in any way that we can to help this project go forward. fortunately today the data services are performing well. >> now you were here on september 10th when we conducted the hearing in the subcommittee. i expressed my skepticism at that time. 40 days later we have seen the exchange rollout, nothing short of disastrous. i would like to ask again why were we told everything was okay if you weeks before? one of the biggest disasters in government history. ..

we thought it would be ready. indeed, it was ready. i don't think we had visibility -- >> did you express concerns about writing this dcms? >> all of the concerns and risks we saw based on the testing that we did see and didn't see that was unrelated to our work, our work as a matter-of-fact we felt was on track and we expressed that to them as well. >> ms. campbell, my time is a. would you submit those memorandum communications to us within 24 hours, please? >> once again, under our contract with cms, we -- if we have permission to do so.

i'm not even sure, i would have to go back to see what we do have for you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of us have been on the committee a good while. i don't know if you get experience because we also problems in the 2003 when we created the prescription drug program. this committee did that. with much fewer participants. so what we are seeing now is, sounds like we have a success, we just don't have the computer to deal with it. i support the affordable care act because i know dependable coverage is for families in our districts. stories effort from people are excited to sign up for the coverage reminded of why this law is important. thousands of people in her district have been denied coverage in the past from preexisting conditions. they are paid for expensive coverage they could rely on. that's why we need the affordable care act new benefits and protection.

that's why it's so frustrating that healthcare.gov has not worked the way we were promise, special entering such optimistic testimony from these organizations in some timber. ms. campbell, i know you've been asked this before, repetition helps us learn. where you optimistic into prediction before our committee on october 1? >> i don't believe so. >> well, what happens then? you are optimistic but in the last, you know, 23 days it's been a problem. >> you asked about -- september 10 were quite optimistic that our portion of the system work effectively when the system in life. >> well, again, it may have been too optimistic. mr. slavitt, were you optimistic in earlier testimony before the committee? >> we believe we have been prudent and cautious all the way

through this project. we did express confidence to the subcommittee on september 102 the date of the surface of would be ready on october 1, and it was. >> no, sir. our portion of the system has worked as we testified it was on september 10. >> the paper processing capability has been up and running since october 1 as well. >> well, obviously there's a problem and it's not like an ostrich, we can bury our heads in the sand. we have to do with it. are each of you willing to make sure that we fix this problem? if you don't accept there's a problem then it's hard to fix it. >> we do accept that there are challenges. no question there are problems and we're working together to solve those problems. >> mr. chairman, hopefully will follow in another month or so so we can see what's happening and so we can do our oversight like we're supposed to do. mr. slavitt, when problem many people have identified as qssi's

registration and access management tool for the site, the gateway to getting, setting up an account. was this overwhelmed by volume been healthcare.gov went live? >> let me explain what happened and where things stand today with the registration tool. first of all, the registration tool utilizes leading commercial software, widely deployed and worked in other settings across -- >> i only have about a minute and 48 seconds left so can you tell me, was the system overwhelms? >> the system -- the registration system was overwhelmed. >> and how those problems and fix the? >> we have expanded the capacity greatly in the registration to since then, yes. >> are there any other problems in the data or the registration gateway managed by qssi that you're working to fix? >> i think problems come up, discrete problems, virginia to our team as our early warning systems. they address those problems and

there's none that i'm aware of that are outstanding. >> ms. campbell, cgi is responsible for healthcare.gov website. now that the registration gateway is fixed, we hope, are you encountering new problems? >> we are. we are looking at those problems and making those corrections as they come up. >> and can against a background of the problems? if you would, give it to us in writing. i know there's some question, you said you'll have a privacy agreement with hhs. i think we can take care that if we have to. on making sure this committee gets the information. d. expect to continue to make improvements and fix problems over the coming weeks of? >> that is our commitment. >> we are all impatient to some of us on our side believe in the affordable care act and didn't start from day one try trivial, wanted it to work and i hope we have a majority support for if we need to do things to fix it that it will get done.

but i look forward to continuing to see -- i don't want to put a parking space out in front but into a get this fixed we might need to do that. and i yield back my time. >> mr. walden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the panelists for their testimony today and i was in small business for 20 years in the radio business. we dealt and software upgrades and changes and all that. i'm feeling a lot of those emotions come back today because when we put a new system and, there would be multiple vendors and everyone of those systems operated per fully except when all came together. then they all pointed fingers at someonsomeone else. feeling a lot of that today, old as a person who represents three quarters of million people, $500 billion on the line. it's why we are here. to figure out what went wrong. and i would just like to know on the cell and the in thing, because it sounds like each of you have said that you designed

your system and tested it to the specifications you were given by cms, is that accurate, yes or no? >> that is correct. >> mr. slavitt? >> yes. >> ms. spellecy? >> yes spent our ended -- our systems are not integrated. >> so you do not get quite as much opportunity here today. but i want to go then to the first two. he if you decide it to cms specification and you tested it and felt it was all good to go, where did this breakdown? in most systems you operate income do you do anything in the tests prior to the rollout? and if so, when would you prefer that ended into testing have been done by cms? >> let's see if i can get all of those questions but i'll make it simple to which should be in the

in the test have started? >> there's never enough testing for sure, but it occurred in the last two weeks of september. >> so you think that's an adequate timeframe for a system this mammoth with 16 of the nation's economy and millions of people coming in to it. did they give your company at a time to make sure everything was in -- integrated to work spent it would have been better to have more time. >> how much more time which a preferred to have? >> i don't have -- >> did you make recommendations about the need for end to end testing to occur sooner than the last two weeks before this whole thing went live? >> i did not but i -- >> did anyone in your company? >> i would have to go back. >> i would like to know that. mr. slavitt? >> integrated testing would've occurred well before -- >> how far in advance of a major website coming online? >> with enough time to correct before they begin, i couldn't give an exact date but -- >> do you do work for anybody else outside of cms where end to

end testing is required to? >> yes. >> in the situations are those commercial situations or government? >> get both. >> what's the standard protocol, what's the recommended industry standard for end to end test before rolling out a major website like this? >> months would be nice. >> ms. campbell, is that accurate or your company as well? >> correct. >> you were given two weeks and yet months would've been nice. if you're to to a contract for a system like this, what would you ask for in terms of doing the end to end test? do you have standard in the c recommendation? >> we were given two weeks. that was cms who decide to conduct the test in that two-week time period. it wasn't ourselves doing -- >> i think that's correct but as a vendor come and get what your company to come out of this looking good, not having to spend your time with us, as much as i'm sure you're enjoying it --

[laughter] but what should have industry standard called for here -- have you ever undertaken bring of the website being a part of something this big affecting this many people's lives? yes or no? have you ever done one this big? >> of this complexity? >> correct. >> i testify that this is by far i think the most complex in our country in a very long time. >> i think you're right. that's when trying to get. where should the end to end test tests have been done? if your company could have made that decision, what would you make a recommendation for the complete integrated end to end testing to begin? when should that have started? >> we would have loved to have had months spent months, and it's the same. i was doing that from people on the outside as this always come together. i chair the subcommittee on communications and technology. i would ask how do you think this is going to work, this is

exactly how outside people predicted it would turn out. and here we are today. this isn't a partisan issue about health care. people expect this thing to work. i went through this an organ with our dmv, department of motor vehicles that i think 50 or $60 million back in the late '80s and finally scrapped the whole system because it was a failure. we set out. i don't want this to be a failure. i want you all to get it fixed but i'm very disturbed that cms did not give you the adequate time that would be an industry-standarindustrystandary american said okay, they come it's ready, i'm ready to go. you all came here and told us and through us, the american people, it was good to go. and it wasn't. >> ms. degette. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. campbell, you testified before the committee on september 10, correct? >> that's correct. >> at the committee, at that hearing you testified that cgi

federal was confident that he would deliver the functionality that cms directed individuals to be enrolled in coverage, correct? >> that's correct. >> in your written testimony today, he also testified that cgi and others develop this site and it passed the eight required technical reviews before going live on october 1, correct? >> that is correct. >> even at that hearing on september 10, or until just now, you have never testified that there was insufficient integrated testing to know whether the exchange is going to work, correct? >> there were -- >> i never saw any of your testimony that you ever said in those hearings that more testing was needed. and i was there. spinks it is a question whether i testified -- >> that's correct. d. you ever tell this committee that more testing was needed to make sure it would work the? >> i don't believe i was asked

that question. >> i'm so at very little time. mr. slavitt, you are only witness who was not here on september 10 but mr. finkel from the organization was. on september 10, mr. finkel testified quote our delivery milestone for data service of completion of being met on time. we expect seamless data service i will be ready as bland by october 1. correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> in your written test money today, you at code that qssi completed code for data services hub in june, that you did the testing, there was an independent risk, security risk assessment complete on october 30. is that correct? >> correct. >> today in your testimony you said you shared the problems that you identify with cms. with this problem shared after september, after the september 10 hearing them? >> yes.

>> i would request that you would supplement your testimony today by telling us the problems that you identified to cms. will you please do that for us within 20 days? >> be happy to get back to you. >> thank you very much. now, did you organization do testing with a number of two and people and the testing failed? that so we've been -- that's what we've been seeing in the press accounts. >> i'm not familiar with all the accounts in the press. what he think you're referring to is the testing that occurred in the final days leading up to the october 1 launch. >> was not done with over 200 people? >> i know that was a test. my standing is that test failed. once the systems were put together for the first time. >> were test them with more people come into it as well? >> yes. >> there's one more thing i want to talk about in the time i have

and that's this issue of privacy. because in my opening statement i said that i was really touched by the people on the other side of the aisle trying to work with us. when i heard my friend and colleague mr. barton's statement and his legs slide which i got a copy of since i couldn't see it, i realized that, in fact, a lot of people don't want the affordable care act to work and they are raising all of these specters and the privacy issue in the specter. because mr. barton's question -- sorry just too much because this question came from an article in "the weekly standard" where there is a line of code which says that is not visible to the user, it says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. and so this is what some standard boiler prayed but mr. barton is assuming this violates hipaa. it would only violate hipaa if people were putting their

personal medical information into the application. and so i want to ask the couple of questions about that. as i understand it, you don't need any medical information to enroll people other than the question, do you smoke? is that correct, ms. campbell? >> that is correct. >> mr. slavitt? >> my understanding. >> ms. spellecy? >> we would never visibility into the? >> about you, mr. long? >> that is correct spent people are putting confidential medical information onto the internet and so, therefore, they wouldn't be violating hipaa. i'm disappointed that my friend would go down this road and i would ask unanimous consent to put that article in the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> one last question. went in these exchanges be ready? when can people get on them with reliability? ms. campbell? >> as soon as possible.

we are working as hard as we can. >> mr. slavitt? >> s&s systems are currently ready we're doing everything we can to maintain them and do everything we can to assist. >> i just want to say, mr. chairman, my health care a whit onto the -- last night, she is able to register able to research blinds. i hope this happens for all the rest of americans. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> i have no -- >> i guess what am i ipad and i was able to access the choices of plans to my constituents in california. within five or 10 minute period. >> john chiles time is expired. mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ms. campbell on down, first two questions are more or less yes or no questions. did you or anyone from the company consult with or discuss today's testimony and your answer to potential questions? was anyone from cms to prepare

for this hearing? ms. campbell? >> we talked to cms about our testimony but not any details at all. >> who did you discuss that with the? >> i don't recall. i didn't discuss it with anyone myself. i'll have to find out. >> your people, there's always intermediaries. mr. slavitt? >> no. >> no. we did not have specific conversations. >> that's good. did your company, again from ms. campbell on to my right, did your company or any of your subs use any people who work outside of the united states to assist in your respective parts or your contract with cms, otherwise known as outsourcing? >> no. we are very proud of the fact we created jobs all in the united states. >> all of them?

>> all of them. >> okay. ago. >> no. >> no, sir. >> very good. now, i'm concerned about the front door of this system, of this website. now, is this system able to track how many people are accessing what we call the front door? ms. campbell? >> we are not responsible for the front door. >> you know, it's very confusing, because in your testimony on the 10th, you did suggest, and somehow these papers are missing right now, in your testimony that you provided that you said eligibility and enrollment will serve as the front door for consumers to fill out the online of insurance application as one of the responsibilities.

so i'm confused by that. >> no, i understand. we are in the space i if you thk about the house, we are the outside structure, but the front door that you go into -- >> you are deciding that was put up? >> i do know about -- my dad did construction all his life. he had a small business in construction so i kind of think in those terms. >> so all of the accessing is mr. slavitt's world? >> ask the question again. >> mr. slavitt, are you responsible for the front door? >> i think the front door is a bit of a term of art. we supply a tool -- >> i have very little time. i'm not trying to be reported trying to get to is who is -- which eddie was responsible for the application that allows cms to know how many people are actually accessing this website? is that you, mr. slavitt? >> so, we have access to the data which shows how many people are coming through the

registration tool. >> all right. and under that data that's been compiled of how me people, can you all break it down to his family people from nebraska, since we don't have the state exchange like california does, and have to go to the national, can you determine how many people from nebraska have tried to access the? >> i don't know. >> to you know how many people have tried to access on any particular date? do you have that data? >> i don't have that. >> does your company speak with yes, we do. >> are you allowed to share that data with this? >> i will access that speak so you're able to give us that data? >> we will follow-up. >> has cms made any instruction to you regarding your ability to provide us the date of how many people have tried to access through the front door? >> no. not to me. not to my knowledge. >> and ms. campbell, do you have access to the information of how

many people have tried to access the website? >> we have some aspect of that data as well. >> has cms instructed you not to give that information to a? >> we have, we have under our theme this contract, we have to have permission from cms first to provide that information. >> okay. so as -- has cms allowed you to provide us that information the? >> no. >> so if i ask you, you will deny or say that you can't answer that question? even though we are a panel of members of congress. >> i would say based on our contract that we have with cms we would have to get permission. >> mr. slavitt, are you under the same contractual obligation with seen a? >> i ask we don't know but we'll check in to. >> will you still provide us information because you're under oath and we've asked you for that information? >> if we can we certainly will speak that was a good nonanswer. [laughter]

>> the gentleman's time has expired. just remind colleagues that the order of question is the order of seniority when the gavel falls on each side. so with that we recognize mr. butterfield. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank all of you for your testimony today. it's been very enlightening. i will associate myself with the comments made by my colleague throughout this hearing. let me tell you i represent 700,000 people in north carolina, more than 1000 of those have no interest whatsoever. they are eager to get involved and we've got to get this thing right. and soon. ms. campbell, let me start with you. on monday, congressman ice, the chairman of house oversight committee wrote a letter which was publicly released accusing the white house of injecting politics into decisions about the website. the reason i want to ask you about this is because chairman issa says that the source for

his accusation is you and your company, cgi. according to chairman issa's press release, the white house made quote the political decision to mask the sticker shock of obamacare to the american people. he is talking about the decision by h. s. to disable the anonymous shopper function on healthcare.gov website. but he suggests this decision was made instead by the white house for political reasons. chairman issa wrote this letter after receiving a briefing from cgi last week. according to mr. isis letter, quote, cgi officials told committee staff that cms officials and employees constantly mention the white house. when discussing matters with cgi. all the cgi officials were not able to identify who within the administration made the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature, evidence is mounting, and this is mr. issa's

peaking, evidence is mounting that political consideration motivated the decision. i'd like to ask you a few questions about this. first, did cgi provide a briefing to mr. issa's staff last week? >> i was not there myself but i believe that meeting did -- >> the meeting did take place, to the best of your knowledge of? >> i think it did but i would have to confirm. i'm not close enough to the situation. >> you know how many from mccain participated in the meeting? >> i do not spend you did not participate speak was i did not. >> who do you answer to? >> the president of cgi federal spend you know if you participated? >> i don't believe so but i don't know for sure. >> let me ask you this directly to our mr. issa's allocations correct? did the white house ever order your company for political reasons to mask the sticker shock of obamacare by disabling the anonymous shopper function?

>> to let me answer to put things. one, i don't believe that members of cgi actually made the statements direct in that manner. i think the maven taken out of context but i think i would have to get i.t. with confirmation of that. and to my knowledge, the white house has not given us direct instructions. >> i would like to get information from you. it's a very series allocation from the chairman of an oversight committee to make such a callous accusation. based on the meeting with the company last week, mr. issa's letter wrote that quote evidence is mounting that political consideration motivated this decision to do you have evidence, and you just alluded to, do you have evidence that political consideration motivated his decision speak was i'm not privy to anything of that sort. >> do you have any knowledge of any white house role in specific decisions relating to the website? >> not to my knowledge. >> and are you aware of any political intervention by this

white house relating to your work on healthcare.gov? >> i am not spent thank you. ya been very kind. thank you we need to work together to make this program function efficiently and effectively. and i urge my colleagues to work with us and let's work with these witnesses to get it right. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you for being here today. i have a series of quick questions i would like to get to. ms. calo, how many change orders have you received my estimate? either formally or informally leading up to the launch in what function they wanted you to perform? >> we have received approximately 80 change orders. >> when was the most recent? >> i believe as recent as august of this year. >> mr. slavitt? >> i don't know the answer to that but i think it was a low number, if any. i don't know the answer.

>> are you both making changes now with code in order to fix any of the so-called glitches or nonperformance issues? ms. campbell, yes or no? >> that would be yes. >> mr. slavitt? >> yes. we make modifications along the way. >> how many organizational boundaries between the piece of information traveling from the united states government to the web portal, and we boundaries, hammond organs racial boundaries including the states and their access to information does that piece of information cross? >> i would have to get back to you. >> getting investment. large number? >> when using organizational boundaries are you talking about like homeland security, irs? >> veterans, give states that have access to other, across other boundaries to get pieces of information. >> i would have to get back to you. >> mr. slavitt? >> all intimate with is the data that passes through the hub comes from a trusted data source such as a government entity,

passes through the data servers, to those who request the query. query. >> that concerned to look at the either one of you don't know the answer to that. when you did a security verification by independent contractor, isom on august 30, ms. campbell did you do the same? >> that's correct. >> was that an end to end system test and across every organizational boundary or was that by the segment of which you control in the process, your segment of the contract? >> i'm would have to go back and find out exactly but i believe it was for ever -- were ever our system touched other parts of the secure systems within -- >> mr. slavitt? >> we had a complete test that was done, meets the standards of -- our systems don't hold it. they just transfer the data through it. >> you are for my with the

various levels of cyber weaknesses in any system, right? the boundary being the weakest point. so when you say you don't hold information, that is a very low standard in order to protect information but i don't have to beware itself in order to obtain it. are you aware that? >> correct. >> what are you doing for secured on advanced assistant threat and house that checked? hoosier independent contractor? did you read team any of it in the last weeks before the launch of your system? >> i'm not familiar although i can serve a check whether there were any security concerns. none were brought to my attention or made available. i believe it was mitre corporation. >> who certifies that your system is on a daily basis is secure from external threats? >> let me get back to you spend cms or a private contractor? somebody certifies you doing this speed let me get back to

you. i'm not sure. >> are you smugglers and ongoing security check into your system? >> i believe there is. >> but you don't know if? >> i want to get back to you. >> ms. campbell, you know the answer? >> miter corporation was the independent security testing contractor spent how about an ongoing basis? who certified that it is secure? >> cms spent so cms secures their own system, or at least certifies that the own system is secure, correct? >> with the support of miter is my understanding is. >> i understand that but that's to your understanding. so information flows from the systems. it goes without a. you have designed the system to transfer information, correct? >> yes. >> ms. campbell, your infrastructure is designed to take a piece of information from the hub and get it to an end-user which would be whatever navigator is in front of the screen, correct?

>> that you build infrastructure for that job and? >> that's that's correct. a portion of it. >> mr. slavitt, you wrote the code for that to happen? >> yes spent so in less than two weeks you're telling me you are constantly changing, you're introducing new code, you can't quite tell me how that's secure. in any system that i have ever seen, too much for functionality dust is not appropriate, let alone a security check on this information. i am more nervous today than i was when i got here. i am shocked, shocked that on august 30 you get an independent check that says the system is fine and get introduced new code to that system probably daily, probably in the terms of hundreds of thousands of lines of these tens of thousands of lines of new code which greets new one of those in the system. and you don't even know the answer if these things are end to end security tested number one. and never to come you're not even sure if it's in your piece

and ongoing security testing. i have to tell you, mr. chairman, this is a significant event and you don't have to like obamacare. you can hate it, you can love it, you can't wait to get in. you cannot expose this much information with this low threshold of security in a day when there is 1.5 million people went off every day in cybersecurity. people are sitting in front of those portals, are they trained and spear phishing one of the most basic levels of security protection. do you know? >> i have to push back a little in terms of, to give the impression that cgi is putting willy-nilly code on a daily basis -- >> i am -- you know better than that. i am not suggesting that. you don't have -- >> we have -- >> reclaiming my time. this makes me more nervous. you don't have to have willy-nilly code. you can have the best code in

the world. every cybersecurity expert understands that when you introduce new code it has other implications on a broader system, even beyond your borders. that's the we are working -- we are not what you're putting bad code in. were worried he may be accidentally as we know with on smelly of your system doesn't work, it would be only logical to conclude if the functionality of the system doesn't work when all came together. you cannot compose security. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i need the answers to all of those questions by 9 a.m. tomorrow. >> the gentleman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. >> ms. campbell kind of want to clarify one key point. did the cgi system crash in a test with only 200 people in the days before october 1? >> there was an end to end a test the system did crash with about that number. i don't have the exact number. but it was part of the end to end test. >> thank you.

i wanted to emphasize that the website has to be fixed but it is not as the republicans contend a fatal flaw, a contention that ignores millions of people have already benefited and the tens of millions of people that will benefit from the new coverage in the first three weeks. they been over 19 million unique visits to healthcare.gov and almost half a million applications submitted nationwide. some people are getting through. susan, a constituent of mine wrote, thank you. i was able to success of access the website yesterday. i'm very pleased that the cosmic coverage will be dropping approximately $5000 a year when compared to my current individual coverage. ironically the same provider, blue cross blue shield. or david who said seven years ago i was diagnosed with melanoma. lester i spent $11,000 on health care. ack will save me $4000 per year. i need this program.

i know this because if i had no health insurance i would be dead. every day since the passage of obamacare, the republicans have undertaken obstruction, including shutting down the government that amounts to congressional malpractice. i want to flashback to when the bush administration was in depending medicare part d. a law which many democrats oppose because the doughnut hole which, of course, obamacare will close. secretary leavitt said at the time, first of all, the launch november 8, 2054 involved, january 1 the program enrolled, begin actually signing people up. february 22, secretary leavitt said quote we are now at the 53rd day since the implementation of medicare prescription drug coverage.

after reviewing the numbers and experiences to date, i can report that we are seeing solid progress. we continue to work aggressively to solve the problem that inevitably occur in transitions this size. that was medicare part d. and so despite the glitches in medicare part d, democrats worked with republicans to ensure that the law was a success and that all medicare beneficiaries have the information necessary to take advantage of medicare part d. in fact, chairman -- in fact, i joined with chairman upton to request additional funding for community-based organizations to help seniors actually enroll in medicare part d. and i have that letter right here. so unfortunately the republicans have actually taken steps to ensure that consumers do not

know all the benefits and protections provided by obamacare. in june, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, senate minority whip john cornyn sent letters to major sports leagues warning them not to help consumers be educated about the benefits of obamacare. and after medicare part d, democrats like me hosted events in order to boost awareness and facilitate enrollment. this has not happened with obamacare. several republican members have even stated they will not help constituents who call and ask for more information about the benefits of obamacare and how to enroll. and those republican efforts will only harm american families and small businesses, and cut short the relief americans need because insurance companies are no longer in control of their health care, and they are guaranteed access to affordable coverage that will be there for them when they need it.

i agree that the website must be fixed, that the republicans should stop their obstructionism, commit to working with democrats as we did with you on medicare part d to fix any provisions that need to be fixed, rather than continue your effort to nix the law. let's work together to fix it and not nix it. and i thank you and yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, dr. murphy spent thank you. ms. campbell, when healthcare.gov will live on october 1, it was not possible to browse the site in order to see the prices. you had to register. who made that decision? >> cms made that decision. >> who would then seem a? >> i don't have the exact name of the person. i might, i would say henry chow from cms. >> and are you aware of any white house involvement in that decision process?

>> i am not. >> so what challenges arise when you switch a website where individuals can browse, just browse versus one where you first test the register? does this require a substantial amount of work? >> it definitely puts a different, additional burden on the system. >> do you have to write a new code to make that happen? >> for us to turn it off it was just putting a flag in our system to not allow for anonymous shopping. shopping. >> how much more time does this take to test a system like that once you've made those decisions? >> it became part of the normal testing process. >> but you never tested the whole system, right? >> cgi did not. >> okay. mr. slavitt, when were you made aware of the decision that the website would not allow browsing and would require registration first? >> we were made aware of this until the final days prior to the launch.

>> being what they? >> i believe it was within 10 days. >> do you know who made that decision? >> i don't know. we don't know when the decision was made and we don't know why the decision was made. >> and are you aware that it was someone from cms, hhs, administration, white house, any idea of? >> we don't know. >> ms. campbell, did you inform anyone at cms or hhs of any concerns you have that this requires more testing? more time was needed because the system wasn't going to be working? >> more testing because of the anonymous shopping, or -- >> both. let's start with a shopping issue, but the whole system. did you inform anybody at cms or hhs that you need more time because the system wasn't working? >> once again, the portion that cgi was responsible for went through its unit testing -- >> but you didn't look at all think? >> we are not responsible for end-to-end testing. >> nester slather, did you

inform cms or anyone there that needed more time? spent we inform cms that more testing was necessary. we inform cms that the pieces of the system that had that we have tested had issues, so yes, we did. >> how many applications did you actually receive to go out to process of people? >> as of today i would estimate about 9000. >> and how many have you successfully completed? >> about half of those were successfully -- >> do you have to go online or is there another process? >> work through the consumer portal. >> are you expecting more applications of? >> we are, yes. volumes are increasing. >> ms. campbell conyers and young, for and tested the whole system. you did your part. mr. slavitt, you said the same thing, correct? you both tested your parts. am i correct? >> so cms has independent

contractor, qssi that test our system. >> okay. and, mr. slavitt, did qssi test the whole system? >> we tested the portions of the system for the code that we received -- >> who was the independent contractor? >> uss iowa is one of the independent contractors. we tested code from cgi. >> did you find any problems? >> we found problems in the code -- >> would require more time to fix it? >> which isn't necessarily a problem so long as they are fixed. >> did you inform anybody at cms or hhs that you needed more time to? >> we inform both cms and the other contractor. >> who did you tell? >> i don't know the names of anybody which all but i can tell you we inform cms and we informed the contractor responsible for the code. >> how much money did cgi get from the federal government, told? >> our total is about

$290 million. >> mr. slavitt, how much did your company receive? >> the data services hub has been funded to just under $85 million. >> let me ask you, ms. kemmer, have you tried to log on and test the system for itself during the application process? >> i have but i have insurance. >> how long did it take you to do a? >> it took the normal time that it would take an individual. >> you are able to successfully -- what state was about him, or what state? >> i'm a virginian. >> does virginia have its own website or is that the government website? >> part of the government website. >> mr. slavitt, did you personally try to get on the website? >> i did. i think i put in texas. >> is that where you're from? >> no. i was just testing the system. >> did it work? >> i won't work? >> i want to integrate an account, was able to do so. i just never received a confirmation e-mail.

>> so it didn't work? >> didn't work. >> thank you. yield back. >> the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. campbell and mr. slavitt particularly, would you say that if far more since i decide to do their own exchanges than the national change without the expense as many problems of? >> i can speculate. i would say probably but i don't know for sure. >> i wanted to talk about the kentucky experience and want to thank your company for its involvement in our state because the experience in kentucky has been extraordinarily successful. and even though there were problems for a few hours on the first day, again because of excessive demand, at least i'm projected demand, but those were quickly rectified. i have these statistics now for the first 21 days in kentucky. we had 640,000 kentuckians estimated without insurance.

so assuming that most of those were people who had contacted the system were mostly from that population. we've had 280,000 unique visitors to connect, 247,000 have actually conducted rescreened to determine qualification for subsidies and so forth. 47,000 applications for health care coverage have been initiated, and 33,700 or completed as of the 21st, 18,370 individuals are enrolled, and the new affordable health care. and i think almost equally important, 378 businesses have started applications for health insurance for their employees. so in terms of the numbers of people that could take advantage of the affordable care act in kentucky, a huge number of have already done so.

actually have enrolled in affordable insurance for the first time in many cases in their lives. mr. shimkus talked about one person he got a letter from the said that, he was not happy with what the prospects were, and we for a lot of these anecdotal stories. and, in fact, fox news brought some people on last week and one was a small businessperson said he had to cut the hours of his employees and so forth. and a reporter from salon followed up on that, found out that this man had actually only four employees. so he was not even covered by the affordable care act. we have to be very careful about people who say that they've done things or they suffered because of the affordable care act when, in fact, they haven't. but i've got a couple of cases for my district that i think are very valid experiences, and also testify to how important this law is and the benefit of it.

jeff bower wrote, i'm 62 and my wife will reach the age before the end of year in january. i parted ways with my employer of 39 years. we were lucky to have never needed government assistance of any kind. pretty much a typical middle-class family. we asked our doctors if they anticipate any problems with us a quarry health insurance. they toast our health was good and they did not anticipate any problems. we were dismayed to find where both turned down for coverage based on existing medical conditions. the conditions were not chronic or serious. our only alternative was to select cobra coverage for 18 months with monthly premiums over $1000 cobra expires july 2014 we would have to go the next 20 months with no health insurance. on kentucky's health exchange that was able to purchase our insurance for $800 less than our cobra coverage. previous medical conditions were not affected the exchange was user-friendly and i was able to complete the application with no problem. i would like to thank lawmakers

and the president directed in those of us who have little voices and had the courage to make this coverage available through the affordable care act. another woman, 17 years ago was diagnosed with late third stage breast cancer pictures able to get into a special trial at duke, and she overcame her disease, but was left with a $200,000 bill. that was not paid by the insurance company. now, because of the affordable care act she can not only can get coverage has no lifetime limits, no annual limits and these are the things that will protect her and her family. so i just want to say that the experience is not all negative, and i'm confident that eventually the national exchange i hope very quickly comes as effective as the kentucky exchange. i thank you for just one. i yield back. >> dr. burgess. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. slavitt, i just will say that my expense was similar to yours. i live in texas so i did try while we're sitting a spinning sometime together this morning, try decide on the exchange for texas and i ended up with a similar result as you did. i just had to say he we are three weeks into the open enrollment period and i can't think of anyone on this panel display would think that that is acceptable, that this system would still work so poorly. regardless of the state involved. ms. campbell, can you tell me at this point how many people have signed up through cgi? >> i cannot. and the need to clarify an answer i gave regarding 200 failures, the end-to-end tested it was actually an understanding and it was an end-to-end test on the idm with their 200 failures. >> on that first morning, october 1, we were up late doing a vote so probably about 2 a.m. i attempted to sign in them.

and met with the same response, the system asked my favorite kind of posture something along those lines and then froze up. and then like mr. slavitt, i've never gotten an e-mail on the many times i've sent that information through. what happens to that informati information? >> that's on their side. >> what happens to information? can ever get it back? >> i can relate my own experience. of course, when i found out that it didn't get an e-mail back i called the qssi came to see what happened. indeed, the idm had a record of my transaction, received the transaction and we know that they receive my submission. we also know that they said that transaction over to the market place and as i mentioned it is only a tool using the registration process, not the

registration process. beyond that i don't have any visibility. >> but they didn't, can it get the information back? >> i believe that information would still reside in the registration tool. >> there's only so many passwords that have the mental capacity to make up and running through all of them with into trying to sign a. if you could return some of them back to me i would greatly appreciate that. so ms. campbell common you referenced a number of questions dr. murphy about the amount of money that cgi had received. for this contract. spencer to clever, that's a total contract value. so to clarify, that's the total contract value through the out years. that's not the dollars that we received to date. the dollars that we received to date is in the range of about $112 million. >> are all of these exits that are occurring now, are those come with those included in that

$12 million bill, or other ongoing invoices that are going to have to be reimbursed from cgi? >> so cms has implemented a cost reversible type contract. and as we continue to do the normal, our contract says we're responsible for the development and that it moves into operations and maintenance with fixes and things of that sort. normal course, if the normal course of the development in a production environment senator spent on not trying to be harsh but your continued to bill the taxpayers for the fact that your code did not work or your product did not work as advertised, regardless of whose fault was on october 1. i think we would all agree it wasn't working. our taxpayers being billed to fix think? >> on october when the taxpayer couldn't get to our system spent let me add this as an observation.

it seems like we've got several fingers but no palm. was there anyone involved in sort of overseeing the entire, the entirety of this to make sure it worked from a dizzy? ms. campbell? >> that would be seen as as system integrated. >> who at cms, mr. chow again speaks as one of the individuals, yes. >> was the administrator involved? >> i can't say he was in the decision-making process. >> how about you, mr. slavitt? who was the unseen hand trying to put all of this together? >> cms did play that role. i'm not aware of who within cms. >> in other words, there was a comment on a blog this morning on one of the local papers that said, when do i start to really freak out about this? the average american watching this hearing this morning, can we give them any comfort about

that? went to the average american really become upset about what the senior the past three and half weeks? ms. campbell, and do you have an observation? >> i do not. >> mr. slavitt? >> our team worked intensely in those first few days after -- >> here's the problem. nobody believes it's going to get fixed when we keep getting answers like this. we're asking you for help. we're asking you to be transparent. we get non-answers to our questions. so i would submit that the average american looking in on this hearing this one is going to feel like there's really nobody in charge, maybe somebody at cms, but who is going to take the responsibility for getting this thing fixed and making it right? heavens knows they've made enough money to have work right. thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. welch. >> thank you very much. and thank you for the hearing. we all have a real interest in trying to get this thing to work. that's for sure.

but i do what's a couple things about what this hearing is not about. because it puts into a bit of a contact. it's not about whether we should take away the right of our kids up to age 26 to be on health care, our own health care policy. that's working great. it's not about whether the preventive care that has been made available for free to seniors on medicare should be rolled back. that's working pretty good. it's not whether the $4 billion in medicaid -- medicare fraud that has been found out and stayed for the program was a bad idea. strong bipartisan support on that. it's not about whether the opportunity americans have been now get health care coverage, even if they have a preexisting condition, should be rolled back. people are pretty happy with that. it's not about whether the doughnut hole that was such a burden of seniors on medicare should be rolled back.

what we've done in the slot as if windows is provided coverage to folks through the doughnut hole. so that's pretty good. and it's not about whether the medicaid expansion that is part of this bill should be rolled back. in vermont, that would be like 40,000 people that are going to get access to healthy. that's going to affect some of the hardest working people in this country, farmers who work hard, make very little. but were not eligible to get medicaid because they didn't have young children. so, mr. chairman, all of those things, we are not having to question. they are working great. what we are talking about is a computer program that's messed up at the moment. and i've got some -- we all have some historical experience with that. when the prescription drug program for seniors in medicare part d was put into place, it was a huge computer program. and there were a lot of

glitches. and the question that this committee had at that time, march 2006, was what to do about it. we have some really good advice from some really good members. one of them said, was a supporter of medicare part d, as i mentioned earlier, the new benefit and its implications are hardly perfect. but rather than trying to scare and confuse seniors, i would hope that we could work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is going wrong with the program. if we can make some changes to fix it, let's do it. let's do it on a bipartisan basis. i would say that statesmen had it right, and that statesmen was joe barton of texas. ..

that have been made in the program as with any program that occurs with her it is a public or private program, criticizing it, standing on the outside and frightening seniors into thinking that because there was complexities and difficulties, therefore they should not sign

up. and now congressman tim murphy. and you know what, that is pretty good advice for us to take now. i adopted their comments as our path forward and ask each person on the panel can the challenges that we are facing right now none of us want it is a hassle for americans and starts to undercut confidence whether it is ebay come amazon.com, flowers dhaka, if the program isn't working there is frustration for anybody that goes on. i want to go down the panel. can this be fixed? >> we are working every day to get it fixed, yes. >> we believe it can. >> we have direct involvement with the system. >> the gentleman from connecticut said with this

hearing was not about and he listed a litany of things that in his opinion are positive. but let me tell you what this hearing is about. it is about what their young people over the age of 26 are not eligible for subsidies who are forced come january 1st if they have no insurance to sign up for the exchanges and pay at least double what they normally would pay. it is about that. during our 24 days after the exchanges have come on line and yet we received conflicting reports from the administration on the number of people who have successfully receive coverage. when we met more than six weeks ago i warned that companies charged with developing and implementing the federal exchanges had not had the time to produce such a complex system. we are hearing that today. we heard all the systems were

functioning properly and ready to go on october 1st. after what has been an unsuccessful first three weeks of implementation we have to better peace tiberi timeline of who knew what and when did they know it. ms. campbell. in your testimony you said the company was selected as the best value to create federally facilitated marketplace in 2011 due to the fact that they were not well established at the time of the award and that the requirements did default over the next few years. how was your company cgi made aware of these changing requirements by cms? >> we received change orders and then respond back with a proposal and then the proposal would be accepted and we would

continue moving forward peter >> d'aspin equine did they apply to october 1st? >> i believe our last modification occurred in august of last year. >> was there ever a point that cgi expressed as to whether the updated requirements would affect your ability for a successful launch? >> each time we accept changes week expressed the risk associated with any changes that we were asked to provide support. >> can you tell me this morning who specifically you gave that information to and expressed that concern to the? >> i would have to go back to my team. >> would you do that before 9:00 in the morning? >> if i'm allowed to provide that information based on the terms and conditions of the contract with cms. >> this is a government that prides itself and transparency. i'm certainly you will be

allowed. he also stated that cgi delivered the functionality delivered by her cms. did you ever have concerns that was not requiring enough in terms of the design and functionality and cms didn't have the technical expertise to handle such an ambitious project for. >> cms has a number of technical resources and it was their idea to be the systems integrator and guidance as we could. >> ms. campbell, over the last several weeks when among republican majority in the house of representatives was trying desperately to keep the federal government opened and submitted several bills to the democratic majority senate, one of those

requests after the initial request was rejected was to simply say look we will fund the entirety of the federal government, but we think it's a good idea to delay the rollout of obamacare for a year. that was rejected by mr. reed. we then came back and said would you just meet with us? would you just allow us to meet with a bipartisan committee and talk about this? and it's very possible if he had agreed to do that that this delay of a year could have been negotiated down to a delay of six months. let me in my few seconds left ask each one of you, particularly you, do you think

that it would be a successful time to avoid all of this embarrassment and expense? >> i don't think i can answer that with a yes or no scenario. >> is there any scenario that you could answer it? >> there were many entry points upon which there was an ability for a person to enroll. >> i'm a little overtime. mr. slavitt quickly. >> i don't know what flexibility there was but certainly more testing helps. >> ms. aucilla -- cemetery sebelius interviewed said she needed five more years and she only had to. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> the gentleman from new york. >> thank you mr. chairman and witnesses. i am pleased to hear some concern expressed on the other

side of the all regarding access problems that people are having and interacting with the health care government, healthcare.gov website. and i look forward to working with them in a bipartisan way to make that happen. i sent to great demands out there. a great demand for the product called the affordable care act and a great demand placed by the public to get this business of connecting in access to the system done in a bipartisan and professional way. i would like to echo my colleagues distinction between the important rollout of the website and the underlining promise of the mall itself that all individuals lot access to affordable health care and and many are known and appreciated. no longer a denial by industries, by the industry because of pre-existing conditions. students being able to steal their parents' plan until the age of 26.

seniors not having to pay as much money out of pocket for prescription drugs and eventually closing the doughnut hole and the list goes on and on. while there might be problems with the website we have heard it here this morning and it's worth repeating. we have to fix it, not nix. it's an important mantra that got us forward. when people are able to overcome the bumps in the road they are discovering a quality project will save families hundreds of dollars a month on health care costs. you don't have to take my word for it to the upon discovering that her family would be seeking $408 per month in my home state of new york said they may not like obamacare but my wallet and my family's health sure do. while we are here to address the performing web site we can't ignore the largest story that affordable health care has finally become a reality for millions of americans and that it is something that we should not delay to be that being said most of the system bugs that we

have heard about have been on the federally run website, healthcare.gov. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> how many states are participating in the federally facilitated marketplace through the healthcare.gov website? >> 36. >> des moines understanding of the affordable care act envisioned the states would be taking the lead on designing and running these exchanges. do you have a sense of by 36 states chose to let the federal government take the lead. >> what was envisioned to work would have been beneficial. from what i can tell many states have refused to create this exchange for the it a logical reasons. did cgi federal participate in building the exchange website in any of the dates running their own exchanges? >> yes, we have. my sense is that the states that have taken ownership of the

affordable care act and have run their own exchanges are outperforming the federal exchange. would you agree with this assessment? thank you. i do agree the picture that we have seen in the state based exchanges is vastly improved over what we are seeing through healthcare.gov. my home state of new york which experienced the website problems at the outset signed up nearly 174,000 new yorkers for quality low-cost health insurance. that means more new yorkers have completed an application to receive the of the edge of the determination than any other state in the nation. when it implemented the way that was intended without malice and obstruction. in closing i would implore my republican colleagues to reject the politics of division and join with us the constructive solutions to these technical

problems said the many millions of americans demanding and deserving access for the public-sector health care options they now have before them is a reality. with that mr. chair i will yield that. >> i appreciate you having this hearing to testify there's been a lot said about why we are having this hearing. our constituents aren't calling us on a daily basis reporting some of these many problems. obviously there's a lot of focus on the failure of the website but it's a focus on the failure of law in general pitied the fact that there were so many broken promises made by the president about law. if you like what you have you can keep it. thousands and thousands of people are losing good coverage they have. in florida is reported that 300,000 people are going to have to lose the health care they

like. all across the country we hear that. costs were going to be lower. you are seeing so many states report that costs are dramatically higher. in chicago, president obama's own backyard is reported 21 of the 22 plans on the exchange that you go to commit these low-cost exchanges, have deductibles of $8,000 or more per family. people don't consider that a low-cost when people are losing good private sector health care that they have. you're hearing promises the president quoted that gets in the conversation we are having today. this was the president's quote. just visit healthcare.gov. and there you can compare insurance plans side-by-side the same way you shop for a plane ticket for a tv on amazon. while you are were testifying i went on and looked for a tv. within one minute i have over 300,000 options of tv is that i could purchase and they were all low-cost too. i tried to go on healthcare.gov

and registered. this was earlier this week. i spend more than two hours probably inexperienced similar to mr. slavitt. muskett out for times, had to re-enter the data multiple times, was given blank screens a number of times. ultimately never even got to the point that i could see health care plans and compare as the president promised side-by-side just like you look for a tv on amazon. it's not the experience you get when most people go on line to purchase products. this isn't any product this is a product federal government said you have to abide by law or else you get find. the other side wants to mock us because we are asking for at least a delay while people can't even go to the website that doesn't work. i used to program computers for a living. i anderson and how you design systems, big systems, small systems and test plans to be i wrote test plans for systems you would test the system and do all my terse until the system worked and you wouldn't deploy until it worked.

clearly that didn't happen in this case. so i want to ask first of all you said that you track the error logs. if i can ask down the line starting with ms. campbell how many have you logged since you have been tracking the system? >> i don't have that information. >> will you get that for the committee? >> mr. slavitt? >> i don't have that with me. >> miss campbell? >> i will have to get back to you. >> mr. lau. >> we don't have access to that system. >> use it in your testimony that there was a late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before they could browse. early off it was promised that people would be able to go to website and shop around. look for a site and if you like something you find it and by yet like anything else on line. you don't have to give hours of personal information and security before you buy a product. you said that there was a late decision made to change the system so that you have to get all the personal information before you can even shop around.

who made the decision? >> we don't know who made the decision and when? >> ms. campbell do you know? >> it was cms. we don't have full knowledge of exactly the full change. >> how lead in the game did they make that change in the system? >> for cgi they asked us to turn that functionality off two weeks before it went life. >> two weeks before going live so they made a dramatic change to the system to weeks before going live. nobody would have done it in the private sector to make a change to the system. let me ask you this because all of you were paid lots of money to do this spigot its report to over $500,000 -- $500 million of taxpayers' money, more than facebook. facebook its 700 million users a day. 700 million people use that every day and it works. in the first five years they didn't spend that much money. did you deliver -- and i will goodell -- did you deliver the

product were contracted to build? >> we have. mr. slavitt? >> did you deliver the -- >> yes. >> mr. lau? >> yes. >> there is a saying in computer programming garbage in and garbage out. you're given a bad product to build than it delivers a bad product. the focus isn't just we'd be on the web site. there are serious questions that need to be answered. all the tax payer money that was spent that people can't even go on to use and then ultimately if they are able to get through your finding the prices are dramatically high. this will not mask the details in general. you wonder why we are calling for the delay of the implementation that people will have to pay that they can't even use -- 50% of you said you went to the web site and said you had a failure rate. you built the website. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> mr. sarbanes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman and the panel. this is an important hearing. there are two stories that have unfolded in the last three weeks. one of them is the problem with this website that need to be fixed and i'm going to have some questions about that in a minute. but the of your story is the incredible demand and interest that americans have in accessing this new opportunity for affordable health care. we saw this in the demand that came in on the federal exchange which outstripped all the projections that people had. we have seen it in the state level exchanges, the state run exchanges where there's been a lot of success in terms of people coming there and browsing, applying for coverage and enrolling in coverage and that story continues. that's the reason that we have to fix this.

in other words that there was no interest out there, if there was no demand and you have a website that wasn't working very well, you could say maybe we don't need to fix this thing. but people really want this opportunity. the facts of the bigger story. the bigger story is people want access to affordable health care coverage and they are coming to these sites so we have to fix it. that's why you keep hearing this refrain on our side fix it, don't nix it. now, let me ask you this: i assume that you've been involved, all of you, in big projects of this kind. this me be particularly complex. i get that. but i am sure you had the experience where you pulled the switch on a go live situation and it didn't work out exactly as you expected.

ms. campbell, when that happens i imagine you don't just bury your head in the sand and give up but you go about the business of fixing the things it can function properly, correct? >> that's correct. it's a normal course of what happens when the system goes into production. >> and i assume if you encounter difficulties when you go live with a product you don't like your hair on fire and run around in small circles, you go about the business of fixing at, right? >> that's correct. >> you did that in this instance as i understand. >> that's correct. >> and you got some of the issues corrected in a fairly short order to be a so i mean, your professionals coming you do this for a living in understand we have some problems here that need to be addressed. you are going about the business of fixing them and you are doing that because this is a platform

americans need in order to access health care coverage. let me ask you another question. do you have any reason to think that the problems with the web site that we have been talking about today in any way are affecting the quality of the underlining product that's being sold? in other words the plan options are out there and so forth. is there any reason for us to conclude that because somebody's having problems accessing an enrollment or doing an application because of a website but that somehow a commentary on the underlining problem but ultimately they are trying to access, ms. campbell? >> with 4400 plans for people within the 36 states that can apply, i would say that the plans are there for people to be

able to shop. >> mr. slavitt? >> nope. >> mr. lau? >> nope. >> the reports that we are getting about the underlying product and the plan people are going to have access to and the options are available to them that they are good quality products and that they are going to be available at very reasonable premiums which is exactly again what people are looking for here and certainly there is no suggestion that problems with the website are at some point going to mean that an enrolled beneficiary is going to have an issue accessing their doctor or hospital or anything like that. so, the product is good. the website needs to be fixed to make sure that we can get that product to people. that's what you're engaged in now and that's why we have to fix it when it comes to this health care website.

with that i would yield back my time. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the witnesses for being here today. really appreciate your testimony. last night i read through all your statements before and. and if i could because there has been a lot of questioning about this on the testing site, ms. campbell if i could turn to your testimony, on page two you said they delivered some of the most complex it implementation to the u.s. government including federal reporting and medicare dhaka of. we've heard from you all saying that you only had about two weeks to really make sure this thing was integrated. when you were working, medicare dhaka of the need to -- medicare.gov what can you tell me about the testing at that time?

>> i can't give you the exact time frames, but we had sufficient time to test the system. >> can you show me what sufficient time is? >> we had a number of months before the system went live. >> by tomorrow morning at 9:00 -- i would like to get it in operation to find out exactly how much time you specifically had to test the system. what about on federalreporting.gov? >> i have to get back to you. >> we would like to have that by 9:00 in the morning so that we can get that information. i think i heard this earlier. is health care dhaka of the most complicated of the systems that you have created? >> it is by far one of the most complicated large scale systems that's out there. >> so what you're telling me is that you have had months versus weeks to do that testing.

let me ask you this, when medicare.gov or federalreporting.gov are you able on the medicare side because you say in your testimony would successfully helps more than 50 million citizens to compare plans each year is it set up the same way that federalreporting.gov that you have to register before you browse or can you browse and get what you need? >> why would those systems the different that you have any reason was given to you by cms or hhs that they want it reserved? >> i do not. cms i is had speculation, and number of priorities and maybe that wasn't one of the priorities. >> okay. if i could ask a couple questions in your testimony, again i found your testimony all very interesting and it's been

talked about a little bit before. but in your testimony, you stated on page four there is one of the reasons for the ha icon current volume for the decision requiring the consumers to register for an account before they could browse for the insurance products. whose decision was that? you don't know whose decision that was? how do you get the information that you are supposed to do that to switch things around like that? >> one of the testers of the company the was responsible for testing the code was notified that there was a code that they no longer needed to test. islamic if by 9:00 tomorrow morning meeting of the individual that asked for that, we would appreciate that. going on following the couple on

the testimony it says we were tasked with identifying errors in the code was provided to us by others and reported the results back and the relevant contractor that was responsible for fixing the errors or making any necessary changes. do you know who that was the you were supposed to report back to? if we can get that by 9:00 tomorrow morning. do you know who that relevant contractor was that you're suppose to be getting that information to? >> cgi. >> and when you submitted the information back, did you hear back from them or what happened with that information that you sent them? >> i don't know what happened in every case but what typically happens is send the results back and other contractors are responsible for making those changes. >> i see my time has expired.

i will yield back. >> congressman rush and i have sent around 40 letters to you requesting a hearing on climate change and we haven't gotten any response. we would like to have a response by 9 a.m. tomorrow morning. people made up the idea that 9 a.m. tomorrow morning is some kind of a deadline. you can say it but it doesn't mean that it happens. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> i would like to ask if i could postpone my questioning. >> to the panel, the september 10 hearing in the subcommittee where you testified, ms. campbell and your

company testified, if you have the opportunity now, would you in any way amend the testimony that you gave at that time? >> no, my testimony was fine. i wouldn't change anything based on what i knew at that point in time to read >> did you know that there was no end to end testing? >> i knew that was something forthcoming. >> so you had that time there was no end to end testing as of that date? >> was not our area of responsibility. >> do you believe you have a responsibility to tell the subcommittee at that time there was no end to end testing? >> i don't believe that question came up. >> i suspect that's the case. the question did not come up this isn't a game of cat and mouse. this is the people of the united states, one of the most important proposals of the obama administration. i'm sure that question did not

come up. and your other activities with other entities you have testified that there was and always end to end testing. is that accurate, ms. campbell? >> end to end testing is a component. >> and you do not believe that you had a responsibility to indicate that and to end testing had not yet occurred with 20 days to go? >> it was the client responsibility for end to end testing. >> mr. slavitt would you respond to me on that issue? >> we wouldn't amend or testimony. we testified accurately to the delivery of the data services. >> do you believe that you have a responsibility affirmatively to indicate that no end to end testing had yet to occur? >> i believe that we were expecting to receive the code that would allow the testing to occur. >> so you are of the opinion that there would be testing it in september 10th and september 30 it?

in your experience with other clients does the testing occur before 20 days to go? >> each product is different and i can't comment mr. chairman. >> on another large part, which you were involved, is it usual the end to end testing occurs long before the last two and a half weeks? >> we would certainly have liked to see as much time as possible for the end to end testing. >> and load you suggest that this would be delayed for three months or six months given the experience so far regarding the individual mandate? >> i wouldn't have the information to make that determination. >> so you don't know or have an opinion. >> do you have an opinion, ms. campbell? >> i can tell you i have a team of people working 24 hours a day to make the corrections needed

to continue moving forward. >> i'm sure you do and i certainly respect that. on the risk involved in change orders, this impresses me as being serious. regarding that, did you proceed a significant chance that there would be a huge problem because of the change orders with which you were involved? >> we didn't receive significant change order that i'm aware of. >> regarding the change orders and the risks associated with that you received several change orders and i believe that you testified six or eight of them. did you see a significant risk in that regard cracks you did not think there would be a

significant risk? >> they were over a two-year time period. >> some have commented much of the problem exists because they decided to do their own in-house analysis equivalent to someone that had never hung a picture decided that he would become his own general contractor and instead of subcontracting the responsibility for integrating the software of the multiple contractors. do you agree that they should have hired a contractor in that regard? >> fight seen it both ways for the government has taken a job and quite often they would bring in a separate contractor to do that. >> in many cases a separate contractor would be brought in. >> i think in the history of working with complicated systems it's difficult to see that there was a more incompetent system

integrator. if you have an opinion on that? >> i have no opinion on that. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. mcnerney? >> i'm not ready yet. >> thank you. a lot of people didn't realize that if they didn't get out into the public like they should have before the government shut down on september 30 at almost every republican i think all but one voted to fund the government and the health care bill at the sequester level and only asked to get rid of the individual mandate for the delay for a year because as businesses and other people have been treated with special delays we thought the hard-working taxpayers deserve -- we didn't think it product was going to be ready for them to purchase and it turned out on october 1st it wasn't so we wouldn't even have the government shut down if people agreed to give hard-working taxpayers the same treatment to give businesses because they were not ready to enforce that. having said that, people say

there are other alternatives. we have great people in the commonwealth of kentucky who will take paper applications so there is some argument they can buy peeper applications. you said you take the applications and enter the data. >> the same one that is having trouble being accessed on-line? >> that's correct. >> i was watching my good friend here. i think that he's been kicked out four times since we have been sitting here as of today. you are going to take that information into the same so maybe you are making it easier. do you have a special portal or do you have to deal with the same kind of problems? >> the difference for us is that we don't have to establish an account so landing paid on the portal is behind that. >> you have to have an account for the people that you are entering, right? >> in the initial days yet to sign up. that is what we were talking about before establishing an account before you can do an

application suite via bypassed the accounting establishment at the end. >> that is what we are going to get to. so when the president and the secretary said to submit paper applications if they are having problems on the web site they said to go to the same portal. we've been talking about entrance i think we talked about a few times, but also ms. campbell i know to quote "the washington post" about a month before the exchange opened, a testing group of insurers urged agency officials not to launch and that's according to "the washington post" so you had a test about a month before the exchange opened. were you involved in the testing with insurers? >> with cgi. >> so, we do test with a set of insurers to make sure that obviously before we go live that our system is working

appropriately. >> did they recommend that you were not ready? >> they did not recommend that to my knowledge. the insurers did not recommend that directly. >> do you know what they recommended it to hhs? >> i do not know. >> did a share that information with you that they were not ready to go live? you are not aware that this test took place with insurers? they are not aware that this took place with insurers? >> i said to my knowledge i am not aware that insurers provided feedback to cms or hhs. >> did you discover errors were problems with the system? >> the purpose of the test and the nature of the test is there that it's to find the problem and issues that you have so that you have an opportunity to correct those issues. >> in the weeks before there are still reports that insurers are

saying that there is missing data still taking place or at least it was reported last week in a news. is that still taking place? >> when we receive what we call -- they call it a trouble ticket or defect ticket or issue a ticket then we are in the process of making connections and when we do the next build we make a correction to the system. so there could have been a point in time where there were duplicative insurance forms and things of the sort ands and things of the sort and we would have made corrections. where we are in the process of this very moment i don't have the answer. >> my point is we wouldn't have had the government shut down, believe it or not. and i know that didn't get out in the news if we did the individual mandate, given what you're doing, not going live the next morning does not mandate people to buy a product they

can't buy. the point i'm trying to make is there are of issues. it's not just being able to get on the website. it's making exchanges work. it's hard to believe if that report is true that the hhs didn't tell you they were having trouble or that they had been delayed. it's concerning those tests are taking place in the media but it doesn't seem to get into cgi. my time is expired and i yield back. >> i would note that we have been at this for three and a half hours. would any of you like a five minute break? why don't we take a five minute break and when we resume we will come to mr. mcnerney, okay?

[inaudible conversations] speenine okay. mr. mcnerney you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and the witnesses for allowing the hearing this morning. first of all i want to say i really don't blame my republican colleagues for trying to change the subject from the costly reckless government shut down and the irresponsible threat to dissolve the nation's credit by focusing on a temporary short term tailing of our healthcare.gov web site could. my first question regards software development. i was a developer before coming to congress and healthcare.gov is a very big project that has a

lot of moving parts to it. any large project i believe software needs an orchestrated and coordinated moving parts to make sure that things are fitting together well. who was that or what organization was that orchestrator of clacks ms. campbell using to be in the best position to answer that question to the >> pop cms. >> was a specific person or team of individuals? >> it is a team of individuals. did the orchestrator and this is a question for all of you, create adequate specifications for the software including the language? when you have a software project that is different parts you of input and output specification coming you want what the individual parts are supposed to do. was there sufficient at ackley e information available when they did the job? >> we were receiving requirements through the april

and may time frame and then -- >> with a spoon formal specification that could be used the use things from that sort. >> we believe we used appropriate specifications. >> we received some efficient specifications that are part of the solution. >> mr. lau? >> we had no role when the system developed. >> you are all unanimously there was adequate specifications, and yet the software wasn't finished in time. as the specification in fall testing that you received? >> so we did testing on the code but there was also independent testing the was done as well.

>> worth a test specified prior to seek development of the software? >> notte prior to developing the software but there were test scripts that were developed during the process. maybe there wasn't sufficient time. islamic as a distant observer either specifications were not adequate or delivered in time or the software wasn't developed according to the specifications. which one of those three is the problem packs >> i would say with a system this complicated and level of moving parts it's probably a little bit of all aspects of all three. there were things in the code that obviously we would like to improve on for sure. there are specifications that would have been better served if they had been more detailed and

if given more time i think we would have been able to across-the-board once again in testing on the mass integration and given the luxury of time i think we all recognize that no matter how great the system is we don't get enough time for testing. >> software is particularly difficult to estimate the time needed. when i was in developing software a few told your manager you would take two weeks, he would double that and then go to the next time frame of two months. so you estimate a four month time frame if you gave him two weeks. this time is always of the essence especially since it is prone. i guess there were political hindrances regarding the amount of time that was allowed and there were structural issues,

and i do believe that this is going to be fixed but it's been painful and we need to make sure that the american people have access to a decent health care web site before december 15th. and if that doesn't happen it's going to be difficult hearings like this. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you the chair and i want to welcome pope mrs.. thank you for appearing before this committee this morning and now this afternoon. my guess is you might be a little nervous, somewhat tired because you probably haven't gotten inlet sleeper the last couple of weeks that the because the commander in chief, the president doesn't understand that the skipper is responsible for everything that happens on

his ship, the good and the bad news. there is a major-league blame game going on in the administration and dewaal are the targets of some of the blame. i am angry that i and 700,000 texans that i represent have been misled. the consumer for the consumer information opened his testimony by saying, and i quote cms has worked hard to build, refined intense infrastructure that will allow americans to enroll in coverage costly, simply and securely. we now know that that was one

big fat lie. and i proved it this morning when the chairman upton geller the hearing i logged onto healthcare.gov to try to enroll my family in the health care plan. i tried to get on the texas plan and on the e-mail confirmation i got this after 41 minutes. please -- and again. you are logged out now. that's happening all over the country. this is way beyond an awful computer program. this lie affects the health and well-being of every american.

my question is about the testing that was done to get to this point and i want to talk about some of the questions from my colleagues and mostly for you miss campbell and mr. slavitt. being a computer science major and a former naval aviator who could not afford to have my computer drop-off line as i'm going to my plane to stop a russian submarine from launching a ballistic missile in the country, i know that that system is pushed and pushed and pushed and tested to fail. my goal is that did cgi and qssi take these steps to push, push, push and test the part to failure? >> first of all you must be in my household. my husband, too is a naval aviator, but we worked

tirelessly around the clock to make sure that we were doing everything we could to make the product of a we delivered on october 1st. we are not excited or pleased with what we delivered on october 1st, but in principle it worked. we are working to improve it, but it did -- it is enrolling people. >> use it make sure all the variables and that is the best you can do. >> we do believe that it received adequate data testing. >> any idea what happened now the parts that cannot fell apart. any idea what happened? >> you have to ask cms. >> i plan on doing that. >> as i said a little bit earlier, they didn't receive adequate testing. and we took those results that were made available and we were made available of those results.

>> you pushed the envelope they just hit the on button and they said this thing works. i want to close by asking a rhetorical question of all four of you. if you're the president of the united states and you woke up on sat number 30 of of this past year knowing what you know when you go out the exchange on october 1st? ms. campbell? >> i can't begin to answer that question. >> i don't know what flexibility existed to change. >> the program. if you stopped -- know the problems the -- >> i don't know. >> i can't answer that. >> its rhetorical. >> i'm not in a position to answer that. come on. people and the audience of all sorts of opinions. >> time is expired. mr. gardner. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the witnesses as well for joining us today and talking

about this important issue. i take this personally. this is a very serious issue. thousands of my constituents and millions of americans. the president made a simple promise to all of our country. he said two things. if you like your health care plan coming to get to keep your health care plan, period and this will lower the cost of health care. but you know what, in august my wife and i got a letter that said our health insurance plan had been canceled. we decided to not join the federal and we e. health benefits program. we got our own insurance program because i wanted to be in the same boat as my constituents in colorado it despite the president's promise to me to thousands and millions of americans, those insurance plans are being cancelled. they are being told the have to buy insurance through a website that doesn't work. the denial of this is incredible. it's like trying to watch the three stooges and hd and expecting it to work but it is exactly what we are seeing here. so to follow-up on a couple of

questions come and we have seen the president on tv trying to apologize to the american people for this disaster. and he said the administration announced this week that the best and the brightest are coming in to fix healthcare.gov. but they won't say who they are so who are these the best and brightest for coming in to fix the website? if it's been a first of all cgi has some of the best and brightest. so i just want to make sure that on the record. we make sure -- >> who are the best and brightest that have been invited by the white house to fix this problem? >> i don't have individuals by name. >> what companies are they? you build the website come connect? >> we built the application -- >> who is coming in to fix the website now? >> advisors -- who are the advisers? where are they from? who did a work for? >> they have small businesses on

their own -- >> this decision was announced early in the weekend you don't know who the best and brightest are better coming to fix this mess? >> i don't have them by name. >> lardy by company? >> i will get back to you with names. >> can you get back to me by tomorrow? >> i will do my best. >> the president of the united states said these are the best and brightest. are they being paid? >> give me an opportunity to get back to you -- >> you don't know if they are being paid? >> if they are there as a support person to cgi they would be paid under our contract. >> the support person i would support you know who they are. >> i don't have them by name. >> do you know who the best and brightest are better coming in to fix this mess? >> no. >> are you still consulting with cms on this? >> i'm not familiar with the situation. >> you are still in charge. arthu the systems integrator

still? >> we've never been the systems integrator and we are not. >> who is in charge? >> cms is responsible. >> so they are responsible for end to end that brings me to another question to mr. sculley said you had said that cms asked you to turn off browsing two weeks before october 1st. does that mean that you originally built the browsable website? >> that is correct. >> why can't you just turn on? >> we've not been asked to turn it on. now the system has gone live. we can turn it on -- it would have to be tested and make sure that now is in a live environment. >> tested clich via the web site wasn't tested? >> i wouldn't say that it wasn't tested. so, the taxpayers paid for a browsable website is that

correct? >> yes. >> why can't you turn that on? >> if given the instructions we would be more than happy to turn it on. >> tell us -- do you know what the cost was? >> i can't tell you the exact cost of that component. can you get back as soon as possible the cost of the website was built that is no longer in use or was asked to be turned off? >> we were under contract to provide an application that has to be one of the features of that application. we didn't price it out as one particular component by itself. >> but it's clear to me why the reason before october 1st happened this website was turned off to hide the cost, the true cost that the american people are paying because if it was a browsable website that we build and the taxpayers paid for, those real costs, the up-front costs would be visible to the american people. cms made a determination, a decision that they would turn

off two weeks before october 1st in to hide the cost of obamacare from the american people. with that i yield back my time. >> in thank you mr. chairmanere. it's a long day. i know what we appreciate you being present. i want to narrow in on another issue that hasn't really been too much discussed and that is the website that is sending back information. multiple one woman some cancellations for the person and forms containing gibberish that are showing that the insurance side. this can continue to be a problem even if functionality in other areas of the website. in fact it could become a larger problem because now so few applicants are actually getting to the insurers that they are able to be reviewed individually taking this to scale might cost significant problems once people and mass are signing up. i will last year ms. campbell.

most news report is focus on front-end problems with the federal exchange. i would like to ask a few questions about problems. there could be bigger issues at the end of the process of the system. "the washington post" and wall street journal reported that insurers are receiving error 834 and by understanding and 834 is essentially an electronic transmission form that lets insurers know who signed up for the product on healthcare.gov. so the reports indicate that one insurer got an 8343 spouses listed on it. have you identified the specific problem and how widespread it is and with causing it? >> thank you for that question. we have uncovered a number of those scenarios, not significant but a number of those and we are in the process of making corrections. most of them are isolated. they are not across-the-board for all insurers. so we are working in solving those as they come to our

attention. >> so you're saying they are not very widespread on the occasional frame basically? >> it is more isolated than widespread. >> specifically what steps have you taken to address that? >> it's part of our normal build process. so when that issue comes into the -- what they call the contact center we get a trouble ticket. we look to determine the prioritization of that trouble ticket and then we work based on those priorities with cms, and then we change it. we implement our code changes and then update the system for testing and so forth. >> talks could become. let's say somebody thinks they are enrolled. mabey the trouble ticket has been or something got messed up and so on january 1st the week and find out they actually did not when they thought they did.

is that a concern and you have that may be addressed? >> we are tracking when someone enrols that the actually enroll and there's a direct correlation to making sure that there is some think the attached to that particular transaction to try to mitigate those things from happening. >> industry analysts are saying that the other problems have discussed the issue of applicants were being able to sign up easily but the forms were coming in with this many errors it could potentially be disastrous. just to drill down a little bit more of the report to dependent sar incorrectly coded as spouses. have you identified that specific problem as a part of the overall issue? >> about 1i have not heard. that isn't one that i am aware of directly. >> i know you have a lot on your plate but i would ask if you could provide to the committee by 9 a.m. tomorrow the categories of problems because

that is something we are very interested in. >> if i am able to provide that information -- >> you wouldn't be able to provide that eventually? >> i promise the hearing will be over by then. >> i'm going to yield to the gentleman from ohio for a minute mr. johnson. >> thank you the gentleman for yielding and this will give me the chance to set the stage a little bit. i hold with a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science and i've worked for over 40 years in the i.t. industry and if implemented large scale systems like this both within the military and in the department of defense. some of the systems globally and some of them affected national security, some of them held the success and failure of multibillion-dollar companies in the balance. so i speak your language and i've been where you are sitting trying to figure out what went terribly wrong in the