anyone's intent or motives here. this is not unusual for me. i realize that we are all on this earth for a short wile. and that our reputations is all we've got. and since those statements were made about you, i would like to dpif you an opportunity to respond. thank you, sir. thank you for the opportunity. and, again, i don't take any of this personally. it's a fast-moving sitweight with a lot going on. what i would just say is this. it was the case, absolutely. that that volume is a key issue. it's still an issue the way we've greatly expanded, expanding our ability for the site to accommodate volume. my best understanding at the time, it's the nature of things

that you do more painstaking diagnosis of a system, you need to learn more about what you need to do to fix it. it's getting better and better each week with the work of an enormous team and which i'm proud to be a shawl part. if i ever ask a question, i will tell you what i foe to the best of my ability and my best understanding. and that's what i continue to do, as my understanding gets better and better. >> did you engage in a pattern of interference and false statements? >> no, i didn't. really, my best understanding at the time, and i'll continue to do that, as my understanding gets better, i will relay that, absolutely. >> before you were subpoenaed to

come here today, was this your office or what you did to continue preparing for today. >> it's never been a question of if. it's a question of when. it's a hope of me and the team to focus intensely on helping to fix the site this month&come back in a few weeks. that being said, i understand that the careman came to a different decision. i respect that decision. i'm the son of immigrants from korea. i have an incredible love of this country. >> as i understand it --

>> mr. chairman, i just ask for the same apoint of time. >> i let you ask the last question after your time had expired. and it was completed. we now go to the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> yeah, i know. >> mr. chairman, i think it was four minutes that you exceeded your time by that. >> i went to one question after the end, which kfs mr. chao. >> four minutes. >> look, i'm only asking -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> you're not going to run a fair hearingment you're going to go out and do this all the way? >> the the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you for yieldingment it it's kind of interesting to see as obama care imploeds how everybody is running for cover. yesterday, we showed the former president throw under the bus.

today, we heard the other side, mr. cummings, our democrat leader, start out by citing that the problem with this is that a lot of them opted for an exchange. mr. chao are these governors, aren't they all democrat governors? and they opted out of the exchange? are you aware of that? i have a question for all of you. do you -- each of you, i want to ask you this question. it's obvious obama care was not ready for prime time. also, from a security standpoint. were you aware of that, mr.

powder, before october first? >> go did issue a report in june that there was a lot to do with a compressed schedule, krkt. were you aware of it. >>ives aware that there was security testing. >> you were aware that there were problems. >> okay. i said from an operational. >> i'm just trying to answer your question. >> well, operational and security. mr. batheman? >> i was aware of various modules that were to be part of the system weren't working. >> anything on security? operational and security. >> not as i recall, sir, no.

i'm aware that any system needs constantly addressed. >> did you review a document that wasn't released yet, but it reviewed the security testing and capenty? >> you commented that grow had to make decisions and the construct, correct? >> correct. >> and there were regulations that were not imposed. and i think you also intimated that some of them were stopped

by the white house prior to the election? >> no, i did not. >> okay. the white house pressured to stop those regulations because they didn't want folks to know what was coming. you over not aware of that? >> i think you're paraphrasing. >> here's our comment to our staff. you can't test the system woilt requirements. obviously, you're going to be a little nervous. was that your statement? >> i think that holds true for -- >> that's what we have. that was your statement. >> my answer in the context was for any development project that requires requirements in order to build the system in a compressed time frame.

this is the miter report. miter was unable to adequately test confidentiality and integrity of the exkang system in full. >> it seemings actually true and appropriate because the full system isn't built completely. >> and it was never fully tested. has it been tested? >> no. i think what it was referring to were there are other components that still need to be built. >> sir, can you sit here and tell us that are not heightened risks of unath ruse id access, identity theft and loss of personally identifiable -- >> the gentleman's time time is expired. >> that was my reply in response

to a decision mem mee in which we wanted to generally highlight the potential risk that's applicable to any system servicing the public and collecting investigation about people. >> i think the key is that was an early assess. not on the key system. >> thank you. the gentle lady from new york? >> thank youment i'd like to thank all of the panelists for their public service and thank the chairman and ranking member for this oversite hearing. there is a success story in the state that i'm privileged to represent. new york state. nearly 50,000 people have enrolled. almost 200,000 new yorkers have completed full applications.

additionally, the state's customer service center operators have provided assistance to more than 142,000 new yorkers. and the rates for the plan represented 53% reduction completed to the previous year's rates. and in addition to the cost savings, it's estimated that nearly three quarters of individual enrollees will cough for assistance. this is according to a statement from new york. this is certainly good news. but we do need improvements on the federal user experience. i'd like to ask mr. park, have improvements been made daily on the web site. >> thank you so much for the question. it's terrific news coming out of new york. so the answer to your question is people are working ef day to make things better.

i would say the site is getting better week by week. so, for example, one metric of the user's response time. this is the rate like displaying a page that you want. just a few weeks ago, that rate was eight seconds. it's now actually under a second today. how much faster can the public expect the web site to be. now you're under a second? >> on average. >> yes. >> can you make it any faster than a second? >> yes. the team believes that it can. we're most of the way, i think, in terms of average response time. we want to get it down further. >> so i would say reducing wait time has become a priority, is that right? >> yes, ma'am. that's terrific.

>> now, are our accounts registering properly at this time. was that problem solved? >> that problem has largely been solved. that was a cig nif kabt problem up front. but thanks to code changes, that problem has been solved. >> so how many registrations can the system handle now. congratulations on solving that by the way. >> it's around 17,000 per hour and the plan is to upgrade that. and then the people who have been there previously. >> how are you reaching out to people who may have been discouraged and encouraging them to come back and try again. is there any effort to reach out

to them or just the notices that it's happening? >> yes, ma'am. cms is currently engaged in an effort to be able to reach out to folk who is actually got stuck. >> are there resources there to help people-and-a-half fwat t n process? >> yes, ma'am. there's help text and the call center. the team is working quite vigorously to help keep improving the user and the flow so that you need less help. >> and how are you assessing or dribti indistributing the feedb from users. how are you communicating that feedback? >> you can make it faster, by

the way. so people are working on that. but there's feedback coming from a variety of different sources from users, from folks in the field. from the call center. it includes new york's great success and that continues to hum along very nicely. >> well, thank you, my time has expired. i see that sleeping on the floor is paying off in your hard work. >> it's a team. small team. i'm just a part of it. >> the team. thank you. >> i thank the gentle lady. we know gou to the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman.

while i am very skept skeptical about our grovt's ability to run, get under these programs and people in companies that are getting filthy rich all of these programs. and i have an estimate here on the cost on all the technology that was the estimate of omb as of august 30th before all of the problems surfaced. they said we would spend $516.34 million on the project. now we've seen estimates way wov that. i have a question about how much all of this is going to cost us to straighten these out and are

these going to be continual costs each year. we have to spend more and more on the technology. secondly, a greater concern. i have two stories here from the washington post about ten days ago and one from cbs news a couple days later. and they say the administration knew 3 1/2 years in advance that the problems were going to occur. larry summers, director of the white house's national economic council had just received a m o memo. they said no one was under instruction of translating the 2,000 page statute into reality.

how much is this going to cost? and secondly, how long is it going to take when the administration and you all have had three and a half years warning that this was going to happen? how much longer is it going to take to straighten all of this out. >> mr. powder, you seem to be giving the best answers. >> i can comment on the cost figure what we know to date. if you look at omb documentation, there are exhibits where you report spending by fiscal year. so by the end of september, it was north of $600 million spent. now,i will caveat that by saying that did include irs costs associated with that.

i think that's a key question, how much that will wind up being. >> dusz anybody know? if we've spent $600 million already and it's not working? does anybody have any idea how much all of this was going to cost us in the end? nobody knows. >> how long -- to go to the second question, how long is this going to take. if you eve had three and a half years to get ready and you can keep your plan,you can keep your doctor. your health care costings are going to go down as much as $25. we now know all of that is false or incorrect. how much longer is it going to take? another 3 1/2 years to get this straightened out? >> i think it's important to note that americans are getting

it straight today. the focus today, as i said if my opening statement, is about continuous improvement and making sure that we make that even better and stronger. >> well, they're getting insurance, but millions are getting their policies kangserred. what i'm asking about is all of the technology. i mean, if we've had three and a half years the administration knew this was going to happen, how much longer is it going to take us? >> would the jentsle man yield? >> yes, sir. we have to distinguish individuals from the private sector. i would suspect that they knew what their burn rate was, they knew what their time was. that, in fact neither of their companies would exist if they had launched their product quite like this.

but the gentleman could include their experience in the private sector if they'd like to compare this launch with the launch of each of their companies. you're not on the ground running

these programs from day-to-day. >> you're begging an angel kapt list to give you more money. with that, we go to the gentle lady from the district of columbia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. although you've called witnesses who have -- who are being asked to fix a plane while it's in the air, i do believe oversight is appropriate in light of the round of surprises we have had. let me try to clear spg omethin up, mr. chairman. there was, for mr. chao, a round of questions about the pri-flight checklist. and i do have a document that said testing successfully, yes. if you look more deeply into the document, you done had this before you where you had a cti checklist. their defect report. it is entirely con sis at the

present time, mr. chao, with what you have said. this defect report says there were 22 defects. >> would the gentle lady make that document available. >> i would be glad to make this available to you and to the press. now, let me, you know, this -- i'm also troubled by how the committee pulls this into evidence. in this case, the rollout is accused of not knowing enough. and now, they've been accused of direct i directing matters with the anonymous shopper function. even the chairman has said that publicly on television. so i'd like to ask mr. chao about this issue.

this notion and the question really has to do with whether you were forced to register. and then shop, whether that change was made from shop and then register, register and then shop, whether that change was made because of the involvement of the woi house in any way. >> absolutely not. it was a decision made on the resultings of testing. but to consciously know that it failed testing and then to put it in to production for people

to use is not what we do. if the test results show that it is not working, we don't put it into production. >> would the gentle lady yield sm. >> i certainly will, mr. chair han, if you make sure i get my time. >> of course. would you stop the clock? the gentle lady's information, i've been told, the one that you're referring to is, in fact, the roll out to the decision that it had passed. i think the conclusion of the document is clear. documents show it passed the test. was it perfect? no. but if you can only get six people obama day r on day one, some might say that the web site was not passing the test in those first two days, either. so hopefully, that document, you can make it available to all of under the circumstances.

i've been told that's simply the part of the supporting documents that cms has in their own documents, which is that portion which was excluded and we've been told in testimony that, in fact, they were told by people at cms to turn it off. and that those people were being instrukted by people at the white house. >> let me clear that up, mr. president -- i mean mr. chairman. >> okay. >> let's look at the document. let's have people look at the fine print and decide whether or got when these 22 defects were noted. i got it in black and white here. you say the white house did not say to turn off the anonymous shopper mr. chao. is that your testimony.

i remember seeing that on television. let me say something about sticker shock. she found that the same -- that's now 267 different policyings. some are finding sticker shock works the other way. now, i want to -- i want to drill down on this decision from the white house.

was there a white house directive that because the decision came not because i want to make sure your testimony remains because there's been some difference the chairman cited, that there was no white house directive. but the reason for pulling the anonymous shopper was because the function failed testing. does that continue to be your testimony? >> correct. if we would have put it into production, even though it's an anonymous chopping or browsing that requires some atrbts about your preferences, your demographics to approximate what tax credit ranges you would qualify for so you would then move into shoming or plant repair.

it didn't work in calculating the approximate tax credit. so if we allow people to go through that, they would have gotten erroneous information and that would have been much worse than not having it at all. >> and i've already pointed to a document -- and by the way, this document is from september. did you get anything from the white house to delay the shopper function? were there any political situations that went into your decision to do so? >> none what so ever. i look at the facts of whether the system is going to be ready. everything is always a hundred percent perfect. and there are certain toll rantss. but in this case, it failed so miserably, that we could got let people use it. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from north carolina.

could you yield for just 10 second. >> happy to. >> mr. chao, if it couldn't calculate the prices properly, when people went through the back door, that it did go through their plan and let them shop a completely different portal. >> if you don't go through -- >> no, no, i've taken six seconds from the man. >> if you fill out an online application and you put your information in, you ask for financial assistance. >> yeah, you to through everything. be u you're saying you didn't get d right rice through the same software. >> no, anonymous shopping was using different software. >> okay. well, that remains to be seen. mr. mchenry, thank you. >> mr. chao, all my constituents care about, want the know, is

when they log on, is their data, all of their personally identifiable information, is that as secure as if nay do online banking? >> it was designed, implemented -- >> i mean, that's a yes or no question. >> it was design ed, implemente and tested to be secure. >> so it was fully tested. >> best