quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. the presiding officer: i believe we can cancel the quorum call. the presiding officer: without mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of s. 1197 on wednesday, november 20, there be up to six hours of debate only on the issue of sexual assault, with senators gillibrand or designee controlling three hours, senators mccaskill and ayotte or designees each controlling 75 minutes, the ranking member or designee controlling 20 minutes, and the chairman or designee

controlling 10 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent the banking, housing and urban affairs committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 381 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 381, a bill to award a congressional gold medal to the world war i members of the dolittle tokyo raiders for outstanding heroism, valor, skill and service to the united states in conducting the bombings of tokyo. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent the brown amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent the armed services

committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3304 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3304, an act to authorize and request the president to award the medal of honor to benny g. atkins and donald p.slote, united states army, for acts of valor during the vietnam conflict and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent the levin amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times and passed and the levin title amendment which is at the desk be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 300, which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 300, to

authorize the production of records by the per permanent subcommittee on investigations of the committee of homeland security and governmental affairsmenaffairs. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed to the measurement mr. donnelly: i ask unanimous is consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: i understand that 17 3 -- s. 1737, introduced earlier today by senator harkin, is at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 1737, a bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum wage and so forth. mr. donnelly: i now ask for its second reading and object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day.

mr. donnelly: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, november 20, 2013, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for debate only for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the republicans controlling the second half. and that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 1197, the national defense authorization act, under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: madam president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask

that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

when president kennedy was shot at 12 p.m. dallas time november 22, 1963 within 1 minute several dallas police officers ran up to the grassy knoll. why? because many people were pointing to it as the source of at least some of the gunfire. the first officer up there a fellow named joe marshall smith had his gun drawn because he expected to follow him. instead he encountered a man who was asked who he was and he presented secret service credentials. smith was familiar with this secret service credentials. they were often in dallas for one reason or the other. two other officers reported essentially the same thing. apparently there was more than one left secret service

credentials on the grassy knoll. there was just one problem. the secret service in the warren commission and everyone else who has looked at it has identified it as every single secret service officer at that time. no one was in dealey plaza. all of the officers are taught to go with their protect us. they went to parkland hospital with the president and the vice president soon to be president johnson. who were these people with the secret service credentials that no one can identify? i don't have an answer but i have explained in the book and i have stuck to the facts and people can make up their own mind.

>> now our u.s. trade representative michael follmer and gives an update on u.s. trade negotiations. he was interviewed at "the wall street journal" ceo council meeting. >> good morning everyone. i appreciate you joining us ambassador. there is lots to talk about to massive trade agreements being negotiated in asia and europe. first i would like to start out, is it fair to say in a time of political paralysis the administration is taking a particularly aggressive tone on trade? >> well we have what i think many people would view as the most ambitious trade agenda right now in history. the transpacific partnership 40% of global gdp and the trans-atlantic trade investment partnership. when we are done with those two agreements will have free trade with 65 to 70% of the global economy and we have three negotiations going on right now in geneva on trade facilitation

the elimination of barriers and information technology products and on services. so there's a lot going on on the trade side and then we achieve these agreements and be proven through congress it will position he was very well as a place to produce products and send them around the world. >> you sound confident that you're going to reach these agreements. let's talk about the pact known as ttp being know she gated -- negotiated among 12 countries. you set a december deadline. there is come some concern that the administrative so intent on reaching this that they have made -- >> the objective is to complete these negotiations this year and that's it ambitious objective. we are working literally around-the-clock now to close at issues and their differences and tee up the issues that require political input but we are not going to agree to a bad deal

just to hit a crucial deadline. the substance of the negotiation will ultimately dictate the timing of the deal. we know where our stakeholders are and where our interests are in working as hard as we can to make sure we have the agreement to bring back and demonstrate how it will create jobs in every congressional district in every state and agricultural service. >> there is a growing since the u.s. companies particularly the automakers want rules against currency manipulation. japan has complicated the picture here. are you in favor of that? >> well it's a very serious issue and obviously the treasury department has led on this. secretary lew in a few minutes. this is an issue of currency manipulation and issue that the administration has been focused on from the start in our bilateral engagements china from the president on down. we have engage with them on encouraging them towards more marginalized trade.

in the g7, the g20 and the imf and the treasury department and the rest of the has worked to ensure that we have kept market-oriented exchange rates very much on the agenda. in terms of how it plays into the ttp it remains to be seen. were consulting with congress and consulting with our stakeholders. we agree with the seriousness of the issue. the question is how best and most effectively to do with it. >> how would it play out if there's currency intervention rules inserted into it what would the u.s. have to give up? can you sketch that out? >> there are a number of ideas out there and it's unclear at the moment. one is the kind of currency policies that china has traditionally pursued and we have seen some progress with regard to china since 2010, june 2000 where their currency has moved 15, 17% in real terms. it's not far enough and is not fast far enough in his life's

not that there has been some movement because of continuous pressure from the g20 and the united states and others. the more recent concern as you know is the concern about japan and the actions taken with japan's economy which has had an effect on their currency. that's a bit more complicated because as people know any of the activities that they bank of japan engages and are not dissimilar from that of which the federal reserve is out to engage in. we have to be careful i think how we talk about currency and how we link it to trade rules because we certainly don't want to put ourselves in a defensive position as well. >> we were talking earlier and i know you just live this morning. you are also involved involved in the negotiations for the south korea trade pact. you have argued that it's done a lot to boost exports for some businesses say that's not really the case. >> i think it's absolutely clear , when you look at where terrorists -- tariffs have come down and i will use autos. it's tricky because it starts in an extremely low base with few

exports to south korea prior to the agreement but now auto exports from the u.s. have gone up over 50% from a small base, auto exports from the big three have gone up very significantly as well. a lot of issues, a lot of factors go into what happens to a bilateral trade deficit from one quarter to another quarter. at the same time the deficit with korea may have increased our surplus with colombia and panama which around the same time have gone up dramatically. a lot of things with differential growth rates and areas economies. all we can do in the trade side is reduce barriers and exporters have a chance to compete on a level playing field. >> lets get a little closer to home and talk about congress. there was a bit of the backlash last week about the trade negotiations. have you anticipated the fight that lies ahead in terms of getting anything approved?

>> yes, we have been working with congress throughout these negotiations. the formal process called trade promotion authority expired in 2007. that's a process that every congress and every president since 1974 have worked on together. it's the process for congress tells the executive what the negotiating objectives are how to work with congress during the negotiations and the procedures under which congress will approve or disapprove the trade pact when it's done. even though the consultation procedures of the 2007 trade for motion authority expired we have been held down by them in offering the same procedures. every proposal he put on the table, in ttp for example are ttip the european -- is previewed with congress with the relevant committees of jurisdiction and other committees of agriculture proposals that go to the agriculture committee. the ttp we have had over 1000 briefings on the hill with

various committees. we have met with scores of individual offices. every member congress can see the text and we have two walk-through with many members and answer questions that they have had about it. so there has been quite a bit of interaction and quite a bit of input throughout this process and we are confident at the end of the day when we have a final agreement that we can show how the various issues have been resolved and demonstrate why it's good for every congressional district, for every state and get the necessary support. >> there is a lot of opposition brewing among democrats, since if there is a lack of transparency in the process and that it's really not fair given the lack of details. what can you do to address that? >> i think the transparency issue is a legitimate one and we try to be more transparent than ever before. i mentioned the 5000 plus briefings on capitol hill. the few congress as the people's representatives imparted their job is to be the conduit between ourselves and their constituents

but we also have multiple advisory committees representing not just business interests but every major labor union environmental groups, public health groups, consumer groups who all have an opportunity to see the text and give us feedback on the specific text and then we have an open policy of seeing any stakeholder group who wants to come in and see us. we have gone one step further and in the ttp negotiations we have organized that every ttp round is a stakeholder of them were literally hundreds of stakeholders will come and present their views not just to be as negotiators but the negotiators of the other 11 ttp countries as well so we ensure that all of our partners are hearing from our stakeholders. i think it's been actually quite interactive with a lot of input and quite transparent. >> we have a lot of ceos at here. what is your sense of business and where they are in the trade pacts? often you hear businesses against many of the provisions

in the deals. >> you now i think business generally is in favor of opening markets and creating more opportunity for exporting from the west or if it helps drive job creation here in the united states. as well as helps drive the investment in the united states. what tends to happen is each business is waiting until they see what the final deal has in their sector or particular area before they declare themselves on it but as a general matter most businesses feel like the opening markets around the world where 95% of the customers are, 80% of emergency power is critical to the success of american business. >> will you need business to get actively involved to get this through congress? >> i think what we all need to do is make sure you understand what the implications of these trade agreements are. not just for large companies but also for their suppliers, their supply chains in the tens of thousands of small to medium-size businesses that are now very much tied up in the global economy and one thing ttp

does and focuses on is how to make sure as mrs. benefit with this agreement as well. global supply change -- chains to see how we can use these trade agreements to help them in their efforts to export to the rest of the world. >> there has been a lot said about the snowden leaks and last week there was a wikileaks document included a lot of the papers from the ttp negotiations. how damaging has all of this been to the u.s. standing with negotiations? >> you now, i think the nsa related issues are largely separate from the trade negotiations and i think the europeans have indicated that they want to keep negotiations going forward on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership even as they continue their dialogue on the other issues. it has not had a significant impact on our transpacific hardener's negotiations.

>> you mention china earlier. what is your sense of where china is right now in terms of china in trade and what is really the wisdom and endgame keeping them out of the ttp negotiations? is there a risk in the sense that we'll see a dynamic in china versus the rest of the world on trade? >> i will -- our goal with ttp is not directed at any country. structured at raising the standards of the trade system and introducing new disciplines affecting our ability to compete in the world. there are a number of countries who said they would like to join once they are done with the initial 12 so this can become an ever expanding platform. there are a lot of issues that go to china and its relationship to the trade system and we are all watching with great interest as the chinese leadership talks about them puts out plans and hopefully executes on their reform agenda.

it would be in our collective interest for china to engage in a more in-depth market-oriented reform but we see data plans on each side of the equation positive data points in terms of the direction they appear to be talking about but also in terms of what they are doing in certain areas. >> has it been tough enough on pushing china on the wto accord? there's a sense that china has fallen back on some of the stipulations in the wto pact. >> is the key issue and one thing we have done in this administration is significantly wrap up our enforcement efforts, our trade enforcement efforts including bringing more wto cases. eight of them are against china just to underscore that if china is going to agree to various obligations and benefit from the local trading system they need to meet their obligations as well and we will hold their feet to the fire.

>> do you agree in china there's a sense that environment is turned against western companies which is something you were saying and hearing a lot more about? >> we have heard anecdotal reports of concern on that but we very much to want western companies to be active in china and i think there's an ongoing dialogue to make sure that happens in a way that it doesn't create undue barriers. >> moving on to europe, there was a joke earlier about how europe can make d.c. look functional. is there any real sense that a trade deal could have been given the current climate in europe? do you think there is a political will? >> i think there's a lot of political will in europe to move forward with the transatlantic trade and investment heart worship. it's a key part i think a fair growth strategy going forward. ac opening markets and exports integrating our economies further as a key part of enhancing their international

competitiveness as well and i think there has been the evolution of certain sectors over the last 10 or 15 years and certain procedural elements, the lisbon trade and other innovations, that create more of an opportunity now to get this done than ever before. that doesn't mean it's not going to be hard but there are a number of very difficult outstanding issues and we see certain issues in different ways so we are going to have to work through but i do believe there is political will on both sides of the atlantic to get it done. >> can you sketch out the parameters of the debate? from what i understand they aren't necessarily disagreements over tariffs which is the negotiated -- really overt and radio trade framework's? can we see a time in which a car is made just comes off the boat and is accepted here in the u.s. without going through our predatory system? >> you put your finger on the key issue. the tariffs are relatively easy. most traditional nontariff

barriers are well-known and we don't have to address them. the biggest opportunity in this agreement but also the hardest challenge is getting her hands around the regulatory standards. this is not a deregulatory agenda. we are not talking about lowering health, safety and environmental beyond either side of the planet but both markets have well-regulated markets that come to slightly different conclusions and those different conclusions and those different results create unnecessary frictions for trade. our goal is to see what we can try to do to mitigate in the laminate those unnecessary frictions while at the same time ensuring regulators on both sides of the atlantic can take the actions that are appropriate and necessary to protect the health and safety and the environment for their people have come to expect. i will give you one example. from our perspective, if on both sides there was transparency, participation and accountability

, putting a draft regulation out in public telling the public what it is you are going to regulate and with approval -- proposal is allowing public comment notches from your own citizen that anyone around the world who might have a point of view and then be accountable for taking those comments and figuring out based on evidence and science how you will come forward with the ruin of a collation that makes sense. in our view that would go a long way towards bridging the gap. it doesn't have to be them adopting our regulations are us adapting their regulations. simply approaching red vittori in a simple fashion. they believe in public participation and will get a better result versus a worse result. those procedural areas could make a dramatic difference in terms of bringing our predatory regimes together. >> stepping back from this the anti-trade sentiment is growing in many parts of the world.

obviously globalization and closing i increasing. what can you say generally to the right or to the left about trade and addressing the real concerns that there are quite simply some left behind in globalization? >> first i think the issue of ensuring that the benefits of trade are broadly shared and people are taking into account the impact of trade not just in a macrosense but also in the particular industries is very important. that is why throughout trade policy we have also been working to raise labor standards raise environmental standards and intellectual property rights standards around the world so that our work are so not put at a competitive disadvantage. without raising the standards it's going to be a race to the bottom. that is not a race we can win and that's not a race we want to run. our job is to create a race to the top where the countries come together and say you're the standards we want to lift i end by doing so we will attract the

best and become the magnet for economic activity. but i think i have to disagree with one of the premises of the question. you need to look back over the last five years. it's remarkable that in the worst financial and economic crisis in 80 years that we got through it with as little protection as we did. it really affected the tiny percentage of the trade. i think the wto said .2% over protectionist measures. that's quite remarkable and at the same time there has been an explosion of activity towards trade negotiations. we are driving ttp and ttip on some of these negotiations with wto but across asia their bilateral trilateral regional negotiations going on but by other countries and the question isn't whether we are going to open these markets are not. we either going to open them on our terms or they will be open on on other people's terms on other people's terms and we will have to take their standards and

have their disciplines as the status quo. it's infinitely better for us to be the one that helped to set the standards and leveling the playing field. >> on that note when we take a couple of questions from the audience for ambassador froman. while you are thinking i have one for you. the ttp in some regard has been described as the anti-china trade agreement and it's going to see to address some of the problems that the united states has had with china's obligations under an failure to adhere to the wto. can you tell us what ttp is going to do that wto didn't do regarding china because almost everybody in this room has a business in china and almost everybody in this room has dealt with these problems. >> again china is not part of ttp but a lot of the issues that i think people worry about with regard to china are not limited

to china. this is a mechanism for us to work together with countries to figure out what the right set of standards are. for example state-owned enterprises are playing an increasing important role competing against private firms. how do we ensure that it's an enterprise slightly focused on commercial activity and act like a commercial after and they don't take the benefits of government ownership subsidize capital subsidized land subsidize energy and regulatory forbearance about the private firms with whom they are competing at a competitive disadvantage. that is one area that we are looking at. again, there are soe's in many of the ttp countries and it's an opportunity for the ttp countries to figure out what are the best standards and hopefully build from there. >> china has a made some remarks about their possible interest down the road. is that a prospect?

do you see china being able to adhere to the stricter requirements? >> our focus first and foremost is finishing with the 12. that is complicated and challenging enough and amerigroup of economies that have expressed interest in joining that are probably closer to being able to live up to the standards were trying to negotiate in ttp than others. whether china joins as a hypothetical question at this point. >> questions? yes, please. let's get a microphone and if you could just say who you are. >> doug pederson mcgraw-hill financial. thank you for joining us today. a quick question on nafta. that is going to be 20 years old on january 1. would have been the result and how can you use those lessons to continue global trade? >> it is 20 years since nafta and we are looking at all the results of nafta. for example right now just over 3 million american jobs are tied

to nafta to trade back and forth with canada and mexico. there are all sorts of studies on the impact of nafta, the positive impact on gdp growth. the forgone tariffs that have not been paid that effectively constitute a tax cut so there have been a number of positive elements i believe with nafta but nafta was 20 years ago and we have learned a lot about trade and the trade agreements and the trading system since nafta. that is why the trade policy we are pursuing now builds on the lessons of nafta and focuses also i'm trying to raise labor standards, environmental standards, property rights policies and global supply chains so we can help drive jobs into the united states and make this a magnet for investment and the production and manufacture. >> we will have to move on but i want to thank ambassador froman.

it's a remarkable period of aggressive trade action and negotiations coming out of washington and this was a triptych program. thanks very much. >> thank you very much ambassador. [applause] >> a typical day would begin with her coming in of a morning, probably around 9:00 and she would come and toting a straw bag in each hand filled with some of the things you see on her desk that she had taken home for signing or speechwriting or event planning, whatever she was working on. she would come in and get to work. heard desk was always very orderly and that she worked on her desk with letters that she was processing and as she completed thing she would put them on the floor. she left this office because she could look out at her alma mater and through the capital in the city that she loves so much. we had three office staff at the time.

we had a person who handled her calendar and a person who came from the white house as her press secretary who helps her work on speeches and then i was in the office. friday afternoon she was ready to leave and go to the ranch, which she really called home and about three times for 30 in the afternoon she's said do i have anything us to do and if the answer was no she would say tell the secret service i am ready to go. >> president obama met with lawmakers today at the white house to discuss iran in its nuclear weapons program. after the meeting, senator corker republican from tennessee spoke to reporters briefly outside the white house. here's what he had to say.

>> did anybody else come out this way? i was sent the wrong way. i think there's a lot to think about. there was a long meeting and a lot of questions were asked and a lot of questions were answered that, but i think everybody is probably going to go back and seek their own counsel for a few hours. you know i think you know we have crafted some language. the events of this weekend, if there and to gain an agreement almost renders those not useful. i think we all know where we are as far as the status of the discussion so i would think you have some folks in the room that were satisfied and i think you have some folks in the room that were very unsatisfied and then i

think you had some folks who were listening to what has been said and trying to figure out the best way for congress to go ahead. i think it goes without saying, congress is laid a huge role in causing us to be where we are today and i think everyone acknowledges that. people are concerned and i happen to be one that is concerned that we are giving up some leverage. i think the specificity of the interim deal with something again and i have additional questions and i'm going to be talking with secretary kerry about of the next few days but there was a meeting that was appreciated and there's a much greater understanding as to what is on the table and what the deal is. the president has asked for some time for this to be negotiated and p5+1 would be put in place.

>> are read this close or that how would you describe it in a sense? >> i mean i'm not in the room relative to the actual negotiations but i don't think at the least the way it was presented it's not as if there is a complete agreement. i think there are still concerns and maybe that's the wrong word. i don't think anyone knows as to whether this size will be able to agree to something this weekend. >> how long are you willing to give the president? >> well he asked for period of time. again i think i want to go back and there are some folks who want to move or at least announce some things over the next few days. again, my only goal is candidly good things for our country in the world relative to this

negotiation. i want to again take into account what has been said today and think about what i think the most responsible thing is for congress to do in light of what has been shared and with that i had better go. thank you all. >> d. you think the senate will wait until after thanksgiving? >> i will say to that, i don't think there's any choice relative to congress waiting until after thanksgiving because i think as you know senator reid filled up the tree yesterday which to the listening office means nothing. to those who cover this daily, there will be no amendments that will be offered on ndaa which is the only moving vehicle. you can talk about what gifts but i think one thing is for sure there will be no amendments that will pass the united states senate for sure -- relative to this anyway until we come back from thanksgiving. >> this is solely about iran.

>> what about relations with israel? to this, but is from the senators express to the president? >> there was not a discussion relative to relations. there was a discussion relative to their concerns. well, i mean there were -- there were technical issues raised. i think all of us seek sources not only here in our country but around the world relative to what is actually happening on the ground. so it wasn't, again it was solely focused on iran, solely focused on the sanctions, solely focused on in the request that is fair from the administration. they are very explicit about what they think they may be able to achieve and it's the most explicit explanation we have had yet.

>> do you think the president is being naïve about this? >> i think all of us are concerned. we know who we are dealing with and we have watched the same type of activity occur in arth korea where you begin to alleviate sanctions. i think the concern is whatever you do on an interim basis becomes the new norm. in fact that is in fact the deal and there has been a great concern about that. thank you all. >> i certainly came the wrong way. [inaudible conversations] >> today house speaker john boehner again called for the health care a lot. he spoke to reporters with other house republicans.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. you know, it's not just americans who are getting their cancellation notices that are upset. it's everything that follows. what we are seeing here is a pattern of roque and promises from the administration. one is well if you like your health care plan you can keep it and i think most americans are finding out that is really not true. secondly what the president said is you know we passed obamacare premiums are going to go down. i think what many people are saying is the premiums are going through the roof. it's just one more reason why this health care law needs to be scrapped now. >> good morning.

you know the american people are very worried. moms and dads are worried that they are going lose their health care plan and that they have the one that they have and they like in their worried whether they are going to actually be able to go do the same pediatrician they want their children to go to. young adults are now witnessing the increase in health care costs and wondering whether they are going to be able to afford even a basic policy. individuals who are going on to the healthcare.gov web site are beginning to fear that perhaps their identity will be stolen. millions of americans we know now are receiving cancellation notices from insurance companies. the president broke a major promise to the american people and now it is hard for them to trust any assurances under this law. we have heard the president say that he didn't know about the problems with the web site but

yeah gathered reporters just come out to say that there were warning signs throughout the white house from a report back in march that there was going to be a problem with the rollout of this health care law. now, nancy pelosi and the house democrats were some of the architects of obamacare. they helped design this law. last week 39 of them joined us in trying to help americans that are being hurt under this law. it is time for the senate to join them and join us and to helped protect the american people. >> we all know the famous quote i then speaker nancy pelosi you have to pass a bill to know what's in it. american people, 55% disapprove of this lot mainly because of the three main principle ways of the law itself. first it was the web site. it didn't work. consumer report, have you ever noticed consumer report to

recommend you not to go to web site? they recommend americans not go to the web site echoes of the fear of fraud. the failure of the president in saying you could -- if you have your health care and you like it you can keep it. americans know now that was not true and he wasn't being honest. the final waive of the principle failure is going to be the cost the idea that this was going to lower costs. you won't be able to keep your doctor. it's time now for the senate to act with us as the american people continued to see that this is a major failure and will not solve the problem. >> this week i got a letter from more rain hunter to rain hunter could she lives in spokane valley. this is what she wrote to me. cathy, like so many others i've had my health insurance policy cancel. my policy was affordable and fills my needs as a 63-year-old woman. i feel so helpless and my heart is heavy.

i have worked since i was 13 and i have done what i could to be productive and responsible. do you see a way out of this awful situation for me and williams like me? thank you people like me and that being on the casualty list? please help. her words struck me because she is not different than millions of hard-working average americans all across this country. we have heard the numbers. over 5 million have received a letter canceling their health insurance policy and yet just over 100,000 have signed up for the plan. but these are more than just numbers. these are real old that are being impacted like maureen who come january 1 doesn't know whether or not she will be able to see her doctor. now the houses passed a legislative solution. the president has proposed this political fix, short-term in

states like mine, washington state. the governor and the insurance come -- commissioners said they are not going to implement the president's quick fix of people like maureen are going to wonder what's going to happen in january 1. we need real solutions of money to help people across the country make sure we have health care that is affordable and accessible to the people of this country. >> the letters continue to pour in our office, said letters about people seeing their health insurance, some of the saddest letters i have read are from young pete old, young people that are just starting out in life. they are trying to pay their wills, pay their student loans, find employment without having their hours cut in such a tough job market with unemployment at record highs for these young folks. the letters are telling the story. their premiums are increasing,

some in kansas, close to 130%. their out-of-pocket costs are going from 2000 to $6000. these young people can afford that. they already were on type budgets just trying to figure out how they were going to pay their bills and now this added cost. the american people deserve better. >> keith from western pennsylvania. they are our real questions of fundamental fairness being played out across the country. people understand intuitively when you break a promise there's something unfair about that and when you lose the freedom to buy health care plan that works for you and your family there something unfair about that when a product is sold based on false information and steps are being taken to correct that, that's unfair. it's unfair to people in my district like matthew, people like nancy and don and karen. mathis resident of pittsburgh north hills who wrote to me and he said after his policy was

canceled, we liked the policy we had and we would like to keep it. we are unable to did so because the law has made this impossible which is contrary to the numerous promises president obama made to the public. is there no longer truth in advertising? nancy a dairy farmer a similar situation. the plan she has had with her family for 25 years. the replacement is going to cost three times as much. then they're done and karen in johnstown and a former marine and former coalminer. they are losing their plan and here's what he had to say. i specific weight bought a plan that met my needs. i liked my plan very much and it was something i could afford. the replacement plan is going to cost the discussable more than $6000. thank you. a.

[inaudible] can you tell us how that is going to break down in costs and at the insurance companies are allowed to settle policies? >> what happened is you have far more competition in terms of policies that would be available to the american people. some states you only have one or two companies that offer plans and if you have companies able to sell in all 50 states and you advertise in all 50 states to all americans he would have much more competition bringing the rates down in providing affordable coverage for the american people. >> mr. speaker the appropriations committee is in a conference to -- [inaudible] be i noticed that.

>> it's important we do appropriation bills to fund the government. this idea that we should continue to operate under what are called continuing resolutions is a poor way to do business. i understand the frustration from the appropriators. they want regular order. the house appropriation bills are marked to one member and the senate appropriations bills are marked to a much higher level and until there's an agreement out of the budget conference on a discretionary spending number for the year they are unable to do their work. frankly it's not fair so i'm hopeful that there will be a number but you'll have to talk to paul ryan and senator murray about the. >> are you guys going to do anything about -- [inaudible] >> we are going to continue to do oversight so we understand exactly what's happening. our members are going to continue to collect stories.

no decisions on what it is they rate payer may do but we will do everything we can did protect the american people from this awful law. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] when president kennedy was shot at 12:30 p.m. dallas time november 22, 1963 within 1 minute several dallas police officers ran up to the grassy knoll. many people were pointing to it as the source of at least some of the gunfire. the first officer joe marshall smith had his gun drawn because he expected to find an armed gunman. instead he encountered a man who

was asked who he was and he presented secret service credentials. smith was familiar with the sikh or service credentials. they were often in dallas for one reason or another. two officers reported essentially the same thing. apparently there was with him unless he or his service credentials up on the grassy knoll. there was just one problem. the secret service in the warren commission and everyone else who has looked at it has identified the location of every single secret service officer at that time. no one was it dealey plaza. all of us secret service officers are taught to to go if they're protected. they went to parkland hospital with the president and the vice president's soon-to-be president. who were these people craig with secret service credentials that no one can identify? i don't have an answer but i've explained it in the book. i have stuck to the facts. people can make up their own minds. ..

>> we have been promised the website was save and secure.

we were informed that testing started last year and would be completed by august of this year. we are learned this isn't the ca case. if the first parts have been this problematic we are concerned about other parts. henry chao, the deputy chief information officer, at the centers for medicare and medicaid services is our guest today. thank you for testifying. i hope you can appreciate the hss has a ways to go to regain the trust of the american people. they were told it would be as easy as buying a television on

amazon. every day new revelations are emerging showing this was avoidable. mr. chao was witnessed that the company primarily response for building the website would quote crash on take off end quote. and as early as march of this year, officials were well aware they were off schedule and testing was elementlimited. and we learned healthcare.gov was launched after a memo alerted her the full assessment wasn't completed. so they knew there was security issues. the administration officials promised in public that in only a few days the american people

would be able to use a perfectly functioning website. secretary sebelius told us the highest measures are in place and i hope we hear what they are from mr. chao and our second panel as well. the second panel features the people responsible for the healthcare.gov. i am disappointed one company, verizon, chose not to testify today. we will follow up with them so they are held accountable. websites can be fixed, but the damage done to security information would be damaging. now we have a five minute opening statement.

>> i want to add your thanks to mr. chao and the three contractor witnesses for being here. we must make sure that the data on healthcare.gov is secure. everybody can agree on that. the american people must know their data is protected when they go to find a quality, affordable plan. my fear is today is less about the safety and political points and undermining. three week ago we held a committee on the inexcusable

facts. the exchanges need to be fixed and fast so the american people can access affordable plans open to them. i hope we have another hearing after the november 30th deadline to see how they are working. i am afraid this hearing will not enlighten the american people. we need to make sure the data is secure, but we should not create smoke if there is no fire. so peace of mind based on the facts that we know is what i would like to gave the american people. first, and critically, no american has to provide any personal health information to healthcare.gov or to insurers in order to qualify for health coverage and subsidies. i went on the exchange myself to make sure of this.

the aca bans preexisting health conditions. before it became law, americans had to fill out personal health information to apply for insurance. but no longer, thanks to the affordable care act, americans don't have to turn anything over to get coverage. second, there is a complex and detailed set of rules that hss must follow to make sure the data on healthcare.gov is secure. i am look forward to hearing from you, mr. chao, about the security issues today. the agency has a long history of maintaining information in medicaid, medicare, and other areas and has never had a significant leak of information.

they must apply with acts to protect information and the data collected and maintained by healthcare.gov. and like all federal agencies, hss is required to develop and implement process. we have found that cms has compco complied and they will talk to about about it today. the memo, mr. chairman, that you talked about that identified primary concerns, primarily an end to end testing. and a mitigation plan was outlined. i want to hear from the contractors and you, mr. chao, if these findings are being heated. unfortunately mr. chairman i

have to raise one more issue in my remaining minute and that is the grand tradition of bipartisanship investigation. the committee last thursday received a memo from cms, red team documentation discussion, the majority didn't share with the minority until yesterday. just after they leaked this memo to the wash "washington post" afterwards. and mr. chairman you were quoted talking about the concerns of the readiness of the exchange. i know that is not the topic of the hearing. but it is not in the tradition of the committee to conduct investigation that way. when the majority received this memo, they should have provided

this do all of the members. we are all concerned about making these exchanges work. and i have written a letter and would like to enter it into the record at this time;. >> that is fine. they came as part of a couple hundreds documents. >> certainly you were able to get it in time to the "washington post." >> and now mr. upton for five minutes. >> administration witnesses have come before this committee and assured was everything was on track and healthcare.gov was red ready for the october 1st launch. back on april 18th, kathleen

sebelius testified here in this room the federal hub is on time and on track. we are on track. but we know the secretary's testimony didn't match what was happening behind the scenes. two weeks before testifying before this committee, she was present at a meeting when significant threats and risks were expressed in launching the site on october 1st. they repeated claims this is well and on track until the mess than launched on october 1st. after the launch, the volume was the culprit when they knew oth r

otherwi otherwise. this is about whether the public people can trust with websites. one important question is will they enroll by january 1. and security is another issue. how can they trust a website where it was more important to get it out than end-to-end testing. deputy chao is here to answer the questions. i do understand you are a career employee and been at cms for years and the last few months have not been easy. last march, you were one of the first to publically offer a glimpse of the true situation

when you said let's make sure it isn't a third world experience. that points a picture they knew for months about delays and problems with the website development. you have been responsible for managing the website but i can imagine many matters were outside of your control. and i hope you can explain why the administration felt c confidant when the system went live. and we are joined by three companies that were awarded for security services for the federal exchange. these companies are here to answer about their roll -- roles -- and i am glad they accepted our invitation to

testify and inform us about how healthcare.gov works or doesn't. there are countless contractors involved and responsibilities are divided. it is complex system, i know. but we would like to know how the delays and rush has complicated to the website. i yield to dr. burgess. >> pretty broad agreement. the implementation has been hard and broken promises from the president. they break the surface of the deeper issues that lie ahead for the law and the american people that must live under the law.

mr. chao, you probably prior to anyone else, sounded the alarm. and i know you are tired of hearing it, but you were trying to prevent the website from becoming a third world experience and i admire you to see the problems before they hit you. and you were the one that recommended it was safe to launch on october 1st. so what happened you and others to believe the law was ready for primetime. not only did the centers for medicare and medicaid services fail to establish basic functioning but healthcare.gov frau flaws continue to pose a threat. and when i went to healthcare.gov this morning it wasn't functional and another website can tell me about the

plans that are available in my area. we know it was possible to do this. we are all wondering why it wasn't done. thank you, yielding back. >> recognizing the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the last six weeks have been difficulty for the supporters of the affordable care act. the trouble rollout prevented people from signing up for the affordable, high quality coverage they qualify for. and it has been exploited for gain by the republican opponents of the law. interesting to hear the statements in the two republican statements, maybe all of them, we don't want a third world website. third world is when we leave millions of people unable to get insurance because they have pre-existing medical conditions

or can't afford it. no other industrial country allows such a thing happen. but that is what the republicans who oppose the law would have us return to. we are turning a corner on the website. on friday, the administration point person of healthcare.gov, announced two key metrics of improvement and it seems to me they are all very good signs the wb website is getting better. additional improvements are needed but more and more people will be signing up for coverage. i want to tell you what is happening in california. 35,000 people enrolled and 70,000 qualified for medicaid. in the 12 days of november, enrollment from the first month

almost doubled. we are looking at the issue of data security on healthcare.gov. it is an important issue. we should begin by acknowledging the aca represents an enormous step forward for privacy. the law is banning them from being asked question about their medical conditions and privacy of things that affect their health because it isn't necessary to ask those questions because they will not be denied because of previous medical problems. but there is no personal information and we need to ensure this information is protected. this question comes up repeatedly when secretary sebelius was before us. she said the highest security

standards are in place to protect personal information on healthcare.gov. i hope this hearing will be serious, even handed inquiry, but i feel my republicans will exaggerate concerns for exa exaggerate so they can scare people from signing up. this is what they did when they launched the investigation into non-profit community organizations serving as health care navigators. mr. chairman, we learned you have been withholding documents and leaking them to the press before providing them to the staff. i sent you a letter why this is

a violation of the committee's president. it raises concerns about whether the hearing are becoming another partisan attempt to weaken the affordable care act. we should be using oversight powers to improve the affordable care act not to sabotage or discourage americans from signing up for quality care. i want to yield the balance of my time to mr. dingple. >> i am pleased to be here and certainly pleased that my subscription to the "washington post" is in effect so i can see what is being leaked. we have a violation of the practices, traditions and history of the committee and the investigation is done. i speak as a member who has read

more investigation in anyone in the room, including all of them put together. we have a breach of the responsibility of the leadership to make information available to the committee at the same time they do for the press. i find it difficult, and intolerable this committee is running around fishing for trouble where none exist. i feel like the old maid who came home to find out someone was there, hoping there would be, unfortunately there is not. i have seen no evidence of complaints or misbehavior with regard to the information that is controlled by the government. i would urge this committee to spend its time trying to make this situation work and see to it that we collect the information that is necessary, make the website work, and see to it we rectangularing --

register american -- so we can stop being a third world country. we are down in the way we take care of the health of the people. look at the statistics. it will give you a shock. >> thank you very much,. henry chao has served since 2011 as the deputy chief information officer and some of this prior roles including chief information officer in the officer of consumer information and insurance oversight and chief technology officer for cms. you are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing and has a practice of taking testimony under oath. do you have any objection to taking testimony under oath? the witness indicates no. under the rules of the house and committee, you are entitled to be advised by council, do you

want to be? counsel says no. i will swear you in. >> do you swear the testimony you are going to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you. you are set under oath in the section of the united states code and you may give a five minute summary of your written statement. make sure the microphone is on. >> thank you for inviting me to testify about the federal facilitated market place. the security of personal information is as a top priority for cms, which for decades has protected the more than one hundred million americans enrolled in medicare, medicare and the children's insurance. it is a monumental

responsibility. every day we enroll new benefici beneficial and pay timely and collect information. we use the experience and best practices to build a security market place that consumers should feel confidant with their personal information. we follow federal law to ensure security and privacy protections. they are not singular, but there are a several laiyers. it is developed with security code and the infrastructure is logically protected by our >> hos hosting provide.

it is protected by an internet defense shield to protect unauthorized data. and security monitoring, testing and security oversight that includes the various organizational groups that cms are reporting to key stake holders with respect to security and privacy. this includes the department of health and human services and we work with us cert and the officer of the inspector general of hss. they each have roles to ensure management, operational and technical behaviors are controlled. there are regulations and

prescri prescribed by the privacy act and the management of budge. cms designed the market place system in the hub to increase ef efficien efficiency. the hub allows for one highly security system between highly protected databases and federal agencies instead of hundreds of connections that would have been established as part of how normal business day connects in every day. a series of business agreements enforce federal and state partners. cms designed the market place system to limit the amount of personal data stored and protect personal information and limit access through passwords and encry encryption and zoned firewalls

with separation in between the zones and various other security controls to monitor loginlogin g logingging -- logging -- while the federal market place has had issues i want to be clear we have conducted extensive security for the system that went live. we continue to test daily and weekly. and we are working around the clock to fix performance issues. i cannot go into the specific of the testing, i assure you we conduct malware and anti-virus scans and deny access to known

sources and bad ip addresses and actt actt actors. and we do penetration testing and the recent one found no finding. and we review the application software to make sur they are compliant and are not vulnerable. for the federal facilitated market place we conduct things on a quarterly bases. nothing has been found to be vulnerable. because of our experience running trusted programs, our fulfillment of standards will

allow the americans to be con i confidant in the security of the website. >> i will recognize myself for five minutes. we have asked you about the status of the launch of the president's health care law and full you would be ready for the october 1st launch. we were assured everything was okay and everything was on track. i would like to walk through these documents with you. in mid-march you made a comment you didn't want it to be a third world experience. now we have learned about a report that was presented to the officials in late march/early partnersh april of this year, it is tab one of the binder, it highlights a number of risks of late

policy, building time lament limits to test and others. when did you see this presentation? >> i have not seen that. >> you were not briefed that there is a report? >> i participated in the interviews but wasn't given the final report. >> were you aware they met with marilyn tavenner, cohen and kathleen sebelius -- know of those? >> i heard of some meetings but i don't know the exact dates. >> part of your job is to make sure the website is working,

correct? >> correct. >> so this was a major report and you are saying even though you were interviewed by this, you didn't have the briefing yourself? >> no, i didn't >> you knew it existed? >> i heard there was a final report out. but i didn't see the actual -- >> did anything change recognizing this briefing was out there saying there was serious problems? no end testing? and all of the various aspects of it. >> i cannot tell you the contents of the report because i didn't see or hear about it until it was in the "washington post." >> this is part of the concerns we have and we are not making it up. we have a website out there, which tens of millions were spent on this wb website and,

mckinsey laid out a roadmap and i am concerned you didn't read this. when you were aware the website wasn't ready on october 1st? >> i never thought that. >> but you made a comment about not wanting it to be a plane crash? >> you are referring to the e-mail exchange? >> that e-mail didn't say everything is going fine. so you must have had awareness problems existed. >> chairman, you have to understand, and the committee, that i have been working on this sense mid-2010 -- since -- i err on the caution side. i didn't believe in 2010 everything would be easy.

so i work with a lot of my contractors and staff on a regular bases to sensitize them on this. >> especially when mckinsey was called in and it was important to have meetings at cms and hss at the executive office and whitehouse describing the problems. so i am concerned you saying you have not read this yet. your testimony mentioned s sensors. has that happened yet? >> yes. >> how many times? >> you mean conducting? >> no, has anything hackers orbreaor brea

breachers trying to get in? has that happened? >> there was one instance i was made aware of it. >> no other attempts? >> not successful ones. >> reporter: all right. when there are attempts who you report this to? >> a series of authorities are involved. >> law enforcement? >> through breach reporting and incident reporting that go through the agencies and various key leadership and up through the departments well as we have a security incident response center that works at dhs. >> i am out of time and i will recognize the next speaker >> thank you very much. first of all mr. chao and the contractors, you said you want

to be careful not to divulge information about the security designs of website, correct? >> that is correct. >> i would say i think the majority would agree, if there is a question about asked about the sensitive, information let us know and we will go to executive session. thank you. the chairman asked you about the memo, or e-mail on tuesday july 16th. if you can look at tab seven in your document binder. that is a copy of your memo. and it looks like you were telling people you wanted to make sure the website was off and going. >> yes. >> did you take further actions after july 16 to get the website up? >> it was a daily effort. >> it still is?

>> to improve it. >> i would like you now to take a look at tab one of your document binder. now, mr. chao, this is the document that was given to the "washington post" yesterday by the majority and to the democrats on the committee. this is the document the chairman was asking about in the opening statement: have you seen this document before? >> no, i have not. >> so you don't know what was said? >> i believe it is executive level briefing. >> but you were not part of that? >> no. >> that doesn't mean you were not concerned about the website working? >> of course. in some of the interviews with mckinsey what is in here, could have come from that. >> but you would not know

because you have not seen it. i want to talk about the issue of security and i think i heard you say in opening and response to questions by the chairman, have their been vulnerabilities discovered? >> security vulnerabilities haven't been reported in terms of it being a security threat. i think there was some

>> it is interesting and amusing that the past master running this committee, mr. dingle, would be slobbing shocked and

amazed something was given to the "washington post." it wasn't the first time documents were given to the press at the same time they were distr distributed. >> i said i was happy to have the "washington post" article. >> reclaiming my time from a good friend. what shocks me is mr. chao, our witness and deputy chief information officer for medicare and medicaid and has been identified as the chief person in charge of preparing the website at the cms level didn't or wasn't aware of this docum t

document. to me, that is what is shocking. my first question is when were you made aware of the mckinsey briefing document? >> i was aware a document because being prepared because i went through the meetings. but towards the end i was not part of them. >> were you aware they were hired to come in and basically troubleshoot the status of the website? >> i don't think they were brought into troubleshoot. i think they were brought in to make an assessment by conducting various interviews with key stake holders. >> did this group talk to you? >> yes. >> they did come in and visit with you? >> they interviewed me before. >> once? twice? >> at least two times.

>> since you have been made aware of the document, have you studied it? >> no, i was not made aware of the document. i was interviewed by the team. when it was assembled i didn't get a copy of it. it is in the "washington post" now has mr. dingle pointed out. before becoming to the s subcommittee did you peruse the document? >> i have not. >> on page one, it says the worker group, whoever that is, determined that the extended the go-live date shouldn't be a part of the analysis and before work within a boundary condition of october 1st as the launch date.

now in plain english that means someone decided we could not delay the start-update so we will assume it is going live on october 1st. were you a part of the working group that made that decision? >> no. >> do you know who was part of that group? >> no. >> was the it president? or someone below your level? >> i think that it probably was a group of leaders that came up with that. >> did you have the decision making authority about when the start-update should be? >> no. >> that wasn't in your authority? >> i don't get to pick the date. >> do you know who did have that

authority? >> i believe our administration marilyn tavenner and other folks. i primarily take direction from marilyn tavenner. >> i will say in summing up we are concerned at multiple levels. but if you review this cms document, which i didn't see until this morning, it doesn't take but ten minutes to go through and look at it. it is absolutely clear that this start-up of the website wasn't going to work well, if at all, on october 1st. it says that in here. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. dingle for five minutes. >> thank you for the recognition and holding this hearing. we are six months into the six

weeks of imp lementing the website. the website has improved, but there is more work to do. affordable care act is had law of the land and we share the goal to make it a functioning website. it is important to remember we can never eliminate the risks when building a large i.t. system. i would urge to take steps to make it work because this is the l largest under taking. is cms responsible for developing the hub and the enrollment tools for the federal facilitated market place? yes or no? >> yes. >> are they required to comply

with the privacy act of 1974, computer act of 1984, and federal management act of 2002; yes or no? >> yes. >> and additionally they must comply with regulations and standards by the national instituted and standards at the us department of commerce; is that correct? >> yes. >> and they require cms to balance security with operati operational requirements; that the correct? >> yes. >> is this a large repository of personal information as some friends have claimed on the other side. yes or no?

>> no. >> say that again. i want it on the record. >> no. gl does the data hub contain personal information? >> no. >> is it tefair to say is tool transmit information to the federal agency? >> yes. >> did the data hub pass a security test to the october 1st launch of healthcare.gov? yes or no? >> yes. >> is the data hub working as intended today? yes or no? >> yes. is there any evidence to the contrary? >> no. >> is there any evidence of breaches or lack of security of personal data or information by any person who is submitted such data to this undertaking. yes or no? >> no. >> it is always true and our

duty to remember how our health care system operated prior to the passage of the affordable care act. insurance plans were allowed to medically underwrite people to determine their premium. this contained a lot of personal information and often times it was submitted electronically a well. aca changes all of this. application forms don't require personal information; is that correct? yes or no? >> yes. >> and that is because ac prohibits on the bases of pre-existing conditions and

outlaws charging people more because they are sick; is that correct? >> yes. >> it is not collected? >> yes. >> this is a remarkable improvement over the older system in terms of the older system and quality of care. next question. i want to get this record straight: is healthcare.gov safe and security were my con i constituanents to use with rega to protection of their personal information and privacy? yes or no. >> yes. >> is there any evidence to the contrary? >> no. >> i yield back. >> thank you. now going to recognize ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chao, we appreciate you

coming and working with us. i want to talk for a minute about red flags that seem to be apparent to you. you will find the e-mail i have referring to on tab 7. it is the july 16th, 2013 e-mail that you sent to outerbridge. and i want to focus there. you know, when you have something that is running off the rails and as this, obviously seemed to you, to be doing, it was a project that wasn't proceeding as it should be proceeding. you expressed concerns about the performance of cgi, i would like to hear what were the top 3-4 red flags that seemed to be

going up and you said i fear the plane is going to crash on ta takeoff. give me the top 3-4 things. >> i think in the context of this e-mail it was a time period in when we were getting ready to roll out light accounts and that was the initial registration process. as i mentioned before, i am a person who has a lot of anxiety and err on the side of caution if we are running out of town. so i get passionate to remind people they need to move fast and if they are moving fast they need to move faster. that is the way i operate and direct people. i was afraid we were falling behind in the rollout of light accounts.

>> on light account, did your test on that go off without a hitch? or what happened? >> i don't exactly remember the specifics about what test passed or failed. i was afraid we were in jeopardy of missing the date. so therefore, at that time period in july, i wrote lots of e-mails. >> did you hit the date? >> i believe it took an extra four days >> and you don't remember what the concerns were that came to you at that point in time? is there a memo of review and r articulation of what transpired? >> we have daily meets -- >> are there minutes from the meetings and could you submit? >> i don't believe there were minutes. i believe they were status

check-ins with contractors. >> are there in formal notes? -- informal -- >> i don't think so. when my e-mails were submitted as efrvidence that is it. >> i want to talk specifically about cgi. if you worked in a group and didn't have formal meetings or minutes and memos and things of that nature, give me your impression and your perception that caused you to lose confidence in cgi. you mentioned price, and i think it is interesting, i note in the e-mail change from outerbridge, they had $40 million and wanted

another $38 million. if i had someone who used up all of money and then came back and asked for more, i think i would have to say wait a minute. the praise price was a concern to you? am i right on that? >> correct. >> what else in their conduct eroded your confidence in their ability to do this transaction? >> i think speaking to most project managers that are looking at smaller-scale projects, there might be room to be a little more confident and my level dealt with the enormous amount of activities we had to

be successful about to deliver on the light account interim piece and the october 1st rollout. >> did you present the concerns about being ready on the october 1st when you were interviewed by mckinsey. >> thought was in march or april with mckinsey. >> i want to know if you told them at all. >> working with cgi, my team discussed on this. >> we will make sure someone follows up. recognize mr. waxman. >> no one is happy with the rollout of the healthcare.gov, but aside from lessons learned,

it seems to be my focus and my concern is getting it working. americans want to be able to access the website and chose a health care plan especially those who have not had an opportunity to buy health insurance in the past. that is why it seems to me if we need legislative changes we should make changes to make it work. not repeal it. the republicans are fixated on ha hating this law and don't want to consider helping make it work. that is the focus i want to use in asking you questions, mr. chao. how do we make it work better? it is accurate to say that cms is getting the website up and running? >> yes. >> is it accurate that cms,

centers for medicare and medicaid services that is the part that is working at it, they have crossed 200 items off the punch list? >> correct. >> and can you give me an example of important issues that have been addressed? >> issues related to the enrollment transactions that had data quality issue. and now issuers are receive the data without cleaning it up. data quality has improved. the daily transactions we sent to them. the response times for the website have improved. the error-rate of people experiencing some level of difficulty with moving from stage-to-stage has been reduced and improved. >> jeff stein, the administration's point person on this whole website, announced on friday you have dropped your

error rate from 6 percent to below 1 percent and you have cut the average weight time for page loading from 8 seconds to 1 seconds. what do the improvements look like to the average user? >> they are transparent to the user and the user gets to the task of filling out information and finding out if they are asking for a premium tax credit a and they are calculated timely and proceeding in the application so they can apply some or none of the tax credit so they can look at the offsets and what the final premium should be to go through the process in a speedy faction