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.

at thea look now philippines. the associated it press reports about 10,000 people are believed to have died in this one city. typhoon haiyan hit the philippines washing away schools, homes, and airport buildings and wins varying people under tons of debris. the defense department released a statement that said in coordination with the u.s. agency for international development and the u.s. ambassador in manila, the department of defense will continue to monitor the effects of typhoon haiyan and stands ready to help our ally recover from the storm. the u.s. has pledged financial and logistical support to help aid search and rescue and

recovery in the philippines from typhoon haiyan. saidsentative andy barr happy 230th earth day to the u.s. marine corps and all marines, press and present -- past and present. you can let us know what you think your to join up with our twitter feed at twitter.com/cspan. the p5 bus one countries have not reached a deal over iran's nuclear program. secretary of state john kerry appeared on nbc's "meet the press" to talk about geneva and sanctions on iran. >> i was there and we voted for these sanctions. we voted on the cessation in order to bring them around to the negotiating table. now that they are there, you have to ask and some good faith and in an effort to be able to move toward the goal you want to achieve. if, as their active good faith, they freeze their program and allow us absolutely

unprecedented access to inspection and do other things -- i will not going to be list -- but if they do the things that we believe is necessary so that we can guarantee we know what is happening and we can move it back, while we negotiate e, it saves me have to do something that indicates your good faith. the president has made it clear -- he will not reduce or change the overall core architecture of the oil think wrench -- oil sanctions. iran will still be under enormous pressure, precisely to complete the task. i think there is a lot of hype and an awful lot of speculation about what is going on here when all that is happening is an effort through the sanctions congress put in place to get negotiations when those negotiations hopefully produce an actual result. iran's nuclear

program are expected to resume on november 20. congress is out on monday for veterans day with those chambers scheduled to return at 2:00 on a tuesday. senator lindsey graham appeared union" tostate of the talk about recent reports on the attacks in benghazi and the state of the union. >> i met with the state department thursday about my desire to talk to the five personnel americans state department employees, american citizens, independent of the state department's accountability review board. nobody in congress have gotten to talk to these people. i released two ambassadors that i had a hold on because we are trying to work out a bipartisan way to interview these witnesses. why? oversight is important. i want to perform oversight. i am not trying to prosecute eight crime or defend a british contractor. i want to hear from the people who work for us, that american citizens in harms way, what did

you feel like when you were told a buddy was coming to help you? did you see or report a protest? did you tell the fbi about a protest? if they did not, did you see security concerns before the attack, did you report them, and who to? 14 month after the attack, we have not heard from those who survived the attack. congress has an independent duty to find out what happened in benghazi, and that is what i am after, and i hope we can find a way to get these interviews. >> i understand, but i want to clarify two things -- right now, your thread to hold up nominees i released -- nominees -- >> i released two. the --ant to enter right i want to interview the survivors. were you concerned about security -- hold in general. depending on the situation, you are threatening to hold. ok, and finally --

>> and can i just say, the only reason is i have been trying for a year to get the interviews without holds, and you just can't allow something this bad and this big of a national security failure for the administration to investigate itself -- i do not want to hold anybody. all it want to do is talk to the survivors, protecting their security, protecting their identity, to find out exactly what did happen. was it a protest? >> let me ask you quickly -- right -- >> how did present obama and secretary clinton missed the al qaeda in libya? >> both chambers of congress return tuesday at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the house will take up bills of with both after 6:30. and the senate will debate a domination for the u.s. circuit judge for the d c circuit court of appeals. a procedural vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch live coverage on

the house on c-span and the senate over on c-span2. >> big place is now called the mercedes-benz superdome in new orleans where the new orleans saints lay -- play, built entirely of public expense after hurricane katrina. goodas a national feel- story and rightly i would say so, but the public paid for all of the repairs. the league put in a token amount. the public has invested about $1 billion in construction for the mercedes benz superdome, and a man who owns the new orleans saints keeps almost all of the revenue generated there. why do people not reveal> -- rebel? one reason is they do not believe this is taking place, and the second reason is they believe it is largely based on insider deals, will and it is largely based on insider deals. in miami last year, there was a

vote to use public money to renovate the stadium where the miami dolphins play, and the citizens voted strongly against doing that. >> more with the "king of sports" author gregg easterbrook sunday on c-span's "q&a." in the case town of greece versus galloway, the court will decide about the first amendment's ban on the use of government and religion. the court decided in 1983 that legislatures can begin their session with play. this case examines whether there should be different roles for local council meetings, where citizens come to ask for official action. this oral argument is about one hour. >> we'll hear argument first this morning in case 12-696, the

town of greece v. galloway. mr. hungar. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- the court of appeals correctly held that the legislative prayers at issue in this case were not offensive in the way identified as problematic in marsh, but the court then committed legal error by engrafting the endorsement test onto marsh as a new barrier to the practice of legislative prayer. >> mr. hungar, i'm wondering what you would think of the following: suppose that as we began this session of the court, the chief justice had called a minister up to the front of the courtroom, facing the lawyers, maybe the parties, maybe the spectators. and the minister had asked everyone to stand and to bow their heads in prayer and the minister said the following: he said, we acknowledge the saving sacrifice of jesus christ on the cross. we draw strength from his resurrection. blessed are you who has raised up the lord jesus. you who will raise us in our turn and put us by his side. the members of the court who had stood responded amen, made the sign of the cross, and the chief justice then called your case. would that be permissible?

>> i don't think so, your honor. and, obviously, this case doesn't present that question because what we have here is a case of legislative prayer in the marsh doctrine, which recognizes that the history of this country from its very foundations and founding, recognize the propriety of legislative prayer of the type that was conducted here. >> the extension just between the legislature and any other official proceeding; is that correct? >> well, clearly, marsh involves legislative prayer, the tradition that we rely on 20 involves legislative prayer, and this case involves legislative prayer. whether -- what rule might apply in other contexts would depend on the context. >> suppose i ask the exact same question, same kinds of statements, same sort of context, except it's not in a courtroom. instead, it's in a congressional hearing room. maybe it's a confirmation hearing, maybe it's an investigatory hearing of some kind, and that a person is sitting at a table in front of the members of a committee, ready to testify, ready to give

his testimony in support of his nomination. the minister says the exact same thing. >> i think that's a -- that's a closer question because of the congressional history, but, of course, at least as far as i'm aware, they have -- this history as it applies to the legislative body as a whole, not to committees, but it would be a different question. one, obviously, important distinguishing factor there, in addition to the fact that it's not the legislative body as a whole >> we should -- we should -- >> is that people are compelled to attend and testify under oath, which is a different situation from the one here. >> well, why -- >> we should assume -- to, to make it parallel to what occurred here that the next day before the same committee a muslim would lead the invocation and the day after that an orthodox jew. i mean -- >> yes, your honor. >> it makes a difference whether it's just one -- one denomination that is being used

as -- as chaplain or open to various denominations. >> that's correct, your honor. that's why we believe this case is actually an easier case than marsh because in marsh, there was a paid chaplain from the same denomination for 16 years. >> but the question, mr. hungar for 11 years the prayers sounded almost exclusively like the ones that i read, and one year on four occasions, there was some attempts to vary it up, to have a baha'i minister or a -- a wiccan, but for the most part, not out of any malice or anything like that, but because this is what the people in this community knew and were familiar with and what most of the ministers were, most of the prayers sounded like this. >> well, no. i mean, it's clearly not correct that most of the prayers sounded like the one you just read.

>> but your position is that wouldn't matter, as i understand, because you have you have -- you have two limitations, proselytizing and disparaging. and -- but i think justice kagan's question just set place place limitations. one could read your brief and say, well, it doesn't matter; it could be an executive body, it could be a court, it could be a town meeting, a school board, a zoning board, a utilities board. that's -- is this case about prayer at the beginning of a legislative session or is it about prayer in all three branches of government? >> this case is about prayer at the beginning of a legislative session. that's exactly what the meetings at issue here are -- are about. that's what the board of the town of greece is. in fact, respondents try to argue that this is somehow what they call coercive because there

are public hearings that are held. but the public hearings are held at least 30 minutes after the prayer and anyone coming for the purpose of the public hearing can easily show up after the prayer if they don't want to be there. >> why -- why was it that you so promptly answered justice kagan's question to the effect that this would be a violation? what -- why would there be a violation in the instance she put? >> i'm sorry. which instance, your honor? >> the first question justice kagan asked you, the hypothetical about the prayer in this court. about the prayer in this court. you seemed readily to agree that that would be a first amendment violation. why? >> well, perhaps i conceded too much, but i think the important distinction is between the -- both the judicial context and the legislative context on the one hand and the -- the absence of a of a comparable history that shows that it did not -- >> well, is it -- is it simply history that makes -- there's no rational explanation? it's just a historical aberration?

>> no, it's not -- it's not a question of historical aberration. it's a question of -- >> well, what's -- what's the justification for the distinction? >> it's a question of what the establishment clause has understood, both at the time and throughout history, to forbid and not to forbid. the judiciary is different than a legislature. legislatures can be partisan, the judiciary should not be. people are compelled to testify under oath. >> but you -- but you -- you had no problem, mr. hungar, with the marshal's announcement at the -- at the beginning of this session. god save the united states and this honorable court. there -- there are many people who don't believe in god. >> that's correct, your honor. and clearly -- >> so that's ok? >> yes. >> why -- why is that ok? >> whether -- if -- perhaps i misunderstood the hypothetical. if the hypothetical is as you described with a different minister, with -- with an open process, a nondiscriminatory process like the one we have here, i think it would be a much closer case than this one, but it might be constitutional. but whether that case is constitutional or not, this case is far from the constitutional line, further from the constitutional line than the state legislature's practice in marsh.

because there, nebraska had one chaplain from one denomination for 16 years and yet, that was constitutionally permissible, and his prayers were not distinguishable in content from the prayers at issue here during the time that was relevant to the case. >> would it make a difference in your analysis if instead of, as i understand the hypothetical, there was a point of saying, all rise or something of that sort? would it make a difference if the hypothetical justice kagan posed were the same except people weren't told to rise or invited to rise or, in fact, were told to stay seated, something like that, so there would be no indication of who was participating in the prayer? is that a -- is that a ground of distinction that you're willing to accept or not? >> i don't think that is constitutionally significant, unless -- i mean, it might be different if people are compelled to stand, but whether

they are or not -- i mean, in the marsh case itself, senator chambers testified that the practice in the nebraska legislature was for people to stand and he felt coerced to stand. because when he was there -- he tried to avoid it -- but when he was there, he felt he needed to stand because everybody else was doing it and he needed to have dealings with these people as a fellow legislator. the court, nonetheless, held that he's an adult and he -- he is expected to be able to disagree with things that he disagrees with and that is not a constitutional violation. >> i wonder how far you can carry the -- your historical argument and whether some of these things are properly regarded as more historical artifacts, right? i mean, our motto is "in god we trust," right? that's the motto. it's been that for a long time, right? >> yes, sir. >> but wouldn't we look at it differently if there were -- suddenly if there were a proposal today for the first time, to say let's adopt a motto "in god we trust"? would we view that the same way simply because it's -- in other words, the history doesn't make

it clear that a particular practice is ok going on in the future. it means, well, this is what they've done -- they have done, so we're not going to go back and revisit it. just like we're not going to go back and take the cross out of every city seal that's been there since, you know, 1800. but it doesn't mean that it would be ok to adopt a seal today that would have a cross in it, does it? >> not necessarily. but -- but i think history is clearly important to the establishment clause analysis under this court's precedence in two significant respects, both of which apply here, one of which might not apply in your -- with respect to your hypothetical. the first being the history shows us that the practice of legislative prayer, just like the motto, has not, in fact, led to an establishment and, therefore, we can be confident it is not in danger of doing so. and secondly, the history of legislative prayer, unlike your hypothetical, goes back to the very framing of the first amendment. the fact that -- then this is what the court said in marsh -- the fact that at the very time the first congress was writing and sending the -- the first amendment out to the states to be ratified, they adopted the practice of having a congressional chaplain. and the congressional chaplain the record -- the historical record is clear -- gave prayers that were almost exclusively sectarian, as respondents define that word.

>> i don't really understand your -- your answer. how can it be that if the practice existed in the past, it was constitutional? was it constitutional in the past? >> yes, your honor. >> if it was constitutional in the past, why -- why would it be unconstitutional if the same thing is done today, even without any past parallel practice? that's a nice alliteration. is past parallel practice essential? >> i think this court's precedents have also indicated, at least in some cases, that if a practice is constitutional, as we know it to be the case because of the fact that it has been understood to be constitutional and consistent with our religion clauses from the founding, other practices that have no greater impact, no greater tendency to establish religion, are equally constitutional. and we believe that is an appropriate doctrine.

>> is there -- is there any constitutional historical practice with respect to this 0 hybrid body? it's not simply a legislature. it has a number of administrative functions. sometimes it convenes as a town meeting. sometimes it entertains zoning applications. is there a history for that kind of hybrid body, as there is for the kind of legislature we had in nebraska or our congress? >> yes, your honor, in two respects. first of all, the becket fund amicus brief identifies various examples of -- of municipal government prayer over the course of our founding, which is over the course of our history, which is not surprising given this -- the legislative practice at the state and federal level as well.

and secondly, congress for much of its -- of much of our history entertained private bills, which would be the equivalent in terms of legislative or non-purely legislative functions you're talking about, with what the town of greece does here. >> well, if we had a -- if we had a series of cases, what -- what is a -- a utility rate- making board would come to the supreme court. we say, well, it's enough like a legislative that it's like marsh. but i don't think the public would understand that. >> well, your honor, whatever whatever line might be drawn between non-legislative bodies and legislative bodies, what we are talking about here is a legislative meeting of a legislative body, and it would be -- it would be incongruous, as this court said in marsh, if congress could have legislative prayers and the states couldn't. it would be equally incongruous >> well, the essence of the argument is we've always done it this way, which has some -- some force to it. but it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there. >> no, your honor. i mean, as we -- as we said in our brief, the principles that undergird the establishment clause are equally consistent with the position we're advancing here.

as the -- as your opinion in the county of allegheny case indicates, the fundamental -- the core of establishment clause concern is coercion or conduct that is so extreme that it leads to the establishment of a religion because it is putting the government squarely behind one faith to the exclusion of others, and that's clearly not not what's going on here. >> may i ask you about the individual plaintiffs here. what do we know about them? they obviously have appeared at proceedings and they object to the proceedings. does the record show that they had matters before the town council during the hearings part of the proceeding? >> no, your honor. there is there's no evidence of that. there's no -- the respondents have no standing to assert the interests of children or police officers or award recipients or or permit applicants. they don't even claim to be in in any of those categories.

>> well, what about the public forum part? they did speak occasionally then; isn't that right? >> yes, your honor. >> do we know what they spoke about? >> well, on at least one occasion one of them spoke about the prayer -- or on one or two occasions; and then on multiple occasions spoke about a cable access channel issue. >> and what did they -- what was the issue there? >> something about -- she was expressing vehement disagreement with the town's decision to award a cable access channel to one entity as opposed to another. >> do you have any objection to doing one thing that was suggested in the circuit court opinion, which is to publicize rather thoroughly in -- in the area that those who were not christians, and perhaps not even religious, are also welcome to appear and to have either a prayer or the equivalent if they're not religious? do you have an objection to that? >> certainly not. there'd be >> well, then -- then there is

a disagreement on that point, because certainly, that was one of the concerns. it wasn't on anyone's website. there are -- greece is a small town very near rochester, and there are, at least in rochester, lots of people of different religions, including quite a few of no religion. so -- so could you work that out, do you think, if that were the only objecting point? >> i -- i don't know what the town's position would be on that, but it -- certainly, there would be no constitutional problem with doing that. i mean, here as a practical matter, since -- >> no, no. i'm not saying it's a constitutional problem i got from the opinion of doing the opposite, of -- of not making an effort to make people who are not christian feel, although they live near in or near the town or are affected thereby, participants over time. >> but, your honor, it's a perfectly rational approach when any legislative body is going to have a practice of legislative prayer, to go to the houses of worship in the community. >> i'm not saying it's not. i want to know if you have any objection. >> well, i certainly don't think it is constitutionally required, although i would note that as a practical matter that has happened here in 2007.

>> do you -- would you have if all that were left in the case were the question of you're making a good faith effort to try to include others, would you object to doing it? >> i don't know what the town's position is on that. as i said, as a practical matter, that has already happened here. the town deputy supervisor was quoted in the newspaper saying anyone can come in prayer, anyone can >> yes. that's different from putting it on a website. that's different from making an organized effort to see that people get the word. >> as i say -- >> mr. hungar, what -- what is the equivalent of prayer for somebody who is not religious? >> i would -- >> what would somebody who is not religious -- >> in the rubin -- >> what is the equivalent of prayer? >> it would be some invocation of guidance and wisdom from >> from what? >> i don't know. in -- in the rubin case --

in the rubin case, a nonreligious person delivered invocations on multiple occasions. >> i suppose a moment -- >> perhaps he's asking me that question and i can answer it later. >> i'd like to reserve the remainder of my time. >> yes. thank you, counsel. mr. gershengorn. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court: the second circuit's decision here requires courts to determine when a legislature has permitted too many sectarian references in its prayers or has invited too many christian prayer-givers. that approach is flawed for two reasons. first, it cannot be squared with our nation's long history of opening legislative sessions not only with a prayer, but a prayer given in the prayer-giver's own religion idiom. and second, it invites exactly the sort of parsing of prayer that marsh sought to avoid and that federal courts are ill- equipped to handle. >> and what was the purpose of marsh saying that proselytizing

or damning another religion would be a constitutional violation? >> so we agree with -- >> so unless you parse the prayers, you can't determine whether there's proselytizing or damnation. that is judge wilkinson's point when he was faced with this question, which is, you have to, to do some parsing. >> so, your honor, you have to look at -- at the prayer to determine proselytizing. but it's a very different series of judgments, we submit, than determining whether something is sectarian. the kinds of debates we're having, i think, are reflected in the differences -- >> now, seriously, counselor. you can't argue that the quote that justice kagan read is not sectarian. it invokes jesus christ as the savior of the world. there are many religions who don't believe that. let's get past that. >> so, your honor -- >> this is sectarian. >> we agree that these are sectarian. but the kinds of debates that you're seeing among the parties,

whether, for example, 15%, 50%, 60% of the congressional prayers are sectarian. those are debates about whether "holy spirit" is sectarian. a court -- a district court has held that "allah" is not sectarian. >> so let's talk about the context instead of prayer. if the chief justice got up at the beginning of this session and said "all rise for a prayer," would you sit down? >> your honor, whether i would sit or not, we don't think that that would be constitutional. >> do you think -- how many people in this room do you think would sit, talking truthfully? >> i don't think -- i don't think many would sit, your honor. >> all right. >> but we don't think that that >> so why do you think that someone who is sitting in a small room where hearings of this nature are being held, when the guy who's about, the chairman of this legislative body, is about to rule on an application you're bringing to

him or her, why do you think any of those people wouldn't feel coerced to stand? >> so, your honor, i'd like to address the coercion point this way: with respect to town councils, it's our view that as a general matter that the municipal legislatures can invoke the same tradition of solemnizing and invoking divine guidance as federal and state legislatures. we recognize there are differences, however, and your honor has pointed to one and that's the -- what was called the public forum here. and we think it's very -- because those are the ones where the -- is adjudicated license applications, liquor applications. and we do think it is important on this record that those are separated in time. it's at the court of appeals appendix 929 and 1120. so that the meeting starts at 6:00, which is in the prayer -- when the prayer is, but the board meetings to adjudicate those types of issues are at 6:30 or 6:32. and so the type of concern that your honor has raised is not presented on this record and we think that's significant. we think some of the other factors -- >> mr. gershengorn, do you think that if the legislature --

excuse me -- if the town board here just, you know, started it off with a prayer and then kept on going, do you think that that would be a significantly different case and you would switch sides? >> i don't know that we would switch sides, your honor. but i do think it mitigates the coercion that the -- that the respondents have identified. and we think it -- that that is one of the significant differences between the town, the -- the town legislature and a -- and the legislature >> you agree that coercion is the test, however? >> we don't agree that coercion is the test, your honor. >> if it is the test -- >> we think it's the history -- we think the history is the -- the principal guidance of marsh is -- we think there are three pillars in marsh: first of all, that the history is what the court looks to first. and here there was a long history of legislative prayer. second, that the court should be very wary of parsing prayer to make sectarian judgments. and third, what marsh said is that adults are less susceptible to religious doctrine -- indoctrination and peer pressure. >> mr. gershengorn, could you

respond to this? here's what our -- our country promises, our constitution promises. it's that, however we worship, we're all equal and full citizens. and i think we can all agree on that. and that means that when we approach the government, when we petition the government, we do so not as a christian, not as a jew, not as a muslim, not as a nonbeliever, only as an american. and what troubles me about this case is that here a citizen is going to a local community board, supposed to be the closest, the most responsive institution of government that exists, and is immediately being asked, being forced to identify whether she believes in the things that most of the people in the room believe in, whether she belongs to the same religious idiom as most of the people in the room do. and it strikes me that that might be inconsistent with this understanding that when we relate to our government, we all do so as americans, and not as jews and not as christians and

not as nonbelievers. >> so, justice kagan, i think we agree with much of what you say. but -- but with the difference here is that this approaching of the government body occurs against the backdrop of 240 years of history, which makes this different. from the very beginning of our legislature, from the first continental congress, and then from the -- from the first congress, there have been legislative prayers given in the religious idiom of either the official chaplain or a guest chaplain, that have regularly invoked the -- the deity and the language of the prayer-giver. and that -- >> mr. gershengorn, your your brief is the one who brought up and you were quite candid about it -- the hybrid nature of that body. i think it's on pages 22 to 24 of your brief. and you say it would be proper to have certain checks in that setting. so for one, make sure that the entrance and the exit is easy.

for another, inform the people in town of the tradition so they won't be confused. but you recognize on the one hand that this isn't like congress or the nebraska legislature, and then you say these would be nice things to do. are you saying just that it would be good and proper or are you saying it would be necessary given the hybrid nature of this body? >> so, your honor, with respect to some of the things we identify which are similar to the ones that justice breyer recommended, i think our view is they're more akin to safe harbors, that there are undoubtedly advancement challenges that could be brought. and to the extent that the town can point to things such as -- such as public criteria and things like that, that is helpful. with respect to the -- the public forum aspect, i don't think we have a position as to whether it is required, but we