discrimination. it was their experience that ma de freedom of conscience a cornerstone of our founding documents. it begins, congress should make no law. no law prohibiting religious freedom. the amendment is the first nondiscrimination law. any law that we passed to discrimination will not succeed unless it protects

religious liberty. my amendment makes them better and i appreciate my colleagues giving us the amendment support it deserves. i am looking forward to this passage of the legislation and i appreciate the work of the senator from maine and others. >> madam president, i rise to command the senator from ohio for bringing forth this very worthwhile initiative which the senate passed without dissent. what it simply says is that if an organization is exempt from for religious reasons, government cannot turn around and somehow retaliate against

this employer based on his or her claiming a legitimate religious exemption. that means if the business or is entitled to compete for certain grants or contracts from the federal, state, or local government, discrimination against the employer for claiming the religious exemption --ferred upon the business unfair treatment on either side. i commend them for coming

forward with this amendment. bill consistent with the and strengthens the bill. it has been a pleasure to work with the senator and other members of the senate in support of this initiative. court heard oral arguments on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with a prayer. anders in the case advocates on both sides of the .ssue spoke with reporters this is 30 minutes.

>> about 30 seconds and i will begin. of course. i am reverend schenck, president of faith and action that filed a brief in this case. with me today is pastor madeiros of greece, new york, who has authored many of the prayers that aree town council at issue in this case. exchangeery vigorous between the justices and the attorneys representing the two sides of this debate.

we heard more than a few justices who are quite skeptical about the government dictating how or when clergy or any citizen is allowed to pray. this court has consistently found that prayers offered at legislative sessions are constitutional. we argue in our brief about totallyive prayers consistent with both the declaration of independence and with the constitution. if they weren't, as some of the justices alluded to, the court would be in trouble with itself.

they began with a form of prayer "godthe marshall declared save the united states and this honorable court." as a number of justices made in their remarks today, the rolenment has a dubious dictating the content of any prayer. the government has no authority to instruct anyone in the form or content of prayer. to tell the citizens when he or she is to pray or not to pray, it is a flagrant violation of the first amendment free exercise clause that expressly prohibits the government from interfering with religious exercise. i felt we heard the justices say

very clearly that a government official is in no position to dictate how a prayer should be worded. none of us wants the government telling us what a good prayer is and what a bad prayer is. prayer ats court ban council meetings or anywhere doe, the government would precisely what the original plaintiffs in this case don't want. religiono establish a that requires an innocuous and meaningless prayers to an unknown god. pastor atld to the the center of all of this activity. >> good morning. my name is patrick medeiros. greece assembly of

god in the town of greece. i have appeared before the council many times over the last 14 years. i have asked god to bless our community and grant them divine wisdom as they do the people's business. said yes to serve out the community. it is my responsibility as a citizen. it is my prayer that the justices will uphold my constitutional right to continue this great tradition to pray during these meetings. thank you.

>> i am a participant in the brief in the town of greece versus galloway report today. i am focusing on issues of religion and law. a currently distinguished research professor in tacoma washington. i am pleased with the probing questions of the court today and felt especially good about what i am about to say. the duty to become arbiters of government, as justice souter said, i can hardly imagine a subject less minimal deliberately to be avoided if possible then comparative theology. with the guidance of the marsh opinions that the courts are not the poorest the contents of public prayers and regulating the content violates the establishment clause by an orthodox of

neutrality. it would define what theological terms may be used in this prayer , an impossible task. it is not possible to have a religiously neutral prayer. there is a deity and a civic setting confirmed in the history of our people and the documents confirmed by the supreme court. religions only share some point in common and are quite divergent in others. religions like christianity and islam believe in one god forms ofe hinduism honor many gods. it cannot provide for a neutral are moreile others generally of supreme beings. the religious views are neutered

and imposes free exercise in the religion of establishment that flies in the face of the words and practices of those that wrote the first amendment religion clauses. to demand some suppose a neutral corer is to strike at the itself. it is where the state will not interfere with the percent of and nota civic context defy the theological content of this prayer. thank you.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i am senior director at alliance defending freedom. we have a couple of key members of the legal team who will be delivering a short statement. if you want one-on-one interviews, you can track me down and i would be happy to facilitate that. tom? i am happy to answer questions but i don't have a statement to give. >> the supreme court justices and their remarks to you? >> they have lots of questions for both sides and explored lots of challenging hypotheticals. i never make predictions about how the court is going to rule.

the town of greece has a legislative prayer practice consistent with the traditions of this country from its very founding. it is comparable to what the town of greece has been doing and solemnize is the occasion as they begin their work. there is nothing unconstitutional about that. the other sides' arguments would require government to censor prayers to decree what is orthodox and what is not when prayer givers are giving public prayer. that would be contrary to our traditions of religious liberty. >> where does it end? is there no limit to your position? >> the supreme court in the prior case in 1983 upholding legislative prayer at the state level said that as long as the prayer is not being exploited by the government to proselytize or denigrate particular faiths, then it's not constitutionally a

problem and it is not permissible for the courts to regulate the content of the prayer. and there's no claim that the prayers of the town of greece violate those prohibitions, and therefore they're constitutional. >> what's wrong with giving clergy and ministers guidelines and guidance as to what's acceptable and unacceptable? >> it depends on what the guidelines are. if the guidelines are what the mavs want here, which is to say you can pray in these words to these deities but not in those words to those deities, that is government regulating the theological content of prayers prescribing what is orthodox and what is not in religion. and that is contrary to our tradition of religious liberty. >> when ministers ask the community to bow their heads or join them in prayer, is that not proselytizing? >> it is not. first of all, no one is required to do it. people are free not to do it. similar things happen from time to time in the legislature or in congress. and since people are free to pray or not as they choose, there's no constitutional problem with that. >> you don't think that would make somebody uncomfortable if

they're the only one not standing or bowing their head? >> the supreme court has upheld that someone might object to a particular practice or made uncomfortable is not the fusional test? constitutional test. we're talking about the establishment clause and whether or not the government is establishing a particular religion. here the town of greece practice is open to people of any religion or no religion if they choose to give an invocation. >> [question inaudible] only for members of other religions gave those prayers, why did that not happen until the initial lawsuit? that did not happen in the past. >> the practice like the practice of many governmental bodies was to invite all of the clergy in the town with regardless of denomination or religion to deliver a prayer if it they chose. it happened the people who chose to deliver the prayer in greece were christian until 2008 when after this lawsuit was publicized and the complaints were publicized, more people became aware of the opportunity and nonchristians began delivering the prayer both in 2008 and several times since

then. >> which they actively invite other members of other religions? >> i'm sorry. >> they actively invite other members of other religions? they say, hey, it's open? >> the town has never made a secret of its policy. no one had ever requested prior to the plaintiffs in this case. when the plaintiffs in this case complained, the town offered them an opportunity to give an invocation but they declined. >> did say? >> feeling uncomfortable has been standard for standing. [question inaudible] >> i think what i said is that if the supreme court were to adopt the same practice that would raise different constitutional issues. if the supreme court were to adopt a practice of having only one sectarian prayer for a from a particular denomination that would clearly be more

constitutionally problematic. that's not the practice here. >> the identical prayer, a single priest on one occasion, you think that would fly or not fly? >> on one occasion it's hard to say. there's no similar tradition in the courts. and courts are subject to additional constraints in terms of the obligation to be objective and unbiased. but whether one violation whether one prayer would be a violation, it's hard to say. >> thank you. >> i want to thank tom and his team. they did a great job at the supreme court and been a great addition to the team. i think more importantly, i want to thank the town of greece. this is a concerted effort across our country to completely get rid of what's called public prayer, legislative prayer. there are over 200 cases around the united states where groups are trying to challenge the historical practice of legislative prayer. and many of these small towns can't afford this type of a case. the town of greece stood up. and their case ended up here. but i think it's important, what plaintiffs want is censorship. i think no one should be in

favor of that. i think when you have different prayer givers, they should have the liberty to pray according to the dictates of their faith tradition. and that's exactly what this town did it discriminated against none. it allowed anyone to comp on? come on an equal basis. even atheist plaintiffs were invited to come and give an invocation. you can't have a policy more open than this. and more importantly, and some of the justices asked good questions, should the government be in the position of censoring the way people pray? no. the people should be able to compose their own prayers. it's on a rotating basis. first come, first serve. anyone's invited to attend. i think the justices asked some intriguing questions and hopefully will come up on the defense of prayer that our country has engaged in since its founding. >> family research counsel representing members of congress

amicus in this case. as the briefs we filed on behalf of members of congress show, the reality is that the prayer practice in the town of greece, new york, is far more religiously diverse than we actually have in the united states congress. ever since the founding of the republic for more than 200 years members of congress have had an official paid chaplain who would be an ordained clergyman who himself personally gives prayers in his own faith tradition. furthermore, 40% of the prayers are offered by guest chaplains as they're sponsored. and each of them praise according to their own faith tradition. in terms of the issues that the lower court in this case recognized as problematic, a majority of the prayers offered in congress actually include, according to what the other side describes as sectarian, to be faithspecific content. beyond that 97%.

prayer givers before congress are self identified weistian and 97% say that and us as they pray, facing not just the members but also the gallery incorporating all of this into what they are saying. in 1983 when the supreme court upheld legislative prayer, it used congress as the touchstone of what is acceptable under the first amendment because it was the same congress that wrote the establishment cause of -- laws of the constitution. it created the house and senate chaplain to offer these every day. we're hopeful the court will go the right way in this course. as being consistent with the establishment clause and to make

it clear in our second brief at the time has come to step away from this whole concept of if someone subjectively feel the government is endorsing a religious idea and the test is not endorsement, but coercion. is anyone being coerced to participate in a religious activity contrary to their conscience or some other religion.stablishing that is not what is going on here. we are hopeful the court will go the right way in this case and reverse the court below. tank you. -- thank you. >> i argued the case for the play and -- for the plaintiffs. a number of them support the right of citizens to's participate without participating in another prayer service. most of what you heard was false. there is no rotation system. the only or instructions was to call a pastor. they had no one but christian

pastors. i have defended many christians in my career. i do not support the right to use the power of government to impose on religious minorities. that is what is going on. justice hagan samurai star case, -- kagan summarized our case. you cannot refuse to participate in the prayer just before you stand up to ask the board to take discretionary action that affects you directly and personally. this is highly coercive and also a sectarian endorsement. it violates all of the principals of the establishment clause that both sides of the court, the liberals and conservatives, have agreed to carry and endorsements are prohibited. and we have both of those things in this case. >> what is the larger problem, the message or the method? >> the message. it does not matter who was selected to give the prayer. it matters what the prayer givers says.

the prayers in this case are explicitly christian and often heavy handedly christian, talking about the saving grace of jesus christ on the crossed and similar things. we do not care if pastors give a prayer as long as they remain nonsectarian. >> how can you make them sectarian to appeal to many religions? how can you do that? >> we have a tradition in this country of nonsectarian prayers that appeal to a wide range of positions. it is true you can't protect everybody. but you can protect almost everybody and you can protect more than one faith. this case is about christians aggressively imposing themselves on their fellow citizens with the power of government. that is not right. it is not part of the american tradition. >> can we get the plaintiffs?

>> susan galloway. >> i am susan galloway. i am one of the plaintiffs. i just want to thank americans united for being our attorneys and representing us. i appreciate the justices hearing this case. i think it is important. i feel the town has aligned itself with christianity by just having christian prayer givers. they have had a couple other people but primarily it is christian. that is very sectarian. as a citizen i felt i was different. and because of my own faith and my own religious beliefs. i'm glad that the supreme court is hearing this. is there anything -- >> what are your religious beliefs? >> i am a jew.

>> why did it make you feel uncomfortable? >> i think that when you have people that, first of all, the town, the pastors face the people, not to the government. it is like they are praying over us. i know when i stood then i sat and i have 100 eyes looking at me and questioning what is going on and thinking i am being disrespectful, it does put pressure on you and makes you very uncomfortable. it singles you out. that should not be in my town government. it should not be anywhere. >> you can give the next prayer. why doesn't that resolve it? you can give a jewish prayer. >> if i wanted to give a prayer, that is fine. that excludes other people. i believe that it has been one- sided and it has favored

christianity. i do not think that is right. >> what would you like to see happen? what do you want to see happen? >> i would like to see people feel they are included in the government and they are not made second-class citizens. they stone their faith or non- faith dashed -- based on their faith or non-faith. i think there are ways of doing it that would be more inclusive than what they are doing. >> i am melinda stevens. i live in the town of greece and i am an atheist. i want to thank the americans united legal staff for putting thousands of hours into this very worthwhile and needed action.

one thing i would like to say to my fellow atheists is, we need to come out of the closet. atheists are starting to come out of the closet now, after 9/11. there are many, many of us. we have to follow the lead of the lgbt community and make our voices heard. we can't be shy about this because it is important. we need to be included in town government, and government at all levels. unless we speak up, we are not going to be. >> would any prayer work for atheist's? is there a model that would work for you? >> i have heard atheist indications that i admired. a state senator in arizona gave a wonderful one but he got blowback at the next legislative session from conservative

christians. they bashed him and said two prayers for the one he disagreed with the previous time. so it is hard for atheist or other minorities to speak up because susanna and i have both experienced hostility from our fellow residents in the town of greece. it is not a pleasant experience. susan and i got two letters telling us to stay away from town board meetings if we did not like what was going on, to move out of the town if we did not like it. i had vandalism to my house several times. one night someone came in the i. i had vandalism to my house several times. one night, someone came in the middle of the night, dug up my mailbox and smashed it and put it omy