to when you shared some of the pitfalls in terms of what was going on? >> my understanding is they understood and they were working. i don't know further. >> did they ever come back to you in terms of the shortcomings and what needed to be done, any concerns that were raised by them? a e never -- i never got depiction from them, but we did fully talk about the risks that we saw and we passed those along, all along the way. >> ms. spellecy. >> our solution was ready to go october 1, 2013. we successfully completed end-to-end testing between equifax work force solutions and the c.m.s. data hub. prior to that date -- so we did not anticipate any sort of problems with our connection nd have not experienced any. >> mr. lau. >> we, too, were ready to

process on 10/1, had done extensive internal testing of our processees and systems and our first awareness of the difficulties with the hub was 10/1 -- the portal, i'm sorry, was on 10/1 when we attempted to do key entry. >> so you didn't test it prior to october 1? >> no, no, sir. >> mr. waxman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we evaluate the problems with this website, i think it's important that we focus on the facts. my republican colleagues have been predicting that health care reform would be a disaster for three years now and every time they've been wrong. they said insurance rates would skyrocket. in fact, they're lower than predicted. they said health care costs would soar. in fact, they've grown at a record low rate.

>> do you think it will be available to them? >> i do, sir. >> why are you so confident? can you explain that these problems will be fixed in time. >> because as i said, we're seeing improvements day over day. we're continuing to run queries against our database. we're running -- reviewing system logs. we're fine tuning our servers. we are analyzing the codes for anomalies. every day we're finding challenges in the system and making those corrections. as you would with any system that will go live. when a system goes into production, these are the things you would typically find after production. maybe not to the level of detail that's happened in this experience, but when a system goes live, these are the things

you continue to do, you continue to provide system builds and put performance tuning to the application to make sure it continues to improve time over time. >> thank you. mr. slavitt, your company has been deeply involved in troubleshooting and fixing the problems on healthcare.gov. do you have any reason to believe that this launch will prevent americans were getting insurance for the coming year? >> congressman, i'm confident hat the data services hub that q.s.i. developed and the eidm registration tool are working well today and will continue to work well. >> you had problems with your part early on but you fixed them? >> for the first seven days, correct. >> so problems kble fixed? >> we doubled the capacity of that registration tool within seven days. >> ms. campbell, did s.g.i. pass its systems test before it went live? >> yes, it did. >> you felt the system was

ready to go on october 1, is that right? >> in a is correct. >> you -- neither you nor anyone else at the table thought or made a recommendation not to go forward on october 1 because you didn't think the system was ready, is that a correct statement? >> that's a correct statement. >> mr. slavitt. > i'd refer back to my earlier answer. we did not make recommendations. >> we did not make recommendations. >> we did not either. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> i recognize the vice chair of the full committee, mrs. blackburn from tennessee. >> thank you for your testimony. i'd like each of you to submit in writing for me how much you have been paid to date and then how much you're being paid on retainer or either to clear up and so if you'll submit that to us for the record, that would be wonderful. hipaa compliance, were you all

trained in hipaa compliance prior to beginning your contract? i'll just go right down the line, ms. campbell. >> yes. >> mr. slavitt. >> yes. >> ms. spellecy. >> yes. >> mr. lau. >> yes. >> did your companies meet as a group with h.h.s. before you started the process? anyone? did your companies meet together with h.h.s. to discuss the integration? mr. lau, go ahead. >> yes, the security people from c.m.s. and others have coordinated this. >> all right. let me ask each of you a question. how many people in each of your companies have physical access to the database servers storing the enrolling information? >> we have zero access to the

database. >> zero. >> i believe the also zero for our qssi. >> we have no access to c.m.s.'s servers. >> ok. mr. lau. >> 2,000 people. >> 2,000 people have access to the database? >> through the key entry of the applications. >> ok. you know, under hipaa regs, no one is supposed to have direct access to that database. ok. under the current technology infrastructure, how many separate servers or virtual servers in the cloud are being used to host and store data for healthcare.gov? and ms. campbell, mr. slavitt, i think that's primarily to you. >> i don't have the exact number. what i can tell you from a c.g.i. perspective we have anywhere between 80 to 100 servers. >> so you have 80 to 100 different servers that are

holding information? >> that are passing information through our system. >> ok. mr. slavitt. >> mrs. blackburn, i don't have -- congresswoman blackburn, we don't have the answer to that question specifically as to how many servers we can follow that up. we don't store any data, however, any personal consumer data in any of our systems. >> ok. then, ms. campbell and ms. spellecy, let me ask you this. , is pplication information that being stored separately from the patient database information? ms. campbell. >> could you repeat the question again? >> the applicant servers and the patient database servers, are you holding this information on your patients and on the database separately? are you holding those separately? >> we're not holding any information. >> you're not holding any.

>> we are provided only with limited information. social security numbers, names and date of birth, which we use to match against our system. >> ok. mr. lau, you mentioned that you all are working through the paper entry and then the data entry from the paper applications. >> that's correct, yes. >> so where are you physically storing the data that is collected and given to you? >> when the paper comes in, it's scanned and converted to electronic images and then the paper is destroyed once the image has been verified. electronic image is put into a database and kept only until the information is key entered and then it's put in archive and will be retained no more than 30 days. >> retain it no more than 30 days. k.

let me ask each of you. does your system keep detailed error logs that can be referenced with the difficulties that are surrounding healthcare.gov? ms. campbell, i'll begin with you. >> yes, we do keep error logs. >> yes, we do keep error logs for our product tools. >> yes, we keep error logs. >> we keep track of successful or unsuccessful application. >> ok. do you want to submit these error logs to you? >> i will have to confer back with c.m.s. as to what ocuments we can and cannot provide. >> you know, it would be interesting to see those error logs because i think it would give us an idea of how many people are actually accessing this system and then the problems that you've had with scaleability on this.

i think we'd like to see what is causing these systems to crash and where the security flaws may be in this also and with that i'm over time. i'll yield back. >> thank you. mr. dingell. >> we are having some questions before us which are very important. i note the problems are not surprising given the fact there's been considerable obstruction to the program going forward. i received a letter from a constituent recently. she said, i only make $12. i will buy my own health insurance through the market. i will therefore be eligible for a subsidy making health care affordable at last. this is what the debate is all about. there are problems, but we have time to fix it. so let's work together and get

this matter resolved so the people benefit and do not suffer. these questions are for cheryl campbell of c.g.i. federal. one, is -- these are yes or no, if you please. is c.g.i. responsible for developing the software for the facilitated marketplace, yes or no? >> yes, sir. >> did c.g.i. obtain this contract through a competitive bidding process? >> yes, sir. >> does c.g.i. have experience providing other information technology services to the federal government, yes or no? >> yes. >> did c.g.i. conduct testing of your software for the marketplace website prior to october 1 when the launching took place, yes or no? >> yes. >> was c.g.i. responsible for testing the function of the entirety of healthcare.gov? >> no. >> if not, who was? >> c.m.s.

>> ok. do you believe it's unusual for such a large project to experience some problems after it launches, yes or no? >> no. >> despite the initial problems with the website, have consumers still been able to enroll in the health insurance plans, yes or no? >> yes. >> do you believe that the progress has been made getting the website to run as intended since it launched three weeks ago, yes or no? >> yes. >> these questions are for mr. lau of serco. is serco responsible for handling paper applications for health insurance in the marketplace? >> yes, sir. >> wall the problems with the website, -- with all the problems with the website, many people are turning to paper applications. does serko have the capability to handle larger amounts of paper applications than

originally expected, yes or no? >> yes. >> the last question is for all witnesses and we'll start with ms. campbell. do you all commit to working with c.m.s., congress and all the stakeholders until the website is fixed and functioning as intended, yes or no? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> i'd appreciate it very much if you would each submit for the record a summary of actions that you have taken to fix the website after october -- after the october 1 launch, could you please do that? >> yes. >> all right. i'd also ask that you submit, also, for the record suggestions for there to be changes and improvements in the way the matter is being dealt with by the federal government and any changes that you might deem would be useful in seeing

to it that the matter goes forward as it can and should. could you do that for me, please? >> yes. >> ok. that question i hope you understand is to all of you. i want to thank you all. it's clear that we have plenty to do in the coming weeks, and i hope and pray that we will be up to the task. i urge my colleagues on the committee, this is a time when we can work together on something good. maybe we didn't agree with the program or with the legislation, but we do now have a duty to see to it that it works for the benefit of the american people and that we achieve the benefits which we hope we can achieve. i would note this legislation originated under the hand and pen of my dear friend, bob dole, and john chafee and is therefore, i think, subject to

the charge that it has some bipartisanship, even though little could be found during the process of it. i yield back the balance of my time with thanks. >> thank you. mr. barton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to put slide number two back up. unfortunately, that blue highlighted thing is hard to read, so i'm going to read it again. this is the part of the signup that is hidden. the applicant does not see this, but it is in the source code. and what that blue highlighted area that's been circled in red says is, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting stored on this information system. now, ms. campbell, mr. slavitt, you said you were hipaa

compliant. how in the world can this be hipaa compliant when hipaa is designed to protect the patient's privacy and this explicitly says in order to continue you have to accept this condition that you have no privacy -- no reasonable expectation of privacy? >> sir, that would be the decision made by c.m.s. >> so you're not -- this is news to you? >> i -- >> you're the main prime contractor. you've never seen this before? >> sir, that's not the -- we are the prime -- one of the prime contractors, yes. >> have you seen this before? were you aware this was in the source code? >> this requirement is -- >> are you aware this was in the source code? >> yes. >> you are aware. do you think that's hipaa compliant? how can that be? you know it's not hipaa compliant. admit it. you're under oath. >> sir, that is c.m.s.'s

decision -- >> you told mrs. blackburn that it was hipaa compliant. you know that's not hipaa compliant. you admit that you knew it was in there. it may be their decision to hide it, but you're the company. not you personally, but your company is the company that put this together. we're telling every american, including all my friends on the democrat side and their huge privacy advocates. diane degette is co-chair of the privacy caucus with me. you're telling every american that you sign up with this or even attempt to, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. that is a direct contradiction to hipaa and you know it. yes or no? >> once again, c.m.s. has us complied to a set of rules and

regulations that they established under our contract. and that is a c.m.s. call. that is not a contractor call. >> to break the law? you're now saying that c.m.s. made a decision to break the law, do you agree with in a decision? >> sir, i cannot make a -- i cannot speculate on c.m.s. >> all right. let me ask mr. slavitt. >> this is the first time i'm seeing and becoming familiar with that source code. >> so you were not aware of it? >> i was not aware of it. >> ok. let me go back to ms. campbell. she's at least admitted she knew about it. who made the decision to hide this or put it in the source code in the first place? >> i can't give you that answer. i don't know. >> who do you report to? >> i can go back to my -- >> was it some junior underling at c.m.s., was it the director of c.m.s.? i mean, who made -- who generically made decisions at the policy level that your company interfaced with, give

me that person's name? >> there are many decisions made under this program over this last two, 2 1/2 years. >> so is this another example of where things just go into a cloud? all you are are a contractor that spent $300 million, $400 million, so it goes to some cloud and then it comes back from down on high? who wrote that? >> i am not clear as to who wrote that. >> do you -- let me ask it this way. do you think that should be in the -- do you think that should be a requirement to sign up for obamacare, that you give up any reasonable expectation of privacy? >> sir, that is not my jurisdiction. >> you are a u.s. citizen. >> one way or another. >> well, i answer, i don't think it should be. i don't think it should be. let me ask -- my time's about

to expire. let me ask one more question. ms. campbell, did you do any kind of pilot program on this before it was rolled out? >> no, there was no pilot program. >> ok. and you said that it was complicated and big but it was meeting your expectation. do you think it's right that 99% of the people that try to go through the system get rejected, can't even complete the application? is that a system that you're proud of? >> sir, this is the system that we are working every day to make improvements. >> well, in my -- if we have a system that almost no one can successfully navigate, that we have to go to the paper system of this gentleman's company down there, that is a system that's failed. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i started out in my opening

statement saying there was no legitimacy to this hearing and the last line of the questioning certainly confirms is that. hipaa only applies when there's health information being provided. that's not in play here today. no health information is required in the application process. and why is that? because pre-existing conditions don't matter. so once again, here we have my republican colleagues trying to scare everybody -- >> if the gentleman will yield? >> no, i will not yield to this monkey court or whatever -- >> this is not moonky court. >> do whatever you want. i am not yielding. i am trying to tell you that the problem here -- >> protecting american citizens -- >> no pre-existing condition. pre-existing conditions don't matter. hipaa doesn't apply. there is no health information in the process. you're asked about your address, your date of birth. you are not asked health information. so why are we going down this path? because you are trying to scare people so they don't apply and so therefore the legislation

gets delayed or the affordable care act gets defunded or it's repealed. that's all it is, hoping people won't apply. well, the fact of the matter is there are millions of people out there, over 20 million that are going on this site and they are going to apply and they are ultimately going to be able to enroll. in fact, many of them already have enrolled. i think my republican colleagues forget that a lot of people are enrolling through state exchanges rather than the federal exchange. if it wasn't for the fact that many republican governors, including my own from new jersey, had agreed to set up state exchanges, then we wouldn't be putting so much burden on the federal system. but i just want to give you some examples. in new york and washington, over 30,000 people have enrolled in coverage. in oregon, over 50,000 people have enrolled. in california, over 100,000 have started application. in kentucky, nearly 16,000 people have enrolled. so you know, in website, in federal website is not the only way that you apply. in fact, you can go to your

community health center. you can go to the 1-800 number. you can go to -- there are many ways for people to enroll and all we talk about here is the website because you're trying to make a case that people should not enroll. now, i want to ask two questions. ms. campbell, am i correct that c.g.i. is doing work in several states in addition to the work on healthcare.gov and would you comment on that, please, in these states? >> that is correct. we are -- we are supporting a number of states. and we -- those states are -- we are a prime contractor in colorado. the prime contractor in hawaii. a prime contractor in massachusetts. a prime contractor in vermont. we are a subcontractor in california, a subcontractor in kentucky and a subcontractor in new mexico. >> and you -- and that appears to be going well, obviously a lot of people have enrolled, as i said previously. i know that in -- when mr.

waxman asked a question, you said you had confidence that whatever problems exist in the federal data system or website that they would be fixed by december 15, and you expect that millions of uninsured people and others who are trying to enroll would be able to by then so that they could -- their insurance would be effective january 1, was that my understanding? >> that's correct. >> ok. and i wanted to ask mr. slavitt. the data hub that your company set up is working well to connect to the federal data when residents of those states apply. so what i'm trying -- what i'm asking, mr. slavitt, if i go through new york or california or some of the other states that have responsible governors that have set up these state exchange, unlike mine in new jersey, that if you do that or you go through, you know, the 1-800 number or you go through, you know, the other means that you can to apply in person, that they can access the hub,

is that correct? >> in a is correct. >> ok. -- >> that is correct. >> ok. i'm trying to tell my colleagues the success of all the state exchanges and, again, a lot of people are being able to enroll. i think the figures show when state governors work to expand medicaid and work to make sure their own citizens get coverage they can make a big difference. and they also show these statistics how shortsighted it is of republican governors to refuse to expand the medicaid program in their states because that's another big factor to the a.c.a. that really isn't being discussed today. again, i never cease to be amazed how, you know, the g.o.p. uses tactics to try to scare people and that's what's again happening here today. i was hoping this hearing wouldn't end up accomplishing that goal. and i would just ask, you know, the public, please, you know, try to find means to enroll. there are a lot of things other than the federal website, and don't be scared by my g.o.p.

colleagues into thinking, you know, somehow you're going to lose your privacy. there's no health information provided as part of this exercise. thank you, gentlemen. >> mr. hall. >> mr. chairman, thank you. this hearing's entitle ppaca implementation failures. didn't know or didn't disclose. i guess this hearing really is to set us in little bit of shape to deal with ms. sebelius. i think she's going to be here next week. president obama often attempts to paint republicans as being out of order, downright crazy in their criticism of the health care law. i want to talk about that a minute before i ask my question. i hear from my district and from americans across the country that the craziest part of the last few weeks is seeing the president's top health care official latching on jon stewart while americans are having to deal with the

consequences -- with the consequences with the president's flawed health care law. for example, i have a teacher there in my hometown where she has to face premiums that will consume a quarter of her monthly income or another constituent that's tried to comply with the law but has not yet received information about their coverage as promised and claimed, ", i am very concerned that my family will not be in compliant, will face i.r.s. fines. they are calling for a repeal of the individual mandate and most of them are calling for that. yet, another who has been advised that their current coverage will end december 31, 2013. so much for keeping what you have. and concern it this dysfunctional health care will expose me to uh-uh wanted liability that i won't get coverage through the website. now -- and how verbose is this? you know, the founding fathers in 1776 declared their independence.

next year they wrote a constitution that was 4,500 words. in -- this wording in here, the regulations not voted on by congress contains a massively 11,588,000,000 words. i just don't know how anybody could ever answer these things. i just want to ask you in an environment where people are worried whether or not they have a job and there's no jobs now and if we go on like we are going now there won't be employers a year from now, they now have to worry about navigating a flawed law where the chances of finding affordable coverage are often less than before the law's existence. so my question to each of you is, c.m.s. has had three years and most of you had over a year to ensure this law could work. what do you want me to tell the americans who are terrified of really facing i.r.s. fines for not being able to access coverage they actually can't fford?

i guess we start with you, ms. campbell. you chose not to use your opinion. are you in position to use some words that we can give hope that the american people that you are doing your job that you were hired out to do? is there hope? >> so if i understand the question you're asking, is the system going to be there for them to sign up? >> i beg your pardon? >> what is the -- can you repeat the question? >> just give me something to tell these people that i related to you that are real people, honest people that have to live with what you all have created. you set up, you run the website or eople to sign up exchange. >> and we're continuing to -- >> you must know a whole not

more to know what to tell these people. i'm asking these people to give some help along that line. if you can't express your opinions to the people you report to, you sure can't express them to me. >> i would tell your constituents that the system is improving day over day and that we are continuing to work to make improvements for them to be able to enroll. >> did you really start with one in delaware? >> pardon me, sir. >> did you really start out with one in delaware? that is what the liberal press is reporting. >> i am not familiar. >> how about my time? how much more time do i have? >> 38 seconds. >> all right. i'll yield -- yeah. i'll hear from any of you. i'm asking for help. i want help. i have 700,000 people that i have to report to. d i think about 690,000 of them hate the obama law.

my time's up. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. eshoo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. having listened to several colleagues already as well as the witnesses, i'm struck by two things. first, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they're serious to pursue what i think is the much larger issue of federal procurement, how it takes place, how we end up with contractors that say essentially say everything is all right when it isn't, that's going to take a bipartisan effort to really bring about a fix. but we have to keep in mind that these are the people that shut the entire federal government down, caused pain

across the country and extracted some $24 billion out of america's economy. and the american people were put through hell. that was all over shutting down delaying or defunding the affordable care act. so there isn't any love lost between the republicans and the law. and that's their position, and it's abundantly clear. but i think that what the other thing i'm struck with by today is in reading all of the submitted written testimony, when i read it last night, there wasn't anyone that wrote testimony and submitted it. let me put it this way. what you said was, and i read it more than once, that everything was a ok. no one acknowledged anything. now, we got problems with this website. there's no question about it.

now, i represent silicon valley, and i find this very hard to follow. this is the 21st century. it's 2013. there are thousands of websites that handle concurrent volumes far larger than what healthcare.gov was faced with. you keep speaking about unexpected volumes, ms. campbell. and that really sticks in my kragh, i have to tell you that. i tell you, there are thousands of websites that carry far more traffic. i think that's really kind of a lame excuse. amazon and ebay don't crash the week before christmas, and pro flowers don't crash on valentine's day. now, in the testing of this, qssi, can i. and

you describe exactly what kind of testing you did as the main contractors for this? i mean, there is internal testing and then kind of external, you turn it around and you test it for the outside. are you saying you didn't test, that the tests worked very well, both inside and out, or that you turned it all over to .m.s.? nybody want to answer? i mean, what's happening, do ou have an answer? >> are you asking me that question? >> i'm asking both of you and you're wasting my time with your silence. if you don't have an answer, then say you don't. but the beta testing and the

inside testing i think is clearly the main contractors' job. and you're essentially saying that everything was all right. it's not all right. >> there was testing done throughout the process. c.m.s. did the end-to-end testing, but each component did their separate testing. we had independent contractors testing our system as well. >> and what was the net result of that? what you just described? >> that the system was -- that our portion of the system that c.g.i. was responsible for, that our functionality worked. >> and it didn't, it didn't in the end result, correct? >> when it became part of an integrated end-to-end system. >> that wasn't a surprise. do you have something to say about the testing? >> so let me be clear about our role of testing. our work, the data services hub was tested, tested well and tested adequately. in addition hahlly, we played a

role as one of independent contractors testing the code by other independent contractors. we tested every piece of code we received timely. we returned a full report of any bugs we found to c.m.s. promptly and made everyone fully aware of all the potential risks and concerns that were made available to us. >> well, i'm now over my time, but i think that what we'd like o hear from you is when you're going to fulfill your contracts to the taxpayers of the country so that we can go on and have people insured. taxpayers have paid you a lot of money, and you're essentially saying to us everything is all right when it's not. so i'll submit some questions in writing as well. and with that i'll yield back. >> thank you. mr. shimkus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have a lot of questions. i am going to try to go fast. mr. slavitt, i'll follow up and

ask the comments. we would like the names of the personnel at c.m.s. who you provided the risks that you identified in your analysis of other contractors' code, can you do that? >> yeah. let me follow-up with you on that. > that's fine, for the record. nd what i am going to ask my colleagues to do is ask for names. there are people there, and i'm going to venture to guess that the regular bureaucrats did their job, the political appointees manipulated the system to hide data they didn't want the public to know. and we're going to find out who that is, because that's the crux of this problem. i've got a letter from a constituent who basically says, we have never been without health insurance. however, the affordable care act may force us into the position of going without if. this whole battle is about

whether americans can have affordable health care. and this system is not helping in this debate. and i just want my friend, mr. pallone, my friend, ms. degette, i was ranking member when this bill got passed and signed into law. after it got signed into law, we had 13 subcommittee hearings on things like smokeless tobacco, antibiotic resistant, ealth care pricing, national electronic schedule reporting system. each one of those i asked for a hearing on the health care law. and it's in the congressional record. statements like on april 28, 2010, we must hold hearings on the new health reform acts. may 6, 2010, we should also call secretary sebelius to testify. june 9, 2010, we need at that hearing on the new health care law. june 10, shouldn't the committee hold hearings and

take immediate action? my friend, mr. waxman, always sends us letters. i want to do this. i want to do that. we sent countless letters to the democrat majority at the time asking for hearings on the recently passed health care law. guess what, no hearings. so when speaker pelosi then said, we have to pass a bill before we know what's in it, we're finding out. we're finding out a flawed tech system that's a mockery. now, let's talk about this. i accept the premise that you tested your individual section. but we are getting to the point of the integrated system. when was the integrated system tested? starting with ms. campbell down to the end of the table, when was the integrated system tested? >> during the last two weeks in september. >> and what was the result of that? >> i don't have the results, you'd have to get that result fathers c.m.s. >> who would i have to go to to

get that c.m.s.? who is your point of contact at c.m.s.? >> so there are a number of people. >> give me a name. >> henry chou. >> give me another name. >> ms. snyder. >> you got another one? >> peter -- peter oh. >> ok. mr. slavitt. >> here's what we saw -- >> isn't that a beta test? wouldn't that put the different components together and see if the system worked? >> here's what we saw. we didn't see the full kind of integrated end-to-end system that you are talking about until the couple days leading up to the launch. >> shouldn't we have had that? >> ideally, yes. >> wouldn't any other system, corporate entity rolling out system to see if it tested and worked before going out in the field? >> yes. >> mr. slavitt, do you have any names? >> i don't have names. >> would you be happy to tell

us? >> we'll follow up. >> so we tested. >> a beta testing, end-to-end, when did it happen? >> the information only comes to us after the application is completed. so we were testing up to the time that the system went live. and as far as we were concerned, everything that came to us we were able to process. >> quickly. >> our systems are not integrated with the main system. our main interaction with it is key entry. >> and mr. slavitt, i'd like the names by tomorrow morning if you can do that. finally, i want to go to ms. campbell. the feature that was changed on the website, who told you to do that? >> could you repeat that, i didn't hear you? >> the see first plans. the website failed. the problem is people don't know what the cost of the plans are. you all made a change to say see plans first, just reported yesterday by i think cbs. who made that decision?

>> i don't know. >> can you give us the names? >> we can get you a name. >> ok. who made the decision if you are younger than 50 you would be quoted a 25-year-old health policy? >> don't have an answer for you. >> can you give us a name? >> i can try. go back to my team to see if they have a name. >> ok. who made the decision that if you're older than 50 you get quoted a 50-year-old policy? >> the same. i'd have to go back to my team. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, it amazes me how our republican colleagues are so concerned about the affordable care act since they tried to defund it, they tried to kill it, she shut down the government because of it. do you think there is politics here? perhaps me should work with us to help improve the affordable care act instead of playing gotcha politics here this morning and trying to scare people not to enroll in the affordable care act.

there will be plenty of time to figure out who's responsible for the various problems facing the exchanges. what's more important to me is that americans would be able to access the numerous benefits found in the plans offered through the exchanges. so let me ask -- i know it's been answered before, but i want to just get a specific answer. how soon will it take to correct these glitches so that people can have unfettered access to the website? i know things are improving, but how soon will it be, do you think, so that the average american can do healthcare.gov and get right in without any of the glitches, ms. campbell? >> what i can tell you is i have a team of people working around the clock trying to quickly get this resolved. as i said, there's improvement day over day. i cannot give you an exact date as to when it will be completely to satisfaction. >> how about a guess? >> i would prefer not doing that. i don't like to raise expectations. >> mr. slavitt.

>> we don't happen to control the pieces of the website that i believe you're referring to. we are committed to continuing to make taint the capabilities that we've -- maintain the capabilities we've built so far and help out when asked to do so. >> let me say this i hope it's as soon as possible. i think there are numerous benefits in the law and i want the american people to utilize this law. i'm proud it came out of this committee and i'm proud we had many, many months of deliberation before we passed it. now, new york state, my home state, has also been experiencing some technical and capacity related issues since october 1, but i think in new york it's a good example of what's possible when the federal government has a willing and enthusiastic partner in a.c.a. implementation. as of october 23, 174,000 new yorkers have completed their

application. new york continues to make improvements to its exchange website, including quadrupling the processing capacity. by the end of the week, individuals should be able to look up coverage based on various providers and doctors. but i think that with my republican colleagues, given those in favor say aye new found interest in seeing -- ven those new found interest in seeing, i see people championing the medicaid system in their own states so their most vulnerable citizens can get access for coverage and stop calling for continued repeal votes. now, many were on in committee last time -- this was mentioned before but i want to emphasize it. a major new health benefit was introduced and that was medicare part d. it's easy to forget now but when that program was introduced, there were significant problems. the website was bulky. headlines gave out bad information. when the program opened,

pharmacists called it a nightmare, a disaster. and all kinds of things like that. so ms. campbell, am i correct that c.g.i. did some work for medicare part d in the early years of the program? >> that is correct. >> well, then you probably remember, like i do, that these problems were solved and soon enough medicare part d became a popular and successful program and by the way, we improved that program by closing the part d drug doughnut hole in the affordable care act. so that's one important lesson to remember now, that even if a program gets off to a rocky start, it does not mean we need to jump to conclusions about its long-term success. and that's why i'm confident that even with the website problems, the affordable care act will be successful. there's another lesson to be learned from that experience. all the members of this committee, democrats and republicans, medicare part d, worked together to fix the problem. democrats did not sit on the sideline and root for failure. we pitched in and helped.

republican committee members, in particular, insisted we be patient with the part d glitches. and some of the members of this committee, and i can quote what they said at that time, the new benefit and its implementation are hardly perfect but i hope we can work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what's wrong with the problem. and if we can make some changes, fix it. let us do it on a bipartisan basis. it's too big of a program. it's too important to too many people not to do that. another member said, anytime something is new, there's going to be some glitches. it is of no value, as a matter of fact, it is a negative value and a questionable ethical value. i think if it people only spend their time criticizing the glitches that are in the program, as with any program that occurs, whether it is a public or private program, criticizing it, standing on the outside is not good. so let me just say that let's take that same approach we had with medicare part d, let's work together on both sides of the aisle to improve this program and not play got you politics. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> mr. pitts. >> i thank the chairman. question to everyone. have any of you or your companies prepared memorandums or summaries explaining where the problems are with healthcare.gov? ms. campbell. would you submit those for the record if you have? >> if we are allowed to do so, we have to get permission under our contract with c.m.s. >> but you have prepared summaries or memorandum? >> i wouldn't call them memorandum. i would say we probably have, you know, just a normal course we provided information about what's happening on our system. >> we'd appreciate if you'd submit that to the committee. mr. slavitt. >> nothing holistic in a you're striking to my knowledge. >> ms. spellecy. >> we don't have any involvement with healthcare.gov so we do not. >> mr. lau. >> likewise. >> all right.

to c.g.i. and qssi. "the washington post" reported this week, quote, when the website went live october 1, it locked up shortly after midnight as about 2,000 users attempted to complete the first step. is this true? ms. campbell. >> that is true. >> 2,000. >> i don't have the exact number. i just know that the system did have -- thank you for that follow-up. i don't have the exact number. what i can tell you is the system became overwhelmed. >> so only 2,000, not millions the administration has claimed. so if it crashed with only 2,000 users, is volume really the issue, as the administration claims? surely the website was designed to handle more than 2,000 users. ms. campbell. >> i was not -- c.g.i. is not responsible for it, as i call it, the front door.

so i don't think i am in position. >> who is responsible for the front door? >> qssi had the eidm piece. >> mr. slavitt. >> so what i can tell you is that the eidm tool is in fact capable now of handling all the demands that are being placed on it through the system. i would point out that the eidm tool is one part of a registration process that includes i think five vendors and multiple pieces of technology. so i can only speak to the eidm tool and their functioning. >> now, i listened to your testimony this morning. it sounded like you think everything is a-ok. it's not ok. we heard a variety of reasons as to the difficulties for why this site does not work. it includes the inability to brouse. required so many people to log in in a it was overwhelmed. poor coding, poor hardware. volume.

ms. campbell, why doesn't healthcare.gov work properly? >> sir, if there is with a a silver bullet to answer -- if there was a silver bullet to answer that question, i would. it is not just a component of what c.g.i. is responsible for. it's the end-to-end aspect that is challenged. there's components across the entire system -- across the ecosystem that can have an impact on the -- >> mr. slavitt. >> we absolutely take accountability for those first days when our tool was part of the issue in terms of being able to handle all of the unexpected volume. and we absolutely will take accountability for helping in any way we can to help this project go forward. fortunately today, the data services hub and the eidm tool are performing well. >> now, you were here on september 10 when we conducted the hearing in the health

subcommittee. i expressed my skepticism at the time, 40 days later, we've seen the exchange rollout, nothing short of disastrous. i'd like to ask again, c.g.i. and qssi, why were we told everything was ok a few weeks before? one of the biggest i.t. disasters in government history. ms. campbell. >> once again, sir, the portion of the system that c.g.i. was responsible for is where we had -- >> were you not aware of the problems consumers would face before october 1? >> we were not part of the end-to-end visibility throughout the system to understand exactly what was impacted. >> mr. slavitt. >> as i remember correctly, at that hearing there was a lot of focus on whether or not the data services hub would be ready. i think we were informed to be prepared to answer to this committee around and to your subcommittee around those

questions. we mentioned on that date that we thought the data services hub would be ready. it was indeed was ready. i don't think we had -- > did you express any concerns to this to c.m.s. >> all of the concerns and risks we saw based on the testing that we did and didn't see that was unrelated to our work, our work, as a matter of fact, we felt was on track and we expressed that to them as well. >> ms. campbell, my time's up. would you submit those memorandum communications to us within 24 hours, please? >> once again, under our contract with c.m.s., if we have permission to do so -- they are not memorandums. i'm not even -- i have to go back and see what we do have for you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. some of us have been on the committee a good while. i don't know if any of you had experience, because we also had

problems in 2003 when we created the prescription drug program and this committee did that. with much fewer participants. so what we're seeing now is it sounds like we have a success, we just don't have a computer to deal with it. i support the affordable care act. i know how dependable and affordable insurance coverage is to our families in our district. the stories i've heard from people are excited to sign up for the coverage remind me why this law is important. thousands of people in our district has been denied coverage in the past because of pre-existing conditions, are paid -- or pay for expensive coverage they couldn't rely on. that's why we need the affordable care act's new benefits and protection. that's why it's so frustrating that healthcare.gov has not worked the way we were promised. especially after hearing such optimistic testimony from niece organizations in september. ms. cam -- from these organizations in september. ms. campbell, i know you've been asked before but repetition helps us learn.

were you, too, optimistic in your prediction before our committee on october 1? >> i don't believe so, sir. >> well, what happened then, because obviously you're optimistic but in the last, you know, 23 days it's been a problem? >> you asked about september 10. september 10, we were quite optimistic that the -- that our portion of the system would work effectively when the system went live. >> well, again, it may have been too optimistic. mr. slavitt, mr. lau and ms. spellecy, were you, too, optimistic in your earlier testimony before the committee? >> congressman, we believable we have been prudent and cautious all the way through this project. we did express confidence to the subcommittee on september 10 that the data services hub would be ready on october 1 and it was. >> no, sir, our portion of the system has worked as we testified it would on september

10. >> the paper processing capability has been up and running since october 1 as well. >> well, obviously there's a oblem and it's not like an ostrich, we have to bury our head in the sand, and we need to fix it. we need to fix this problem. if you don't accept there's a problem, it's hard to fix it. >> sir, we do accept there are challenges. there is no question, there are problems, and we are working together to solve those problems. >> well, mr. chairman, hopefully we'll follow up in another month or so so we can see what's happening and so we can do our oversight like we're supposed to do. mr. slavitt, one problem that many people identified qssi's registration and access management to the website, the gateway of setting up an account, was this system overwhelmed by volume when healthcare.gov went live? >> so let me explain what happened and where things stand today with the registration tool. first of all, the registration

tool utilizes leading commercial software. it's widely deployed and it works in other settings across the -- >> i only have a minute and 48 seconds left. can you tell me, was the system overwhelmed? >> the system -- the registration system was overwhelmed with concurrent users. >> and have those problems been fixed? >> we have expanded the capacity greatly in the registration tool since then, yes. >> ok. are there any other problems in the data hub or the registration gateway managed by qssi that you're working to fix? >> i think problems come up, discreet problems come up routinely. our team has early warning systems. they addressed those problems and there's none that i am aware of outstanding. >> ms. campbell, c.g.i. is responsible for healthcare.gov website, now that the registration gateway has been fixed, we hope, are you encountering new problems? >> we are. we are looking at those problems and making those

corrections as they come up. >> and can you give us a background on those problems? if you would, give it to us in writing. do you have a privacy agreement with h.h.s., i think we can take care of that if we have to, on making sure this committee gets the information. do you expect to continue to make improvements and fix problems over the coming weeks? >> in a is our commitment, sir. >> well, as we know, we're all impatient. some of us on our side who believe in the affordable care act and didn't start from day one trying to repeal it want it to work and we want to make sure and i hope we have a majority support for if we need to do things to fix it that it will get done and so -- but i look forward to continuing to see -- i don't know if we need to put a parking space out front, mr. chair, but until we get this fixed we need to do that and i yield back my time.

>> mr. walden. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. . >> the system operated perfectly except when it all came together. then they pointed fingers at somebody else. i'm feeling a lot of that today, only as a person who represents 3/4 of a million people and $500 million on the line. that's why we are here to figure out what went wrong. i'd just like to know on this whole end to end thing. it sound like each of you has said that you designed your system and tested it to the specifications you were given by cms is that accurate? yes or no. miss campbell?

>> that is correct. >> mr. slavitt? >> yes. >> our systems are not integrated. >> you get not quite as much student here today. i want to go then to the first two. if you designed it to c.m.s.'s specifications and tested it and felt it was good to go, where did this break down? when would you have preferred that the end to end testing had been done by c.m.s.? miss campbell? >> see if i can get all those questions -- >> i'll make it simple. when should the end to end test have started? >> there's never enough testing for sure. >> when did it occur? >> the last two weeks in september. >> so you think that's an adequate time frame for a system

that mammoth, 1/6 of the nation's economy and millions of people coming into it, did that give your company adequate time to make sure everything was integrated and work? >> it would have been better to have more time. >> how much more time would you have preferred? >> i don't have -- >> did you make any recommendations to cms about the need for end to end testing that occurred sooner than the last two weeks before it went live? >>dy not. >> did anyone in your company. >> i have to go back. >> i'd like to know that. >> ideally integrated testing would have occurred well before that date. >> how far in advance? >> with enough time to correct the flaws -- i couldn't give you an exact date. >> do you do any work outside of c.m.s. where end to end test something required? >> yes. >> in those situations are they private or government? >> both. >> in those situations what's

the standard protocol? what's the recommended industry standard for end to end test before rolling up a major website like this? >> months would be nice. >> miss campbell is that accurate for your company as well? >> that's correct. >> you were given two weeks and yet months would have been nice. is that what -- if you were to do a contract for a system like this, what would you ask for in terms of doing the end to end est? >> we were given two weeks. that was c.m.s. who decided to conduct that test. >> you want your company come out of this looking good not spending your time with us as much as i'm sure you're enjoying it, but what should the industry standard called for -- have you ever undertaken -- bringing up a website, being part of something this big affecting this many eople's lives? >> have you ever done one this

big? >> of this complexity? >> correct. >> i -- this is by far, i think, the most complex in our country in a very long time. >> i think you're right. where should the end to end test have been done. if you could have had -- if your company could have made that decision, what would you have made a recommendation for the complete integrated end to end testing to begin? when should that have started? >> it would have had -- we would have loved to have had months. >> months. that's the same -- i was hearing that from people on the outside that this all was coming together, i chair the subcommittee on communications and technology, as i would reach out and ask, how do you think this is going to work, this is exactly how outside people predicted it would turn out. here we are today. this isn't a partisan issue about health care. people expect this thing to work. i went through this in oregon with our d.m.v., department of motor vehicles spent, i think, it was $50 million or $60

million back in the late 1980's and finally scrapped the whole system because it was a failure. we said stop. i don't want this to be a failure. but i don't -- i want you-all to get it fixed. i'm very disturbed that c.m.s. did not give you the adequate time that would be an industry standard to test this before every american said, ok, they tell me it's ready, i'm ready to go, because you came here and told us. and through us the american people. it was good to go. and it wasn't. >> ms. degette. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. miss campbell, you testified before the house subcommittee on september 10, correct? >> that's correct. >> and at that committee you -- at that hearing you testified that c.g.i. federal was confident that it would deliver the functionality that c.m.s. directed qualified individuals to begin enrolling in coverage, correct? >> that's correct. >> in your written testimony day, you also testified that

c.g.m. and others developed this and it passed the eight required technical reviews before going live on october 1, correct? >> that is correct. >> either at that hearing on september 10 or until just now, you have never testified that there was insufficient integrated testing to know whether the exchange was going to work, correct? >> there were -- >> i never saw any of your testimony that you ever said in those hearings that more testing was needed. and i was there. >> is your question whether i testified -- >> that's correct. did you ever tell this committee that more testing was needed to make sure it would work? >> i don't believe i actually -- slavitt, you r. were our only witness who was not here on september 10 but mr. finkle from your organization was. and on september 10 mr. finkle testified, quote, our delivery

milestones for data service hub completion of being met on time respect c.m.s. data service hub will be ready as planned by october 1, correct? >> i believe that's correct. >> in your written testimony today, you echoed that if completed code for data services hub in june, you did the testing, there was an inpent security risk assessment completed on august 30, is that correct? >> correct. >> today in your testimony you said that you shared the problems that you identified with c.m.s. were those problems shared after september -- after the september 10 hearing, then? >> yes. >> ok. and i would request that you would supplement your testimony today by telling us the problems that you identified to c.m.s. will you please do that for us within 20 days? >> be happy to get back to you. > thank you very much.

did your organization do testing with a number of 200 people and that testing failed? that's what we have been seeing in the press accounts. >> i'm not familiar with all of the accounts from the press. what i think you're referring to is the testing that occurred in the final days leading up to the october 1 launch. >> was that done with only 200 people? >> that was -- i know that was a test -- my understanding it was a test that failed. once the systems began to be finally put together for the first time. >> ok. but were there tests done with more people coming into it as well? >> yes. >> ok. now, there's one more thing i want to talk about in the time i have and that's this issue of privacy. because in my opening statement i said that i was really touched by the people on the other side of the aisle trying to work with us, but when i heard my friend and colleague, mr. barton's statement, i saw which fortunately i got a copy of

since i couldn't see it, i realize that in fact a lot of people don't want the affordable care act to work and they are raising all of these specters, and this privacy issue is a specter because mr. barton's questions -- sorry he's not still here because his questions came from an article in "the weekly standard" where there apparently is a line of code which says, it's not visible to the user. it's somehow in there. it says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transitting or stored on this information system. so this is sort of some standard boilerplate, but mr. barton is assuming this violates hipaa, but it would only violate hipaa if people were putting their personal medical information into the application. so i want to ask a couple of questions about that. as i understand it you don't need any medical information to enroll people other than the question do you smoke, is that

correct, miss campbell? >> that is correct. >> is that correct, mr. slavitt? >> my understanding. >> is that correct ms. spellecy? >> we wouldn't have visibility into that. >> what about you, mr. lau? >> that is correct. >> people aren't putting confidential medical information on to the internet so therefore they wouldn't be violating hipaa. i am disappointed that my friend would go down this road. i would ask unanimous consent to put that article in the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> i have one last question. when can these exchanges be ready and when can people get on them with reliability? miss campbell? >> soons possible, we are working as hard as we can. >> mr. slavitt? >> two of our systems are currently ready. we are doing everything we can to maintain and we'll do everything we can to assist. >> i want to say, mr. chairman, my health care aide went on to the national extension in

virginia last night, she was able to register, she was able to research plans. i hope this happens for all the rest of america. >> i just want -- went on my ipad and i was able to access choices of plans to my constituents in california. in the five, 10-nint period. >> it the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. terry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss campbell, first two questions are more -- yes and no questions. s -- did you or anyone from your company consult with or discuss today's testimony and your answers to potential questions with anyone from c.m.s. to epare for this hearing ms. campbell. >> we talked to c.m.s. about our testimony. but not any details at all. >> who did you discuss that

with? >> i don't recall. i didn't discuss it with anyone myself. i have to find out. >> your people -- there's always intermediaries. mr. slavitt. >> no. >> miss spellecy. >> no. >> mr. lau. >> no. >> that's good. did your company begin from ms. campbell on to my right, did your company or any of your subsequent, use any people who worked outside of the united ates to assist in your respective parts or your contract with c.m.s., otherwise known as outsourcing? >> no. we are very proud of the fact we created jobs all in the united states. >> all of them. >> all of them. >> ok. >> no. >> no. >> no, sir. >> very good. are you -- i'm concerned about the front door of the -- of this system, of this website.

now, is this system able to track how many people are accessing what we call the front door? ms. campbell? >> we are not responsible for the front door. >> it's very confusing because in your testimony on the 10th you did suggest, and somehow that piece of paper is missing right now, in your testimony that you provided that you said eligibility and enrollment will serve as the front door for consumers to fill out the online health insurance application as one of the responsibilities. i'm confused by that. >> i understand. we are the face of, if you think about a house, we are the outside structure, but the front door that you go into -- >> the siding that was put up? >> i don't know -- my dad did construction all his life. he had a small business

construction. i kind of think in those terms. >> all of the accessing is mr. slavitt's world. >> ask the question again. >> mr. slavitt are you responsible for the front door? >> i think the front door is -- we supply a tool -- >> i have very little time. i'm not trying to be rude. what i'm trying to get to is which of you was responsible for the application that allows c.m.s. to know how many people are actually accessing this website? is that you, mr. slavitt? >> we have access to the data which shows how many people are coming through the registration tool. >> all right. under that data that's then compiled of how many people, can you break it down to say how many people from nebraska, since we don't have a state exchange

like california does and have to go to the national, can you determine how many people from nebraska have tried to access? >> i don't know. >> do you know how many people have tried to access on any particular day? do you have that data, mr. slavitt? >> i don't. >> does your company? >> yes. >> are you allowed to share that data with us? >> i will follow up right away. >> you are able to give us that data? >> we'll follow up and see if we can do that. >> has c.m.s. made any instructions to you regarding your ability to provide us the data of how many people have tried to access through the front door? >> no. not to me and not to my knowledge. >> all right. ms. campbell, do you have access to the information of how many people have tried to access -- >> we have access to that data as well. >> has c.m.s. instructed you not to give that information to us? >> we have under our c.m.s. contract, we have to have

permission from c.m.s. first to provide that information. >> ok. has c.m.s. allowed you to provide that information yet? >> no. >> if i ask you, you will deny -- say that you can't answer that question. even though we are a panel of members of congress. >> i would say based on our contract that we have with c.m.s. we would have to get permission. >> mr. slavitt, are you under the same contractual obligation with c.m.s.? >> i don't know. >> will you still provide us the information because you under oath and we asked for that information. >> if we can we will. >> that was a good not answer. >> the gentleman's time has expired. just remind colleagues that the the order estions is of seniority when the gavel falls on that side. with that we recognize mr. butterfield. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. thank all of you for your testimony today. it's been very enlightening. i will associate myself with the comments made by my colleagues throughout this hearing. let me tell you i represent like mr. hall said a few minutes ago, 700,000 people down in north carolina. more than 100,000 of those have no insurance whatsoever. they are eager to get enrolled and we've got to get this thing right. and soon. miss campbell, let me start with you. on monday, congressman darrell issa, the chairman of the house oversight committee, wrote a letter, which was publicly released, accusing the white house of injecting politics into decisions about the website. the reason i want to ask you about this is because chairman issa says that the source for his accusation is you and your company, c.g.i. according to chairman issa's press release, the white house made, quote, the political decision to mask the sticker shock of obamacare to the american people. he is talking about the decision

by h.h.s. to disable the anonymous shopper function on health care.gov website, but he suggests this decision was made, instead, by the white house for political reasons. chairman issa wrote this letter after receiving a briefing from c.g.i. last week. according to mr. issa's letter, quote, c.g.i. officials told committee staff that c.m.s. officials and employees constantly mention the white house when discussing matters with c.g.i. although c.g.i. officials were not able to identify who within the administration made the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature, evidence is mounting, and this is mr. issa speaking, evidence is mounting that political consideration motivated the decision. i would like to ask you a few questions about this. first, did c.g.i. provide a briefing to mr. issa's staff last week? >> i was not there myself, but i

believe that meeting did occur. >> the meeting did take place to the best of your knowledge. >> i think did it. but i'd have to confirm. i'm not close enough to the situation. >> do you know how many from your team participated in that meeting? >> i do not. >> you did not participate. >> i did not. >> who do you answer to within your organization? >> the president of c.g.i. federal, donna ryan. >> do you know if mr. ryan participated in that discussion? >> i don't believe so but i don't know for sure. >> let me ask you this directly, are mr. issa's allegations correct? did the white house ever order your company for political reasons to mask the sticker shock of obamacare by disabling this anonymous shopper function? >> let me answer two things, one, i don't believe that members of c.g.i. actually made those statements direct in that manner. i think they may have been taken out of context, but i think i'd have to get back to you with confirmation of that. and to my knowledge, no, the

white house has not given us direct instructions. >> i would like to get that information from you. it's a very serious allegation for the chairman of an oversight committee to make such a callous accusation. based on the meeting with your company last week, mr. issa's letter wrote that, quote, evidence is mounting that political considerations motivated this decision. do you have any evidence, you just alluded to it, do you have any evidence that political considerations motivated this decision? >> i'm not privy to anything of that sort. >> do you have any knowledge of any white house role in specific decisions relating to the website? >> not to my knowledge. >> are you aware of any political intervention by this white house relating to your work on healthcare.gov. >> i am not. thank you, you have been very dined. mr. chairman, we need to work together to make this program function efficiently and effectively. i urge my colleagues to work

with us and let's work with these witnesses to get it right. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. rogers. >> thank you for being here today. i have a series of quick questions i'd like to get to. miss campbell, how many change orders have you -- either formally or inenvelopely leading up to the launch, what function they wanted you to perform? >> we received approximately eight change orders. >> eight. when was the most recent? >> i believe as recent as august of this year. >> mr. slavitt? >> i don't know the answer to that, but i think it was a low number, if any. i don't know the answer. >> ok. are you both making changes now with code in order to fix any of the so-called glitches or nonperformance issues? ms. campbell, yes or no? >> that would be yes. >> mr. slavitt? >> we made modifications along

the way. >> how many organizational boundaries between the piece of information traveling from the united states government to the web portal, how many boundaries, how many organizational boundaries, including the states and their access to information, does that piece of information cross? >> i'd have to get back to you with that answer. >> an estimate? large number? >> when you say organizational boundaries are you talking about like homeland security, i.r.s.? >> veterans, you have states that have access to other -- cross other boundaries to get pieces of information. but a significant number? >> i'd have to get back. >> please get back for the record. >> mr. slavitt. >> all i'm familiar with comes from a trusted data source such as a government entity. passes through the data services hub to those who request the query. >> that concerns me a little bit, you don't know the answer to that. when you did a security verification by an independent

contractor, i assume on august 30, ms. campbell, did you do the same? >> that's correct. >> was that an end-to-end system test that crossed every organizational boundary? or was that by the segment of which you controlled in the process? your segment of the contract? ms. campbell? >> i would have to go back and find out exactly, but i believe it was from wherever our system touched other parts of secure systems within -- >> mr. slavitt? you don't know the answer to that. >> we had a complete test -- that meets the standards i believe misty. our systems as matter of source don't hold data. they transport the data through it. >> you're familiar with the various levels of cyberweaknesses in any system, right? a boundary being the weakest point. so when you say you don't hold information, that is a very low standard in order to protect information. i don't have to be where it's held to obtain t are you aware

that have? >> correct. >> what are you doing for security on advanced persistent threats? how is that checked? who is your independent contractor? did you red team any of this in the last weeks before the launch of your system? >> i'm not familiar. i can certainly check about whether there are any security concerns. none were brought to my attention or made available. i believe it was mitre corporation who provided the independent security risk assessment. >> who certifies your system is shall on a daily basis, is secure from external threat? cyberthreat? >> let me get back to you. >> c.m.s. or private contractor? who certifies you are doing this? >> let me get back to you. >> there is an ongoing security check into your particular system. >> i believe there is. >> you don't know. >> i want to get back to you on the details. >> i don't know the answer. >> ms. campbell do you know the answer? >> similar answer. mine was the independent security testing contractor --

mitre was the independent security testing contractor. >> who certifies it is secure -- >> c.m.s. >> c.m.s. secures their own system, certifies their own system is secure, is that correct? >> with the support of mitre is my understanding. >> i understand that. but that's to your understanding. the information flows from these systems, it goes to the daa hub, you have designed systems to transport information, is that correct? that's what your design is. ms. campbell your infrastructure is designed to take a piece of information from the hub and get it to a -- an end user which would be whatever navigator is in front of that screen, is that correct? you built the infrastructure for that to happen? >> that's correct. a portion of it, yes. >> mr. slavitt, you wrote the code for that to happen. >> data hub, yes. >> in less than two weeks you are telling me you are constantly changing code, you are introducing new code, you can't quite tell me how that's

secure, in any system i have ever seen, two months for a functionality test is not appropriate. let alone a security check on this information. i am more nervous today than i was when i got here. i am shocked, shocked that on august 30 you get an independent check that says the system is fine and you have introduced new code to that system probably daily, probably in terms of hundreds of thousands of lines, at least tens of thousands of lines of new code which creates new vulnerabilities in thecies tefment you don't even know the answer -- in the system, and you don't even know the answer. and number two you are not even sure if your piece is end-to-end ongoing security tested. i have to tell you, mr. chairman, this is a significant event. you don't have to like obamacare. you can hate it, love it, can't wait to get in it. you cannot expose this much information with this low threshold of security in a day

when there is 1.5 million people ripped off every day in cybersecurity. where the folks who are systems administrators and people who sit in front of those portals, are they trained in spearfishing, one of the most basic helves of security level. do you know, ms. campbell? >> i have to push back a little in terms of -- to give the impression that c.g.i. is putting willy-nilly code on a daily basis -- >> ma'am, you know better than that. i am not suggesting that. >> we are -- we have -- >> reclaiming my time. makes me more nervous. you don't have to have willy-nilly code. you can have the best code in the world. every cybersecurity expert understands that when you introduce new code it has other implications on a broader system. even beyond your borders. that's what we are worried -- we are not worried you are putting bad code in. we are worried you may be accidentally, as we no with the functionality of your system

doesn't work, it would be only logical to conclude if the functionality of the system doesn't work when it all came together, you cannot compose security. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i need the answers to all those questions by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> the gentlelady from illinois, miss sha could you skifment >> i -- schakowsky. >> i want to clarify one key point. the c.g.i. system crash in a test with only a few hundred people in the days before october 1? >> there was an end-to-end test that occurred, and the system did crash with about that number. i don't have the exact number. but it was part of the end-to-end test. >> thank you. i wanted to emphasize that the website has to be fixed. but it is not, as the republicans contend, a fatal flaw, a contention that ignores millions of people who have already benefited and the tens of millions of people that will benefit from the new coverage,

and the first three weeks there have been over 19 million unique visits to healthcare.gov and almost half a million applications have benefited nationwide. some people are getting through. susan, constituent of mine wrote, thank you. i was able to successfully access the website yesterday. i'm pleased that the cost of my coverage will be dropping approximately $5,000 a year when compared to my current individual coverage. ironically the same provider, blue cross blue shield. or david who said seven years ago i was diagnosed with melanoma. last year i spent $11,000 on health care. a.c.a. will save me $4,000 per year. i need this prafment -- program. i know this because if i had no health insurance i would be dead. every day since the passage of obamacare, the republicans have undertaken obstructionist efforts, including shutting down

the government, that amount to congressional malpractice. i want to flash back to when the bush administration was implementing medicare part d, a law which many democrats opposed because of the doughnut hole, which of course obamacare will close, secretary levitt said at the time -- first of all, on a launch, november 8, 2005, for enrollment, january 1 the program enrolled, began actually signing people up. february 22nd secretary levitt said, quote, we are now at the 53rd day since the implementation of medicare prescription drug coverage. after reviewing the numbers and experiences to date, i can report that we are seeing solid progress. we continue to work aggressively to solve the problems that inevitably occur in transitions this size. hat was medicare part d.

despite the glitches in medicare part d, democrats worked with republicans to ensure that the law was a success and that all medicare beneficiaries had the information necessary to take advantage of medicare part d. -- in fact, i an joined with chairman fred upton to request additional funding for community-based organizations to help seniors actually enroll in medicare part d. i have that letter right here. unfortunately the republicans have actually taken steps to ensure that consumers do not know all the benefits and protections provided by obamacare. in june, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, senate minority whip john cornyn sent letters to major sports leagues warning them not to help could be sumers

-- consumers be educated about the benefits of obamacare. after medicare part d, democrats like me hosted events in order to boost awareness and facilitate enrollment. this has not happened with obamacare. several republican members have even stated, they will not help constituents who call and ask for more information about the benefits of obamacare and how to enroll. those republican efforts will only harm american families and small businesses and cut short the relief americans need because insurance companies are no longer in control of their health care, and they are guaranteed access to affordable coverage that will be there for them when they need it. i agree that the website must be fixed, that the republicans should stop their obstructionism, commit to working with democrats as we did with you on medicare part d to fix any provision that is need to be fixed rather than continue

your efforts to nix the law. let's work together to fix it and not nix it. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania, dr. murphy. >> thank you. ms. campbell when healthcare.gov went live on october 1 it was not possible to browse the site in order to see the prices. you had to register. who made that decision? >> c.m.s. made that decision. >> who within c.m.s.? >> i don't have the exact name of the person. i would say henry chow from c.m.s. >> are you aware of any white house involvement in that decision process? >> i am not. >> ok. so what challenges arise when you switch a website where individuals can brows -- browse, just browse versus one where you first have to register? does this require substantial amount of work? >> it definitely puts a

different -- additional burden on the system. >> do you have to write a new code to make that happen? >> for us to turn it up it was putting a flag in our system. >> how much more time does this take to test the system like that once you have made those decisions? >> it became part of the normal testing process. >> but you never tested the whole system, right? >> c.g.i. did not. were you vitt, when made aware of the decision that the website would not allow browsing and require registration first? >> we weren't made aware of this until the final days prior to the launch. >> final day being what date? >> i believe it was within 10 days. >> do you know who made that decision? >> i don't know. we don't know who made the decision. we don't know when the decision was made. we don't know why the decision was made. >> are you aware -- it was someone from c.m.s.? h.m.s., administration, white

house? > we don't know. >> ms. campbell, did you inform anyone at c.m.s. or h.h.s. of any concerns you had that this required more testing? more time was needed because the system wasn't going to be working? >> more testing because of the anonymous shopping or -- >> both. start with the shopping issue. the whole system. did you inform anybody at c.m.s. or h.h.s. you needed more time because the system wasn't working? >> once again the portion that c.g.i. was responsible for went through its unit -- >> you did through your -- you didn't look at the whole thing? >> we are not responsible for end-to-end testing. >> mr. slav itcht tt, did you inform c.m.s., anyone there you needed more time. >> we informed c.m.s. that more testing was necessary. we informed c.m.s. of the pieces of the system that had -- we had tested that had issues.

so, yes, we did. >> how manyable cases did you receive to fill out the process for people? >> as of today i would estimate about 9,000. >> how much these successfully completed? >> about half of those were successfully. >> do you have to go on line or another process? >> work through the consumer portal. >> are you expecting more applications? >> we are, yes. the volumes are increasing. >> ms. campbell, you're saying you haven't gone through and tested the whole system. you did your part. mr. slavitt, you said the same thing? you both just tested your parts? you didn't check the whole system? >> c.m.s. has independent contractor to s.s.i. that test our system. >> ok. qssi , mr. slavitt, did test the whole system? >> we tested portions of the system for the code we received. >> who was the independent

contractor who tested the system? >> qssi was one of the independent contractors, we tested code from c.g.i. >> did you find any problems? >> we found problems in the code. >> would it require more time to fix it? >> which in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem so long as they are fixed. >> did you inform anybody at c.m.s. or h.h.s. there was problems and you needed more time? >> we informed both c.m.s. and the other contractor. >> who did you tell? >> i don't know the names of anybody we told, but i can tell you we informed c.m.s. and informed the contractor responsible for the code. >> ms. campbell, how much money did c.g.i. get to do this whole process from the federal government, total? about otal t.c.v. is $290 million. >> mr. slavitt, how much did your company receive to do all this? >> the data services hub has been funded to just under $85 billion. >> let me ask you. ms. campbell, have you tried to

log on and test the system yourself? >> i have. but i have insurance. >> how long did it take you to do it? >> it took the normal time that it would take an individual -- >> you were able -- what state was that in? for what state? >> i'm a virginian. >> does virginia have its own website or government website? >> it's part of the government website. >> mr. slavitt, did you personally try to get on to thecies? >> yes. >> what state? >> i think i put in texas. >> is that where you're from? >> i'm not but i was testing the system. >> did it work? i logged on to create an account. was able to do so. i just never received a confirmation email. >> it didn't work? >> didn't work. >> thank you. yield back. >> the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. > thank you, mr. chairman. ms. campbell and mr. slavitt, thrick, would you say if far

more states had decided to do their own exchanges, the national exchange would not have experienced as many problems? >> i can speculate. i would say probably. but i don't know for sure. >> i wanted to talk about the kentucky experience, and i want to thank your company for its involvement in our state because the experience in kentucky has been extraordinarily successful. even though there were problems for a few hours on the first day, again because of excessive demand, at least unprojected demand, those were quickly rectified. i have these statistics now for the first 21 days in kentucky. we had 640,000 kentuckyans estimated without insurance. so assuming that most of those were people who contacted the system were mostly from that population, we have had 280,000 unique visitors to connect,

kynect. 247,000 have actually conducted prescreenings to determine qualifications for subsidies and so forth. 47,000 applications for health care coverage had been initiated. and 33,700 are completed. as of the 21st, 18,370 individuals are enrolled in the new affordable health care. and i think almost equally important, 378 businesses have started applications for health insurance for their employees. in terms of the numbers of people who were -- that could take advantage of the affordable care act in kentucky, a huge number have already done so. actually have enrolled in affordable insurance for the first time in many cases in their lives. mr. shimkus talked about one person he got a letter from said that not happen with what the

prospects were. we heard a lot of these anecdotal stories, and in fact fox news brought some people on last week and one of the small businessperson said, he had to cut the hours of his employees and so forth. and reported -- reporter followed up on that, found out this man had actually only four employees. he was not even covered by the affordable care act. we have to be careful about people who say they have done things or suffered because of the affordable care act when in fact they haven't. i have a couple case from my district that i think are very valid experiences and also testified to how important this law is and the benefit of it. jeff bower wrote, i'm 62 years old, and my wife will reach that age before the end of the year. in january i parted ways with my employer of 39 years. we were lucky to have never needed government assistance of any kind. we are pretty much a typical middle class family.

we asked our doctors if they anticipated any problems with us acquiring health insurance, they told us our health was good and did not anticipate any problems. we were dismayed to find we were both turned down for coverage based on existing medical conditions. the conditions were not chronic or serious. our only alternative was to select cobra coverage for 18 months with monthly premiums over $1,000. when cobra expires, july, 2014, we would have to go the next 20 months with no health insurance. on kentucky's health exchange i was able to purchase our insurance for $800 less than our cobra coverage. previous medical conditions were not a factor. the exchange was user friendly. i was able to complete the application with no problems. like to thank lawmakers and the president for representing those of us who only have little voices and have the courage to make this coverage available through the affordable care act. another woman, 17 years ago, was diagnosed with late third stage breast cancer. she was able to get into a special trial at duke.

and she overcame her disease, but left with a $200,000 bill. it was not paid by the insurance company. now because of the affordable care act, she cannot only change coverage, she has no lifetime limits. no annual limits. these are the things that will protect her and her family. so i just want to say that the experience is not all negative, and i'm confident that eventually the national exchange, i hope, very quickly becomes as effective as the kentucky exchange. thank you for your testimony. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: dr. burgess. >> thanks, mr. chairman. mr. slavitt, i will say my experience was similar to yours. i live in texas so i did try while we were sitting here spending time together this morning tried to sign up on the exchange for texas, and i ended up with a similar result as you

did. i just have to say here we are three weeks into the open enrollment period and i can't think that anyone on this panel this morning would think that that is acceptable that the system would still work so poorly. regardless of the state involved. miss campbell, can you tell me at this point how many people have signed up through c.g.i.? >> i cannot. i need to clarify an answer i gave regarding 200 failures on the end-to-end test. it was an end-to-end test on the eidm were there were 200 failures. >> on that first morning, october 1, we were up late doing a vote, probably about 2:00 in the morning i attempted to sign in then. and met with the same response, the system asked my favorite kind of -- something along those lines, and froze up. and like mr. slavitt, i never got a confirmtory email on the

many times i spent that information through. what happens to that information? ms. campbell? >> that's on the eid site. >> can i ever get it back? >> i can relate my own experience. of course what i found out that i didn't get an email back, i called the qssi team to see what happened. indeed, eidm had a record of my transaction, received the transaction, and we know that eidm received my submission. we also know they sent that transaction over to the marketplace. as i mentioned eidm is only a tool used in the registration process. not the registration process. beyond that i don't have any visibility. -- -- visibility. >> can i get that information back? >> i believe that information would still reside in registration tool. >> there's only so many passwords that he the mental

capacity to make up. i'm running through all of them, continuing to sign this up. if you could return some of them back to me i would greatly appreciate that. ms. campbell, you referenced a number of questions from dr. murphy about the amount of money c.g.i. had received for this contract. >> to clarify, that's the total contract value. so to clarify, that's the total contract value through the out years. that's not the dollars that we have received to date. the dollars that we have received to date is in the range of about $112 million. >> are all of these fix-its occurring now were those included in that $112 million bill? or are there ongoing invoices going to have to be reimbursed from c.g.i.? c.m.s. is has implemented a cost reimbursable-type contract.

as we continue to do the normal contract says we are responsible for the development and then it moves into operations and maintenance, which is continued bug fixes and things of that sort. >> we are saying -- >> if the normal course of a development and a production environment scenario. >> i'm not trying to be harsh here, you are continue to bill taxpayers for the fact that your code did not work or your product did not work as advertised regardless of whose fault it was, on october 1, i think we all agree it wasn't working. the taxpayers being build for those invoices to fix things. >> sir, on october 1 the taxpayer couldn't get to our system. >> let me add this as an observation. it seems like we've got several fingers but no palm here. was there anyone involved in sort of overseeing the entire -- entirety of this to make sure it worked from a to z? ms. campbell? >> that would be c.m.s., the

system integrator. >> who at c.m.s.? mr. chow again? >> one of the individuals, yes. >> who else at c.m.s.? was the administrator for c.m.s. involved? >> i can't say who was in that decisionmaking process. >> how about you, mr. slavitt, who was the unseen hand trying to put all this together? >> c.m.s. did play that role. i'm not aware of who within c.m.s. in other words, there was a comment on a blog post this morning on one of the local papers that said, when do i start to really freak out about this? the average american watching this hearing this morning, can we give them any comfort about that? when should the average american begin to really become upset about what they have seen here in the past 3 1/2 weeks? ms. campbell do you have an observation? >> i do not, sir. >> mr. slavitt?

>> i can work intensely in those first few days. >> here's the problem. nobody believes this thing will get fixed when we keep getting answers like this. we are asking you for help, to be transparent, and we get nonanswers to our questions. i would submit that the average american looking in on this hearing this morning is going to feel like there is nobody in charge, maybe somebody at c.m.s., but who is going to take the responsibility for getting this thing fixed and making it right? because heaven knows they paid enough money to have it work, right? thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. welch. >> thank you very much. thank you for the hearing. we all have a real interest in trying to get this thing 20 work -- to work, that's for sure. i do want to say a couple things about what this hearing is not about, because it puts it in a bit of a context. it's not about whether we should take away the right of our kids up to age 26 to be on health care, our own health care polcy. that's working great.

it's not about whether the preventive care that has been made available for free to seniors on medicare should be rolled back. that's working rhetty good. it's not whether the $4 billion in medicaid -- medicare fraud that's been found out and saved for the program was a bad idea. strong bipartisan support on that. it's not about whether the opportunity americans have to now get health care coverage, even if they have a pre-existing condition, should be rolled back. people are pretty happy with that. it's not about whether the doughnut hole that was such a burden for seniors on medicare should be rolled back. what we have done in this law as everyone knows is provide coverage to folks through that doughnut hole. so that's pretty good. and it's not about whether the medicaid exchanges -- expansion a that is part of this bill should be rolled back. in vermont, that would be like

40,000 people that are going to get access to health care. that's going to affect some of the hardest working people in this country, farmers who work hard. make very little. but were not eligible to get medicaid because they didn't have young children. so, mr. chairman, all of those things we are not having to question. they are working great. what we are talking about is a computer program that's messed up at the moment. and i've got some -- we all have some historical experience with that. when the prescription drug program for seniors in medicare part d was put into place, it was a huge computer program, there were a lot of glitches. the question that this committee had at that time, march of 2006, was what to do about it. we had some really good advice from some really good members. one of them said, who was a supporter of medicare part d, as

i mentioned earlier the new benefit in its implementation are hardly perfect, rather than try to scare and confuse seniors, i would hope that we could work together as we go through the implementation phase to find out what is going wrong with the program and if we can make some changes to fix it, let's do it. let's do it on a bipartisan basis. i'd say that statesman had it right. that statesman was joe barton of texas. we had another member, we can't undo the past, but certainly they can make the argument they were having a hearing a month late, but the reality is that for the prescription drug program is the benefit is 40 years late, and the seniors who signed up for medicare on those first days back in 1965 when they were 65 years of age are now 106 years of age waiting for that prescription drug benefit. so i hope it doesn't take us that long to get it right. i don't believe it will. that was congressman burgess who

serves with us on this committee now. and then another i think quote that was really terrific, any time something is new there's going to be some glitches. it is of no value. as a matter of fact it is of negative value and questionable ethical val ue, i think sometimes if people only spend their time criticizing the glitches that have been made in the program as with any program that occurs, whether it is a public or private program, criticizing it, standing on the outside, and frightening seniors, frightening seniors into thinking that because there was complexities and difficulties, therefore they should not sign up. that was congressman tim murphy. you know what, that advice they gave them is pretty good advice for us to take now. i adopt their comments as our path forward. i'll ask just each person on this panel, can the computer challenges that we are facing

right now, none of us want, it's a real hassle for americans, it starts to undercut confidence in a program whether it's e-bay, amazon.com, you name it, if their program not working there is flussstration for anybody on it. can this be fixed? >> we are working every day to get it fixed, yes. >> we believe we can. >> thank you. >> we hope so but we don't have visibility into that. >> we have no direct involvement with the system. >> thank you. i yield back. get it done. >> dr. gingrey. >> mr. chairman, thank you. the gentleman from connecticut said what this hearing was not about and he listed a litany of things that in his opinion are positive. let me tell you what this hearing is about. it is about whether young people over the age of 26 and not eligible for subsidies, who are

forced come january 1 if they had no insurance, to sign up for the exchanges and pay at least double what they normally would pay. it is about that. here we are 24 days after the exchanges have come on line and yet we receive conflicting reports from the administration on the number of people who have successfully received coverage. when we met more than six weeks warned this panel, i that companies charged with developing and implementing the federal exchanges had not had the time to successfully produce and test such a complex system. we are hearing that today. during that hearing we heard that all of your systems were functioning properly and ready to go on october 1. after what has been an unsuccessful first three weeks plus of implementation, we now have to better piece together the timeline of problems and figure out who knew what and

when did they know it? ms. campbell, in your testimony you say that your company was selected as the best value to create federally facilitated marketplaces, f.f.m.n. 2011. due to the fact that the requirements were not well established at the time of the award and that the requirements did evolve over the next two years. how was c.g.i., your company, made aware of these changing requirements by c.m.s.? >> we received change orders, and then we would respond back with a proposal, and that proposal would be accepted, and then we would continue moving forward. >> when was the last time that the federally facilitated marketplace requirements were changed by the administration? when did they prior to october 1? >> i believe our last modification occurred in august of this year. >> was there ever a point that c.g.i. expressed doubt as to

whether the updated requirements would affect your ability for a successful launch? >> each time we received changes, we shared with c.m.s. the risk associated with any changes that we were asked to provide support. >> can you tell me today, this morning, who specifically you gave that information to, expressed that concern to? >> i'd have to go back to my team specifically. >> could you do that before 9:00 in the morning? >> if i'm allowed to provide that information based on our terms and conditions of our contract with c.m.s. >> this is a government that prides itself in transparency, i'm certainly sure you would be allowed. you also stated that c.g.i. delivered the functionality required by c.m.s. did you ever have concerns that c.m.s. was not requiring enough in terms of design and functionality? and were there ever internal concerns at c.g.i. that c.m.s.

did not have the technical expertise to handle such an ambitious project? >> in terms of -- c.m.s. has a number of technical resources, and it was their responsibility to be the system's integrator here. we provided support and guidance as we could. ms. campbell, over the last several weeks when the republican majority in the house of representatives was trying desperately to keep the federal government opened and submitted several bills to the democratic majority senate, mr. harry reid, one of those requests after the wasial request was rejected to simply say, look, we will fund the entirety of the federal government at sequester levels. but we think it's a good idea to

delay the rollout of obamacare for a year. now, that was summarily rejected again by mr. reid. we then came back and said, would you just meet with us? would you just allow us to meet with a bipartisan, bicamera committee and talk about this? it's very possible if he had agreed to do that that this delay of a year could have been negotiated down to a delay of six months. let me in my few seconds left ask -- >> we'll leave this house committee hearing on problems with enrollment issues at healthcare.gov. the house is about to gavel in for a brief pro forma session. after which we'll return to live coverage here on c-span.

>> stay on their parents' plan until the age of 26. seniors, not having to pay as much money out of pocket for prescription drugs and eventually closing that doughnut hole. and the list goes on and on. while there might be problems with the website, we have heard it here this morning and it's worth repeating, we have to fix it, not nix it. we have to fix it, not nix it.

it's an important mantra to guide us forward. mr. chair, when people are able to overcome these initial bumps in the road, they are discovering a quality product that will save families hundreds of dollars a month on health care costs. you don't have to take my word for it. fox news contributor sali kahn, upon discovering her family will save $408 per month in my home state of new york. ideal ogs may not like obamacare, but my wallet and family's health sure do. while we are here to address problems of an underperforming website, we can't ignore the larger story that affordable health care a has finally become a reality for millions of americans and something we should not delay. ms. campbell, that being said, most of the bugs in the system we have heard about here today have been with the federally run website, healthcare.govs that correct? >> that's correct. >> how many states are currently participating in the federally facilitated marketplace through the healthcare.gov website?

>> 36. >> it was my understanding that the affordable care act envisioned that the states would be taking the lead on designing and running these exchanges. do you have a sense of why 36 states chose to let the federal government take the lead instead? >> i have no further information to support that. >> i think it's clear to state that this was how it was envisioned to work and would have been beneficial. from what i can tell many states that refuse to create state-based exchange, largely for ideological reasons. did c.g.i. participate in uilding the exchange websites. my sense is that the states that have taken ownership of the affordable care act and designed and run their own exchanges are outperforming the federal exchange. would you agree with this assessment? that is correct. >> thank you, ms. campbell. i do agree the picture we have seen in the state-based exchanges is vastly improved

over what we are seeing through healthcare.gov. my home state of new york, which also experienced website problems at the outset, has now signed up nearly 174,000 new yorkers for quality, low cost health insurance. that means that more new yorkers have completed an application to receive an eligibility determination than any other state in our nation. this is clear-cut evidence that the temporary setbacks can be overcome. and success can be achieved when the law is implemented the way it was intended. without mall list and obstruction. in closing, i would implore my republican colleagues to reject the politics of division and join with us in finding constructive solutions to these technical problems so that the many billions of americans demanding and deserving access to the private sector driven health care options they now have before them is a reality. with that, mr. chair, i yield back. >> mr. scalise. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate you having this hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for coming to testify. there's been a lot said about why we are having this hearing. one of the reasons is that our constituents are calling us on a daily basis reporting some of these many problems that we are talking about here today. it's not just a failure of a website. obviously a lot of focus on the failure of the website, but it's a focus on a failure of the law in general. the fact that there were so many broken promises made by the president about what this law would do. if you like what you have you can keep it. thousands and thousands of people losing good coverage they have. in florida it's reported, 300,000 people will lose the health care they have that they like. all across the country we hear that. costs were going to be lower. you're seeing so many states report that costs are dramatically higher. chicago, president obama's own back beyond a reasonable doubt, it's reported that -- backyard, it's reported 21 of the 22 plans

on the exchange, the low-cost exchanges, have deductibles of $8,000 or more per family. people don't consider that a low cost. people are losing good private sector health care they have. you are hearing the promises the president quoted, this gets into conversation we are having today, this was the president's quote. just visit healthcare.gov and there you can compare insurance plans side by side the same way you shopped for a plane ticket on kayak or tv on amazon. while you were testifying i went on amazon and looked for tv. within one minute i had over 300,000 options of tv's that i could purchase. and it was all low-cost tv's i tried to go on healthcare.gov and register. this was earlier this week. i spent more than two hours, probablely like mr. slavitt, kicked out four times, had to re-enter data, was given blank screens a number of times. ultimately never even got to a

point where i could see health care plans, where i could compare as the president promised side by side, just like you look for a tv on amazon. that's not the experience you get when this isn't just any product, this is a product that the federal government said you have to buy by law or else you get fined. and the other side wants to mock us because we're asking for at least a delay of the fine while people can't even go to the website that doesn't work. i used to program computers for a living. i understand how you design systems, big systems, small systems. i understand how you design test plans. i actually wrote test plans for systems. and you would test the system, would you do all-nighters until the system worked and you wouldn't deploy until it worked. and clearly that didn't happen in this case. so i want to ask, first of all, y'all said that you tracked air logs. if i can start with mrs. campbell, how many airs have you logged since you've been tracking the errors? >> i don't have that information.

>> can you get that to the committee? >> i don't have that with me. >> i have to get back to you for the record. >> we really don't have access to that system. >> we need to get those numbers. clearly there are many. you said in your testimony that there was a late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before they could browse. early off it was promised that people would be able to go to the website and just shop around. look for a site, if you like what -- if you like something you find, you can go buy. it you don't have to give hours and hours of personal data and social security numbers before you buy a product. the company would go out of business. you'd said there was a late decision made to change the system. so that you have to give all the personal information before you can even shop around. who made that late decision? >> we don't know who made the decision and we don't know when. >> do you know? who made that late decision? was that c.m.s.? >> it was c.m.s. >> do you know who? >> we don't have full knowledge of exactly the full chain of -- >> c.m.s. made a decision.

how late in the game did they make that decision? >> for c.g.i., they asked us to turn that flag off or functionality off at two weeks before going live. >> two weeks before going live. so they made a dramatic change to the system just two weeks before going live. nobody would have done that in the private sector, to make that chind of change to a system. let me ask you this. all of you were paid lots of money. over $500 million of taxpayer money spent to build this website. more money than it cost to build facebook. facebook gets 700 million users a day. 700 million people use that day and it works. the first five years they didn't spend $500 million. did you deliver -- i'll go down the line. did you deliver the product that you were contracted to build? > we have. >> did you deliver the product that you were contracted? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> there's a saying in computer programming. garbage in, garbage out.

if you're given a bad product to build, then ultimately what you'll deliver is a bad product. the focus is not just going to be on the failed website. clearly there's some serious questions that need to be answered. all the taxpayer money that was spent to build a site that people can't even go on to use and then ultimately if they're able to get through, they're finding the prices are dramatically higher. this will not mask the fact that the law fails in general. you wonder why we're calling for a delay of the implementation of this law, delay of the fines that people will have to pay if they can't even use the website. 50% of you who said you went to the website said you had a failure rate. you built the site. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. sarbanes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the panel. this is an important hearing. there's two stories that have unfolded in the last three weeks. one of them clearly is the problems with this website that need to be fixed. and i'm going to ask some questions about that in a

minute. but the other story is the incredible demand and interest that americans have in accessing this new opportunity for affordable health care. we saw it in the demand that came in on the federal exchange which outstripped all the projections that people had for it. we've seen it in the state level exchanges, the state-run exchanges, where there's been a lot of success in terms of people coming there, browsing, applying for coverage, enrolling in coverage, and that story continues. that's the reason that we have to fix this. in other words, if there was no interest out there, if there was no demand and you had a website that wasn't working very well, you could say, well, maybe we don't need to fix this thing. but people really want this opportunity. that's the bigger story.

people are coming to these sites. so we have to fix it. that's why you hear the refrain on our side of fix it don't nix it. now, let me ask you this. i assume that you've been involved, all of you, in big projects of this kind. this may be particularly complex, i get that. but i'm sure you've had the experience where you went to, you know, you pulled the switch on a go live situation and it didn't work out exactly as you expected. ms. campbell, when that happens, i imagine c.g.i. doesn't just sort of the bury its head in the sand and give up, but you get about the business of fixing the thing so it can function properly. correct? >> that's correct. it's a normal course of what happens when a system goes into

production. >> absolutely. and mr. slavitt, i assume if you encounter difficulties when you go live with a product, you don't light your hair on fire and run around? small circles. you get about the business of fixing it. right? >> yes, that's correct. >> in fact, did you that in this instance, from what i understand. >> that's correct. >> you're professionals, you do this for a living. you understand, we've got some problems here that need to be addressed. you're getting about the business of fixing them. and you're doing that because this is a platform that americans need in order to access health care coverage. let me ask you another question. do you have any reason to think that the problems with the website that we've been talking out today in any way are

affecting the quality of the underlying product that's being sold? in other words the plan options that are out there and so forth. there any reason for us to conclude that because somebody's having problems accessing an enrollment or doing an application because of the website that that somehow is a commentary on the underlying product that ultimately they're trying to access? >> no. with 4,400 plans for people across -- within the 36 states that can apply, i would say that the plans are there for people to be able to shop. >> mr. slavitt. >> i wouldn't consider that. >> no. >> no. >> and in fact the reports we're getting about the underlying product, the plan that people are going to have access to, the options that are available to

them, that they're good-quality products and that they're going to be available at very reasonable premiums, which is exactly again what people are looking for here. and certainly there's no suggestion that problems with the website are at some point going to mean that an enrolled beneficiary is going to have an issue accessing their doctor, or accessing the hospital or anything like that. so the product is good. the website needs to be fixed to make sure that we can get that product to people, that's what you're engaged in now, and that's why we have to fix it, not nix it, when it comes to this health care website with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. latta. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you very much for our witnesses for being here today. greatly appreciate your testimony. and last night i read through all of your statements beforehand and if i could,

because there's been a lot of questioning of course about the testing site. ms. campbell, if i could turn to your testimony. page two, you said in recent has that c.g.i. federal delivered some of the most complex i.t. implementation to the u.s. government including federal report -- federalreporting.com and medicare.com. we heard from you all saying you only had at the very end about two weeks to make sure this thing was integrated. when you were working on, for example, medicare.com, how much testing did you do on that? did they give you a time frame or what can you tell me about that testing at that time? >> [inaudible] i'm sorry, i can't give you the exact time frames but we had sufficient time to test the system before it went live. >> can you tell me what sufficient time is? >> so we had, you know, a number of months before the system went live. >> if you could, by tomorrow morning at 9:00, i'd like to get

that information from you, to find out exactly how much time you did specifically have to test that system. what from on federalreporting.gov? how much time were you given to test that system? >> i'd have to get back to you. that wasn't in my area. >> we'd like to have that by 9:00 in the morning tomorrow morning. so we can get that information. and i think i heard this earlier. is healthcare.gov the most complicated of the systems that you've created? >> it is by far, for our country, one of the most complicated large-scale systems that is out there. >> so what you're telling me is you've had months vs. a couple of weeks to do that testing. let me ask you this. did they -- when medicare.gov or federalreporting.gov -- are you able to, especially on the medicare side, because you say in your testimony, which successfully helps more than 15 million u.s. citizens compare health and drug plans each year,

is it set up the same way that healthcare.gov is, that you first have to register before you can browse or can you browse, then get what you need? >> you can browse first. >> now why would those two systems be different? any reason that was given to you by c.m.s. or h.h.s. that they wanted it reversed? since the one system seemed to be working. >> i do not. c.m.s. i guess does speculation, a number of priorities, maybe that wasn't one of the priorities. >> ok. mr. slavitt, if i could ask a couple of questions in your testimony. again, i found all your testimony all very interesting. it's been talked about a little bit before. in your testimony you stated on page four that it appears one of the reasons for the high concurrent volume at the registration for the late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before

they could browse for the insurance product. again, whose decision was that? >> we don't know. >> you don't know whose decision that was? how did you get the information you were supposed to do that? >> i'm sorry, can you repeat that? >> how did you get the information that you were supposed to switch things around? >> one of the testers in our company that was responsible for testing the c.g.i. software code was notified that there was code they no longer needed to test. >> if we could also by 9:00 tomorrow morning get the name of the individual for c.m.s. that asked for that, we'd appreciate that. going on in your -- following up a little bit on your testimony on page four, again, it goes back and says in our role as tester, we were tested with identifying errors in the code that was provided to us by others. we reported the results back to c.m.s. and the relevant contractor who was in turn responsible for fixing the coding errors or making the

necessary -- any necessary changes. do you know who that was back at c.m.s. that you were supposed to report back to? >> i don't. >> if we could get that by 9:00 tomorrow morning. do you know who that relevant contractor was that you were also supposed to be getting that information to? >> c.g.i. >> all right. and when you submitted those -- that information back to c.g.i., did you hear back from them? what happened with that information that you sent them? >> i don't know what happened in every case. but what typically happens is we submit the results back and then the other contractor is responsible for making those changes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i feel mike time has expired. thank you, i yield back. >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. >> yes. are you asking for a second round already? >> congressman rush and i have sent around 40 letters to you requesting a hearing on climate change and we haven't gotten any responses.

>> we had one. >> we'd like to have a response .y 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning somebody made up the idea that 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning is some kind of deadline. you can see it, it doesn't mean it happens. i withdraw my parliamentary inquiry. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to ask if i could postpone my questioning for another -- >> sure. mr. lance. >> thank you very much an to the panel, the september 10 hearing in this subcommittee, the health subcommittee, where you testified, ms. campbell, and your company testified, mr. slavitt, if you had the opportunity now, would you in any way amend the testimony you gave at that time? >> no. my testimony was fine. i would not change anything based on what i knew at that point in time. >> did you know at that time

that there was no end to end testing? >> i knew that that was something that was forthcoming. >> so you knew at that time that there was no end-to-end testing as of that date? >> it was not our area of responsibility for end had been to-end testing. >> do you believe you have a responsibility to tell the subcommittee that at that time there was no end-to-end testing? >> i don't believe that question came up, sir. >> i suspect that's the case. the question did not come up. this is not a game of cat and mouse. this is the people of the united states, one of the most important proposals of the obama administration. i'm sure that question did not come up. in your other activities with other enltities, you have testified that there was always end-to-end testing. is that accurate? >> that end-to-end testing is a

component for a system goes live. >> yes. and you do not believe you had a responsibility to indicate that end-to-end testing had not yet occurred with 20 days to go? >> it was our client's responsibility for end-to-end testing. >> would you respond on that? >> we wouldn't amend our testimony. we testified accurately. >> do you believe that you had a responsibility affirmatively to indicate that no end-to-end testing had yet to occur? >> sir, i believe on september 10 we were expecting to receive the code that would allow the end-to-end testing to occur. >> so you are of the opinion that there would be end-to-end testing between september 10 and september 30. >> that was our expectation. >> in your experience with other clients, does end-to-end testing occur before 20 days to go? >> each project is different i can't comment. >> on another large project in

which you were involved, is it usual that end-to-end testing occurs long before the last 2 1/2 weeks? >> we would certainly have liked to see as much time as possible for end-to-end testing. >> would you suggest that this be delayed for three months or six months, given the experience so far? regarding the individual mandate. >> no, i wouldn't have the information to make that determination. >> so you don't know? >> i don't know. >> you don't have an opinion. do you have an opinion, ms. campbell? >> i can tell you that i have a team of people working 24 hours a day to make these corrections that are needed to continue moving forward. >> i'm sure you do and i certainly respect that. on the risk involved in change as s, this impresses me

being serious. mr. slavitt, regarding that, did you perceive a significant chance that there would be a huge problem because of the change orders with which you were involved? >> we didn't really see significant change orders on the data services hub that i'm aware of. >> ms. campbell, regarding the change orders, the risk associated with that, you received several change orders, i believe you testified six or eight of them. did you perceive a significant risk in that regard? >> we did not. >> you did not think there would be a significant risk? >> no. over time these change orders occurred over a two-year time period. >> some have commented that much of the problem exists because c.m.m. decided to do its own in-house analysis, equivalent to someone who had never hung a

picture deciding that he would become his own general contractor, instead of subcontracting the responsibility for integrating the software of the multiple contractors. do you agree that c.m.s. should have hired a contractor in that regard, ms. campbell? >> i've seen it both ways, where the government has taken that job and quite often they would bring in a separate contractor to do that. >> in men many cases a separate contractor would be brought in. mr. slavitt. >> i don't know. >> you don't know. in my opinion, i think in the history of working with complicated i.t. systems, it's difficult to see that there was a more incompetent systems integrator, do you have an opinion on that? >> i have no opinion on that. >> i don't. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. mcnerney. >> sorry, mr. chairman, i'm not ready yet. >> ok. mr. guthrie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for testifying today.

a lot of people don't realize at before the government shutdown of september 30, almost every republican, all but one, voted to fund the health care government to sequester level and only asked to get rid of the individual mandate. for a delay for a year. because as businesses and other people have been treated with waivers and special delays, we felt the hardworking taxpayers deserved -- because we didn't think a product was going to be ready for them to purchase. and it turned out on october 1 is it weanlt. so we wouldn't even have had the government shutdown if we had people agree to give hardworking taxpayers the same treatment they gave businesses because the i.r.s. wasn't ready to enforce that. having said that, people say there are other alternatives and so we have good people in the great commonwealth of connecticut working -- kentucky who will take paper applications. so there's argument, well, they can buy if they do paper applications. so you said you take the applications and enter the data? where do you enter the data?

>> into the portal. >> the same portal that is having trouble being accessed online? >> that's correct. >> so even if people get frustrated -- because i was watching my good friend here most of the morning trying to get a line, he's been kicked out four times affs today, you're going to take that information and enter it into the same data. so maybe you're making it easier. do you have a special portal to get in or do you have to deal with the same problems he's dealing with? >> the difference for us is we don't have to establish an account. so our landing page on the portal is behind that. >> you have to have an account for the people that you're entering, right? >> in the initial days you had to sign up. that's what we had been talking about before. establishing an account before you could do an application. for us we just bypass the account establishment and begin keying in the data for the application. >> ok. that's what i want to get to. i'm glad you said that. when the president and secretary sebelius advised americans to submit paper applications, if they're having problems with the

website, they still have to go to the same portal. we've been talking about entrance into the portal. the front door i think we talked about a few times. but also, ms. campbell, i know to quote "the washington post," quoast, about a month before the exchange opened, a tested group of insurers urged agency officials not to launch. so, when you had -- this according to the "the washington post," unquote, so you had a test about a month before the exchange opened, c.g.i. provides that information, were you involved with the testifying with insurers? was c.g.i. involved with the testing with insurers? >> we do test with saturday of insurers to make sure that obviously we -- before we go live that our system is working appropriately. >> did they recommend that you weren't ready to go live? >> they did not recommend that to c. -- to my knowledge. to my knowledge the insurers did not recommend that directly to c.g.i. >> do you know if they recommended it to h.h.s.? >> i do not know. >> you don't know if they did

that or not. >> i do not know. >> did h.h.s. share that information with you that they weren't ready to go sflive >> not that i'm aware of. >> are you aware that this test took place with insurers? c.g.i. is not aware that this test took place with insurers? >> i didn't say that. to my knowledge i'm not aware that the insurers provided feedback to c.g.i. or to c.m.s. or h.h.s. on -- >> did you discover errors during that test? problems with the snm >> the purpose of test, the nature of test, is it's there to -- >> find the problems that you can fix. >> that you find the issues. >> there's still reports in the weeks before -- there's still reports in news that insurers are saying there's missing data, duplicative applications, enrollments and missing data that's still taking place. at least it was reported last week in the news. is that still taking place? >> when we receive a -- what we call a -- they call it a trouble ticket or a defect ticket or an

issue ticket, then we are in the process of making corrections and then when we do the next build, we make corrections to the system. so there could be -- there could have been a point in time where ehere were duplicative insuranc forms and things of that sort or duplicate information and we would have made corrections. where we are in that process at this very moment i don't have the answer to. >> my point is, we wouldn't have had the government shutdown, believe it or not, and i know that didn't get out in the news, if we would have done the individual mandate delay. we didn't say get rid of the exchanges, just not mandate people buy a product they can't buy. so my point that i'm trying to make here is there's other issues. it's not just not being able to get on the website. it's making the exchanges work. it's hard to believe that if that report is true, h.h.s. didn't tell that you they were having trouble between or that

there'd been a delay. it's concerning that those tests are taking place and it's being reported in the media but it doesn't seem to have gotten to c.g.i. from h.h.s. my time is expired, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. i would note that we've been at this for 3 1/2 hours. would any of you like a five-minute break? i see some nods. why don't we take a five-minute break. when we resume, we'll come to mr. mcnerney. k?

>> this will be a brief break as the house energy and commerce committee is convening this hearing on some of the problems consumers are facing as they try to enroll for care at healthcare.gov. committee members taking testimony from government contractors who have been hired to help with the site design and functionality and examining what contractors did or they didn't know before the october 1 rollout. the hearing expected to go until about 2:00 this afternoon.

after which we are planning to open our phone lines to get your thoughts on what you've heard today. so this is a five-minute break right now and so we'll show you a portion of testimony from earlier dealing with hipaa regulations involving the disclose -- the disclosure of patient information. >> this is the part of the signup that is hidden. the applicant does not see this. but it is in the source code. and what that blue highlighted area that's been circled in red says is, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. you all both said that you were hipaa-compliant. how in the world can this be hipaa-compliant? hipaa is designed to protect the patient's privacy and this explicitly says, in order to

continue, you have to accept this condition that you have no privacy. or no reasonable expectation of privacy. >> sir, that would be a decision made by c.m.s.. >> so you're not -- this is news to you? you're the main-prime contractor. you've never seen this before? >> sir, that's not -- we are the prime -- one of the prime contractors, yes. >> you have seen this before? are you aware this was in the source code? >> this requirement -- >> are you aware this was in the source code? yes or no. >> yes. >> you were aware. ok. do you think that's hipaa-compliant? how can that be? you know it's not hipaa-compliant. admit it. you're under oath. >> sir, that is c.m.s.'s decision to make -- >> you just told mrs. blackburn that it was hipaa-compliant. you know that's not

hipaa-compliant. you admit that you knew it was in there. it may be their decision to hide it, but you're the company, not you personally, but your company is the company that put this together. we're telling every american, including all my friends on the democrat side and their huge privacy -- and they're huge privacy advocates. diane degette is chairman of the privacy caucus with me, you're telling every american that you sign up for this or even attempt to, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. that is a direct contradiction to hipaa and you know it. yes or no? >> once again, c.m.s. has us complied to federal rules and regulations that they've established under our contract. and that is a c.m.s. call. that is not a contractor call. >> to break the law? you're now saying that c.m.s.

made a decision to break the law, do you agree with that decision? >> sir, i cannot make a -- i cannot speculate on c.m.s. >> let me ask mr. slavitt. >> this is the first time i'm seeing -- becoming familiar with that source code. >> ok. so you weren't aware of it. >> i was not aware of it. >> ok. let me go back to ms. campbell. she's at least admitted she knew about it. who made this decision to hide this or to put it in the source code in the first place? >> i can't give you that answer. >> who do you report to? was it some junior underlieling at c.m.s.? was it the director at c.m.s.? who made -- who generically, generally made decisions at the policy level that your company interfaced with? give me that person's name. >> there are many decisions made under this program. over this last two, 2 1/2 years.

>> is this another example of where things just go into a cloud? i mean, all you are is a contractor that spent $300 million, $400 million? it goes to some cloud and then it comes back from down on high. who wrote that? >> i am not clear as to who wrote that. >> let me ask it this way. do you think that should be in -- do you think that should be a requirement to sign up for obamacare? that you give up any reasonable expectation of privenesy? >> sir, that is not my jurisdiction. >> you're a u.s. citizen. i'll answer. i don't think it should be. i don't think it should be. let me ask -- my time's about to expire. let me ask one more question. ms. campbell, did you all do any kind of a pilot program on this before it was rolled out? >> no.

there was no pilot program. >> ok. and you said that it was complicated and big but it was meeting your expectation, do you think it's right that 99% of the people that try to go through the system get rejected, can't even complete the application? is that a system that you're proud of? >> sir, this is a system that we are working every day to make improvements. >> in my opinion, if we have a system that almost no one can successfully navigate, that we have to go to the paper system, this gentleman's company down here, that is a system that has failed. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i started out in my opening statements saying there was no legitimacy to this hearing and the last line of the questioning certainly confirms that.

hipaa -- >> that exchange from earlier today and we go back live now to capitol hill as the house energy committee is about to reconvene for more testimony from contractors hired to work on the website healthcare.gov. which has been troublesome for americans to log on to, to get health care.

>> ok, mr. mcnerney, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the witnesses for allowing a grueling hearing this morning. first of all, i want to say, i really don't blame my republican colleagues for trying to change the subject from the costly and reckless government shutdown and the irresponsible threat to default on our nation's credit by focusing on a temporary short-term failing of our healthcare.gov website. good job. my first question regards software development. i was a software developer before coming to congress. healthcare.gov is a very big

project. it's got a lot of moving parts to it. any large project, including solvet wear, needs an orchestrated, coordinate all the moving parts to make sure things are fitting together well. who was that or what organization was that orchestrater for this project? ms. campbell, you seem to be in the best position to answer that question. >> that would be c.m.s. >> c.m.s. ok. and there's a specific person at c.m.s. or was it a team of people? >> it was a team of individuals. >> well, did the orchestrater, and this is a question for all four of you, create adequate specifications for the software, including language? when you have a software project that has moving parts or different parts, you want to input and output specifications, you want what the individual parts are supposed to do. was there sufficient, adequate specifications for your team to do their job in the time that was the allowed? >> sir, we were receiving requirements through the

april-may time frame. and then -- >> were they formal specifications that could be used? >> they were use cases and things of that sort. >> mr. slavitt, would you like to answer that? >> we believe we received appropriate specifications. >> we received sufficient specifications to integrate our part of the solution. >> we had no role in the system development. >> so, i hear unanimously is that there were adequate specifications. and yet the software wasn't finished in time. did the specifications include testing requirements? that you received? ms. campbell? >> sir, we did testing on our code, but there was also independent testing that was done as well.

>> were they specified? were they test-specified prior to the big development of the software? >> not prior to developing the software. but there were test scripts that were developed during the process. >> well, then, maybe there wasn't sufficient time. i mean, from my point of view, as a distant observer, either the specifications weren't adequate, they weren't delivered in time or the software wasn't developed according to the specifications. which one of those three is the problem? >> i would say with a system this complicated and level of moving parts is probably a little bit of all aspects of all three. there are things in our code that obviously we would like to improve on. for sure. there are specifications that would have been better served if hey had been more detailed and

if given more time i think we would have been able to across the bood ed of once again, end-to-end testing on the part of c.m.s. integration, on the part of c.m.s., but given the luxury of time and i think we all recognize that one never gets -- no matter how great the system is, no one ever gets enough time for testing. but -- >> software's particularly difficult to estimate the time needed. when i was developing software, if you told your manager would you take two weeks, he would double that and then go to the next period of time frame, two months. so, he would have made it a four-month time frame if you gave him two weeks. so, time is always of the essence in software. especially since it's so error-prone. and i guess there were political hindrances regarding the amount of time that was allowed and there were structural issues and

i do believe that this is going to be fixed but it's been painful and we need to make sure that the american people have access to a decent health care website before december 15. and if that doesn't happen, it's going to be -- there are going to be more difficult hearings like this. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. skelton. >> i thank the chair. and want to sincerely welcome and thank the witnesses. ms. campbell, mr. slavitt, ms. fellsy and mr. lau, for appearing before this committee this morning and now this afternoon. and my guess is you might be a little nervous. what stired -- tired because this has gone on for almost four hours. you probably didn't get a lot of sleep the last couple of weeks and you're probably a little angry but the commander in chief, the skipper of obamacare, our president, does not understand that the skipper is responsible for everything that

happens on his ship. the good and the bad. as we've seen here this morning, there's major league blame game going on within the administration and y'all unfortunately are the targets of some of that blame. and am damn angry that i 700,000 texans i represent, have een misled, misled and misled. in this room one month ago the health and human services departmentdy administrator for consumer information opened up his testimony by saying, and i quote, c.m.s. has worked hard to build, refine and test the infrastructure that will allow americans to enroll in coverage confidently, simply and securely . end quote. we now know that that was one

ig, fat lie. and it was proved this morning when chairman upton gathered this hearing at about 9:00. i logged on to healthcare.gov to try to enroll my family in my ealth care plan. i tried to get on texas' plan. i got this after 41 minutes. please log in again. you're logged out now. that's happening all over the country. and this lie is way beyond an awful computer program. this lie affects the health and ell-being of every american.

my question will be about the testing that was done. this is mostly for you, ms. campbell, and you, mr. slavitt. being a computer science macker from rice university and a former naval aviator who could not afford to have my computer drop offline as i'm rolling in my plane to drop a torpedo to stop russian submarine from launching missiles at our country, i know that that system is pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and tested to fail. goal is that c.g.i. and q.s.i. take these steps, push, push, push, and test your part to failure. >> first of all, sir, you must be in my household. my husband too was a naval aviator.

but we worked tirelessly around the clock to make sure that we were doing everything we could to make -- that the product that we delivered on october 1, we're not excited, no are we pleased with what we delivered on october 1. but in principle it worked. it's not working great. and we're working to improve it. but it did enroll -- it is enrolling people. >> mr. slavitt. push, push, push, make sure all the variable, best you could do? >> we do believe it served adequate testing. >> and so any idea what happened? somehow c.m.s., the product that came out fell apart nefment idea what happen there had? >> you'd have to ask c.m.s. >> i plan on doing. that mr. slavitt, any idea? >> as i said a little bit earlier, the system didn't receive adequate end-to-end testing and we took those results -- those results were made available and i think made

aware those results to c.m.s. >> so like both of y'all, you ushed the nfl, they hit -- envelope, they just hit the bottom -- button. i want to ask a rhetorical yes of -- question of all four of y'all. if you were the president of the united states and you woke up on september 30 this past year, knowing what you know, would you have rolled out the exchange on october 1? ms. campbell. >> i can't begin to answer that question. >> nope. >> i don't know what flexibility existed to change the dates. >> not the days but the program. you know the problems, you guys know the problems. >> i don't know. >> i can't answer that. >> can't answer that one. this is rhetorical, guys. >> i'm not in a position to answer that one. >> come on, people. people in the audience have all sorts of opinions on that. i yield back the balance of my time, thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to the witnesses as well for joining us today and

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

the questions, and we've seen the president on tv trying to apologize to the american people for this disaster. and he said,ed administration announced this week that the best and brightest are coming in they healthcare.gov but won't say who they are. so, ms. campbell, who are these best and bright theast are coming in to fix this website? >> so, first of all, c.g.i. has some of the best and brightest. so i just want too make sure that that's on the record. we make sure that we hire -- >> who are the best and brightest that have been invited by the white house to fix this problem? >> i don't have individuals by name. >> what companies? who built the website? you built the website. correct? >> we build the application. >> so who is coming in to fix the website now? >> advisors,. >> who are the advisors? >> i don't have names. >> where are they from? >> who do they work for? >> they have small businesses on

their own. >> so this decision was announced early in the week and you don't know who the best and brightest are that are coming to fix this mess? >> i don't have them by name, sir. >> who are they by company? >> i will get back to you with names. >> could you get back to me by tomorrow? >> i will do my best. >> so the president of the united states has said that these are the best and the brightest and you don't know what organization -- are they being paid? >> sir, give me an opportunity to get back to you with that. >> you don't know if they're being paid. >> if they're there as a support person to c.g.i., they would be paid under our contract. >> if the support person was c.g.i., i assume you know who they are. >> i don't have them by name. i just don't have that. >> do you know who these best and brightest are that are coming in to fix this mess? >> no. >> so, are you still consulting with c.m.s. on this? >> i'm just not familiar with this situation. >> ms. campbell, with the president, you're still consulting and in charge.

are you the systems integrator still or is c.m.s.? >> we have never been the systems integrator and we have no -- and we are not the systems integrator. >> who is in charge of systems integrater? >> c.m.s. is responsible for end-to-end. >> that brings me to another question. to mr. scalise you had said that c.m.s. asked to you turn off browsing two weeks before october 1. does that mean that you originally built a browseble website? >> that is correct. >> why can't you just turn that on? >> one, we've not been asked to turn that on. now the system's gone live. we can turn it on. >> so -- >> it would have to be tested and make sure that now it's in a live environment. >> tested just like the other website wasn't tested? >> i wouldn't say that it wasn't tested. >> no end-to-end testing. >> i didn't say there was no end-to-end testing. c.g.i. didn't do end-to-end testing. >> so the taxpayers paid then for a browseble website.

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

decision, that they would turn off, two weeks before october 1, the browseable website to hide the real cost of obamacare from the american people. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. kinzinger. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, thank you all for being here. it's a long day, i know. but we appreciate you being present. i want to kind of narrow in on another issue that hasn't really been too much discussed and that's the website that's sending insurers bad information. multiple enrollments, cancellations for the person and forms containing sibbierish that are showing up at the insurance side of it. this could continue to be a problem even if functionality and other areas of the website improve. in fact, it could become a larger problem because now so few am canlts are actually getting -- applicants are actually getting to the insurers that they're being able to get viewed individually. taking this to scale might cost significant problems once people en masse start signing up. i'll ask you, ms. campbell, most

news reporting has focused on front-end problems with the federal exchange. i'd like to ask a few questions about some troubling rainstorms that i'm hearing. we hear there could be even bigger issues at end of the system, at the end processes of the system, but "the washington post" and the "wall street journal" have reported that insurers are receiving error-ridder 834's and from what i that's an electronic form that lets insurers know who signed up for their product. so reports indicate one insurer got an 834 with three spouses listed on it have you identified the specific problem, how widespread is it, and what's causing it? >> thank you for the question. we have uncovered a number of those scenarios, not significant, but a number of them, and we are in the process of making crecks. most of them are isolated, not across the board for all insurers. so we are work trk so we are working on solving those as they

come to our attention. >> you're saying they're not very widespread, it's an ao casal thing basically? >> it is more isolated than widespread. >> and specifically what steps are you taking to address that? >> it's part of our normal defect build process so when that issue comes into the, what they call the contact center, we get a trouble ticket we can look at the c.m.s., determine the prioritization of the trouble ticket and worked based on those priorities with c.m.s. and then change -- implement our code changes and update the system through testing. >> so are you taking steps to garen -- here's a concern. say somebody enrolls in december, thinks they're enrolled, maybe the trouble ticket happened or the 834, something got messed up so on january 1 they wake up and find out they didn't enroll when they

thought they did is that a concern you have that may be addressed in trying to rectify this problem? >> we are tracking when someone enrolls that there is -- that they actually enrolled, that there's a direct correlation to making sure there's an 834 attached to that particular transaction, try and mitigate those things from happening. >> some industry analysts are saying healthcare.gov's other problems are disguising the issue, if applicants were able to seen up easily but with the 834s coming in with this many errors the results could be disastrous. and reports show that dependents are being incorrectly coded as spouses have you identified that problem? >> that one i have not heard. that doesn't men it's not in our queue but i'm not aware of it directly. >> i ask if you could provide to the committee by 9:00 a.m.

tomorrow the categories of problems. >> if i'm able to do -- to provide that information. >> you wouldn't be able to? >> i said if i'm able to provide that. >> i promise the hearing will be over by then. >> thank you. >> i have a minute left, i yield to the gentleman for from ohio for a minute, mr. johnson. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and this will give me a chance to sort of set the stage a little bit. i hope both the -- i hold both a bachelors and master's degree in computer science and worked for on systems like this both in the military and department of defense. some of those systems global, some held the success and failure of multibillion dollar companies in the balance. i speak your language and i've been where you are, sitting, trying to figure out what went terribly wrong in an

implementation that has cost the american taxpayers over $400 million and the cost is continuing to rise. these are more than glitches. they can't be fixed. i'm going to explain why i believe they can't be fixed when i get back. it can be replaced, at another large cost to the american taxpayer, but they can't be fixed. i'll explain that when i get back. i yield back. >> mr. griffin. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much. ms. campbell, can you tell me who made the decision that everybody from 27 to 49 when they go into the website would receive a price based on the 27-year-old's price? >> i don't have that information. >> and likewise the same would be true for the person who is from 50 up would receive the 50-year-old price, you don't have that information either? >> i do not. >> was that somebody at c.m.s.? >> i would have to believe so. >> and can you also tell me in

regard to the changes that were required not to have the browsers so that people could browse and find out what was going on? that change that came in two weeks before so people couldn't just browse and take a look at it, that appears to me to have been a political change, i know you can't make that statement, but when that request came in from c.m.s. did you tell them that would cause difficulties with getting this website launched by october 1? >> for us, it's really a flag in our system, so we just turned the flag on or turned it off for that particular component. >> so you didn't think it was going to cause problems with the system? >> that's correct. >> and mr. slavic, if i read your testimony, it says you reported that you all did some testing and reported back to c.m.s. and the relevant contractor who was responsible for fixing the problems that you found. when did you finish that

testing? >> we would do the testing whenever the code was made available to us. >> when was the last time you did testing and notified c.m.s. and the relevant contractors that there were coding errors or necessary cheages that needed to be made? >> eeble that was up toward the very end. >> and do you know who you were working with on that? >> i don't. >> can you find out for us? >> we'll get right back to you. >> if you can get that to us, i'd appreciate it. did you alert folks that if ese problems weren't fixed there would be problems? >> we alerted c.m.s. to the results of the test. >> ms. campbell, do you know who told you all to turn off the browsing option? chao lieve it was henry and members of his team. >> did they give you reasons for not making that option live? or am i fair at least to assume it was a political decision? >> i can't answer whether it was political or otherwise. >> sourp not given any reason other than that?

>> i was not given a reason. >> all right. and -- ok. i appreciate that very much. thank you very much. i am going to yield the remainder of my time to my friend and colleague from ohio, mr. johnson. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me continue. here's why liable this can't be fixed. it's got to be replaced. this, from what i have seen, based on my experience, this is indicative of failure somewhere along the line to employee the discipline processes, methodologies, standards to deliver a system of this complexity. in layman's term, so the american people can understand how complicated this is, this might help a little bit. you know you can't recook eggs. you go into a restaurant and order two eggs over medium and the server brings you out two eggs scrambles, you've got two choices. eat the eggs you got, which

means you don't get what you ordered, or you send them back and this restaurant owner eats the cost of replacing those eggs. somebody loses. in this case, it's the american people that's losing because what we have here is either the development team, of which you folks are a part, did not follow a disciplined methodology, and therefore you didn't see the red flags that were coming up, which calls into question your capabilities and qualifications, or you didn't notify anybody in c.m.s. as ms. campbell has stated when you saw the red flags coming up, which calls into question your judgment, the only other possibility is that c.m.s. ignored your recommendations and moved forward with implementing a flawed system. folks, the eyes of the nation are watching and listening to what's being said here today.

some of you are publicly traded companies. i suspect every government agency and every commercial company that you would do business with is watching what you say. i suspect your shareholders and stock analysts are also watching with you say because they're going to try to determine, is it your capabilities and qualifications that are at fault? is it your judgment that's at fault? or did c.m.s. ignore your recommendations? and that's what we've got to get to the bottom of. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman is next in the queue. >> all right, thank you. mr. slavitt, you stated in your testimony that, and if i read , your performance trusted data

sources, correct? for the hub? >> the data services hub. >> it's based on trusted data sources. you assume that data is trustworthy, correct? ms. campbell in her testimony stated, and if i go back to it, thate get back to it here, as performance -- >> the gentleman didn't let him answer. >> i didn't ask a question yet. this is my time. i haven't asked a question. but when i do i'll let you know. when ms. campbell testified that when performance issues like sle response times and data assurance issues arose, they would be addressed through fine tuning and optmyization. so were you aware that data assurance issues were present? did anybody tell you about that? did c.g.i. tell you there were problems with data assurance

issues? >> i'm not sure what was intended by that statement. >> so c.g.i. did not tell you there were data assurance issues? >> if there are issues made aware to our team our team addresses them discreetly and promptly. >> ms. campbell did you tell the independent tester that there were data assurance issues that you were aware of? >> to make sure we have it in context when test og curs, which -- >> i know how test og curs. it's a simple question. >> i think you're taking it out of context. now that the system has gone live, just as one of the gentleman commented on, some of the errors we're seing on the 8 34's, we're now making those corrections. >> are you the p.m. for the contract for your contract? >> i am not the project manager. >> so you do not interface directly every day with c.m.s., correct? on a daily basis? as the program manager --

>> i am not. that is correct i am not the project manager. >> your contract required you to deliver your company -- to deliver, your company to deliver a risk management plan. have you delivered the risk management plan? >> we have. >> can you provide a copy to this committee? >> with permission from c.m.s., yes, we can. >> we'll be asking c.m.s. for that as well. the contract also required you recommend standards and industry best practices and key performance indicators. you testified earlier that you didn't make any recommendations to c.m.s. about the performance of the system, it was totally c.m.s. that made the decisions. yet the contract requires that you recommend standards and key performance indicators to make sure everything works right. did you just decide not to do that? or what? >> once again, for our portion of the system, we provided that information. >> that's not what your contract says. were you aware that you were supposed to be performing under

the c.m.s.'s exchange life cycle management? >> we do. >> ok, you do tell me about the preoperational readiness review and what it requires. >> i'd have to give you -- i wouldn't want to go into detail here. >> let me go into detail for you. here are some of the things that preoperational readiness review requires. integration testing results. end-to-end testing results. you have testified that c.m.s. was responsible for end-to-end but clearly your contract requires you to provide to them end-to-end and integration testing results. test summary reports. an l.o.e. estimate to achieve the operational readiness review. nords, an estimate of what it was going to take to fix those things that were found at the preoperational readiness review. do you know when the preoperational readiness review was to be conducted.

>> so to be clear -- >> no when was it supposed to be conducted. >> it's part of our system and our -- >> when was the preoperational readiness review supposed to be conducted? it's in your contract. let me help you. it was 2/4/2012. the operational readiness review which also included a letter of estimate to support operations and maintenance was supposed to 2/1/2013. d in mr. slavitt did you participate in any of these reviews? >> are you asking if i personally did? i did not. >> did your company? >> our company participated in all the necessary reviews. >> you said you were an independent tester. how can you be an independent tester when you're an integral developer of part of the system? w does that qualify you as independent. >> we independently test code

from other contractors. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. several questions here, if i could, maybe, the two of you. >> is your mike on. >> it's turned on. >> can you explain to me first, ms. campbell you said that -- in your testimony, some three and a half hours ago, that the system works but not at an acceptable pace. is the pace specified in the contract? >> it is not specified in the contract. >> so do you feel that you fulfilled your contractual obligations by october 1? >> absolutely. >> and do you believe that next week, secretary sebelius will concur that you have fulfilled your contractual obligations?

>> i certainly hope she does. >> do you think she will? >> i think she will. >> do you know whether or not -- are you familiar with either one of you, ivnv or vnv? >> independent validation and verification? >> yes. >> was that to have been used in this process? this engineering development? >> i do not recall there being an ivnv contractor. >> how about with you, mr. slavitt? >> i don't know. >> do you think it would have een justified? >> at the start of the program, it could not have hurt. >> ok. do you have the developmental artifacts that would confirm your engineering solution that you developed in developing your software? >> yes, we do. >> is that -- do you know

contractually whether or not that will be available for an independent agency to review? >> i'd have to get -- that would have to go through c.m.s. contract organization for approval. >> did -- in the contract -- i've listened here a little bit, after hearing so many questions being raised, is there an issue about -- strike that. go back to the question, how long did you have in the spess -- or in the specifications did they tell you two weeks is all you have to have? i come from the construction industry that's very specific about when you have to have substantial completion on a project. was there anything like that in this that said you must begin testing just two weeks before it's launched? >> no, none of those specifications were in our original contract.

>> ok but i also heard there were change orders. was there a change that said you shall begin testing two weeks prior? >> no, and once again, testing was not our ultimate responsibility. testing of our code, to make sure i'm clear, testing our code, our responsibility, but then it went through the c.m.s. project process for testing, independent testing done by qssi and c.m.s. doing the integrated end-to-end testing. >> if you feel you achieved your objectives by october 1, can you tell me whether or not there were anything about liquidated damages, if there are problems associated after october 1 that have to be corrected? are there liquidated damages as part of your contract? >> i'd have to get back to you on that. i don't recall -- it's a standard clause it could be there as a standard clause but i don't know for sure.

but being a cost-plus type contract, my -- i'm stretching because -- >> i didn't think, again, i have not had a chance to complete review of it but i thought it was your performance base plus cost for incidental expenses. i didn't read it as being a cost-plus based contract. are you saying cost-plus not performance-based? >> i believe it's a cost-plus contract. cost-plus-fee. >> cost plus fee. >> that's what i believe. but i'll get confirmation. >> get back to us by that magic 9:00 hour tomorrow. the one thing in closing, i'm a little surprised by the whole panel. we've heard all the disappointment, both sides of thing le here, over this not being satisfactory at this point, i haven't heard one of you apologize to the american

blic in behalf of your companies for problems that were associated with not having this thing ready. are apologies not in order? >> in my opening statement i said that c.g.i. as well as myself acknowledge, we acknowledge -- >> just a simple i'm sorry, i'm sorry -- we tried but there were changes, we tried. i've not heard the word i'm sorry. i know men have a hard time saying that but the whole panel. look as a contractor when we didn't finish a project on time we had to go to the owner and apologize and explain what happened. we're not ready here and i don't understand why there's not an apology to the american public. we're sorry that there were glitches. it was a very complicated project, as you said, but i apologize. i haven't heard that from any

one of the four of you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> can we get an apology for shutting down the government because people didn't like the health care bill. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from north carolina, mrs. ellmers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our panel. this has been a long process and i do appreciate you coming and meeting with the entire committee today and you know, what i'm learning from this situation is i do believe that you all did your best to get this process in order. and i am hearing repeatedly and repeatedly that this -- the bottom line here is c.m.s. is responsible for this failure. and i just -- on bhf of your companies, you have the opportunity to throw them right under the bus as far as i'm concerned. and we will get that information, i'm sure. ms. campbell, i need to know, the american people need to know, how many people are

enrolled? how many individuals are now enrolled in health care coverage from the website? >> i'm not able to provide that information. >> you are not able or you do not have that information? >> i don't have it with me. and i'd have to have approval from c.m.s. to provide that information. >> now to that point, one, i'm going to ask you to submit that by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow but i do want to point something out. i understand where you're coming from, i know you have a contract, c.g.i. has a contract, all of you have a contract with c.m.s. but c.m.s. is a government agency, we oversee c.m.s. and c.m.s. is the american people. when we talk about contracts here, that's really who we're talking about. we are talking about the american people. c.m.s. is not a private company somewhere in the united states. they represent the american people. and we've got to get to the bottom of these issues. so yes, we do need those numbers by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

mr. lao on that, how many paper applications have been completed up to this time? >> somewhere 3,000 and 4,000. >> between ,000 and 4,000. ok. to that point, now the president on monday in the rose garden gave a speech and because of the glitches, i call them gaffes, they're much bigger than glitches, glitches are little hiccups and these are much more than hiccup he referred to the one-800 number and urged the american people to call the call center and to go through, you know, the hard copy process essentially or the paper process. to that point, now, ms. campbell, do you know that process? how -- what happens if someone calls the 1-800 number. where do they go? where are they directed? how does that process lay out. i know you have to be brief because i do only have two minutes. >> actually it's a question that goes to circo.

>> ok, that's fine. so you -- to the best of your knowledge, you would not have knowledge of that at this point? >> no, not -- >> once it's become paper or hard copy. mr. lao, what's the process. >> paper -- >> if someone calls the 800 number. >> we don't operate the call center. call center people as i understand it directly key enter the application to the extent people are willing to go -- to give out over the phone. >> so are they fwoning to the same portal system? >> yes. >> the same failed portal system. >> the same portal system. >> it is. so what would be the average time then and -- i know you mentioned about 3,000 applications being completed up to this point. so there are -- there are individuals, my understanding, would be, that have gone on to that site and they are still waiting to find out if they've been accepted or any further

information. is that correct? >> to which site? >> if someone called and there was a paper application processed or started, initiated. >> i only know roughly how it works. i'm not familiar with the data on that. we don't really connect. i can only answer -- >> but to the best of your knowledge because the portal system, the same portal system that this entire process goes through and because it is experiencing the failures that it is, those individuals would, to your best assumption would be -- continue to be waiting? >> i'm not certain about that. because once they're in the system then the system process determines the length of time. >> but we can assume since only 3,000 have been processed fully that it's a minimal number when you think about it. >> from the peaper side. >> and ms. campbell i want to touch on one last thing. i know you said you had gone through the process. did you actually complete your -- when you went through the process yourself individually

did you complete it? >> i did not. i'm not signing up for insurance. my company provides insurance. >> but when you tested it yourself. my understanding is, earl yore -- herbal earlier you said you tried it through the virginia system, went to the website and you did or did not complete it? >> i did not complete the application. >> thank you. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cassidy is recognized. >> good news, i'm the last one. couple of things. i'll go quickly and ask you to speak quickly as well, i have only five minutes. today what has each -- to date what have each of you been paid and what do you anticipate being paid further. you mentioned, ms. campbell, it's a cost-plus. >> to date, $112 million, for the year, i believe $196 million. for the contract. >> and going forward? any con stept?

>> the total t.c.v., total contract very with option years and everything exercised would be $293 million. >> the $196 million total encludes the $112 million, it's not in addition -- >> it's part of the $112 million. >> mr. slavitt. >> the contract has been funded to -- to just under $85 million that includes the hardware and software. >> and how much do you anticipate going forward? >> i don't believe that amount has been fully paid, i think that's what's been funded, i would point out that we have contracts for work we do -- >> i've got just a minute. i'm sorry. >> to date, we have received less than $2 million and what we would be paid in the future depends on the transactions we receive from the hub. >> first of the year contract with modifications, $249 million. to date we've probably received about $30 million. >> next, ms. campbell, in your

previous testimony here today you said you're not responsible for the front door. here is your testimony from september 10, you said your scope of activity was architecting and developing an f.f.m. and immediately afterwards you said the f.f.m. will serve as the front door. i'm not quite sure today why it's not -- why today it's not a front door and on the 10th it was. >> it's a matter of interpretation. when we first were trying to give a way to explain what our role would be it's the safe of the application. it's the front of the house but the front door of the house is here eidm would take over. >> now also in your previous testimony i asked if spanish would be part of the rollout and implementation, i asked if it's ready and would it be a seamless experience, you said for the online application yes. there are reports that the

spanish language websites are not up and it's unclear when they'll come up. is that because the websites are not ready or the administration has chosen not to take them online? >> c.m.s. directs which components go live and when. >> so is the spanish language website ready and if it were up would it be functioning? >> it would be. >> so the c.m.s. decision not to begin it. >> that's correct. >> mr. slavitt, i gather you're the front door here. mr. shimkus asked why is someone who is 49 years old being quoted a rate for someone who is 27 and why is someone who is 64 being quoted a rate for someone who is 50? clearly misleading. so incredibly misleading. i'm a doctor, so i understand the difference in health care costs for the two. would it be technologically difficult to ask users their date of birth to generate a more accurate estimate? >> i'm not sure i even understand the phrase front door in this context. the user questions are not part

of the eidm tool. >> if you put in d.o.b., did of birth, sit difficult to link that date of birth with what eit would cost far 50-year-old gentleman as opposed to giving him the rate farce 27-year-old person? >> that aspect of the site is not part of the eidm. >> is it part of your site, ms. campbell? >> it is. >> would it be technologically more difficult to give a credit? >> it would not be difficult to add date of birth. >> and connect that within an actual rate as opposed to a disingenuous rate. >> it would give a better accounting, it would not give a complete accounting. >> but a much better accounting a big difference between 50 years old and 27. >> i totally agree with you. >> now everybody on this panel, at least the ones here on the 10th, swore this would all be ready and yet now it appears the administration had some idea it was not going to be ready prior to its opening date.

let me ask, when the questions, when the problems became apparent, did the administration pose any pressure in any form for you not been forthcoming regarding the magnitude of the problems? >> no. >> no. >> so even though you pointed out to them, mr. slavitt, that this might not be ready for prime time and you saw this kind of train wreck happening on the first, they never pushed back. >> we shared all the tests and they were fully aware of the tests. >> i yield back. >> thank you. thank you, panel. i would just for the record like to note particularly for c.g.i. and qssi, the committee did send letters to both of your companies on october 6 asking for information about healthcare.gov's problems and that deadline for the letter response was october 23 so members, i know, have asked a number of followup questions, i understand it may not be at 9:00

tomorrow but if you could get that done as quickly as possible, particularly in light, know weffing secretary sebelius agreeing to testify next week. we'd like to have that information in hand so we can be prepared for that. i appreciate your testimony. you are now excused. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> the house energy and commerce committee wraps up its hear, hearing from contractors involved with the healthcare.gov website and its launch on october 1 and some of the problems that have ensued. here on c-span, we're going to open up our phone lines to find out about your experience using the health care website, or the websites in your state. the numbers to use for those with a good experience using the health care website, 202-585-3885. or those of you not so good, 202-585-3886, and for all other, if you have not tried it yet or an to try but haven't yet, 202-585-3887. we also saw some tweets on the screen a few minutes ago,

cspanchat is the hash tag. a couple of quick programming note, we plan to show you the entire hearing beginning, reairing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also the chairman of the committee, fred upton of michigan, will be our guest on sunday's "newsmakers" program airing sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern. let's get to your calls. ellie is in syracuse, new york, your experience with the website was good? >> yes, it was. >> tell us about it. >> i tried -- i personally didn't need it but i tried just to see and i had a good experience but did not fully complete. >> when you went on did you go on as yourself? did you -- what did you? >> i wenton as -- went on as myself but i didn't complete it. i wanted to see if i was able to get through and i was. i had no problem. very proud of the

affordable care act. >> you heard the term c.m.s., the center for medicare and medicaid services. the director, the administrationor for that department, part of health and human services, will testify next week before a different committee. here's joshua in rock hill, south carolina. a bad experience with the website. tell us about that. >> yes, the other day i was on there, monday this week, i spent two and a half hours tiing to put my family in there just so we could see what the rates were and it was extremely slow. had to switch back and forth twone different internet browsers, one didn't work, the other would sometimes. my rates ended up tripling what they were a few months ago. >> so you're dwoning to stick with what you have now? or what's the plan? >> unfortunately, the plan i had before is no longer offered to me because it doesn't meet the

a.c.a. requirements. >> ok, victoria in oregon. haven't tried it yet. what are your concerns about the website? >> well i just watched the hearing about the website, i'm a registered nurse for the past -- since 1966. i know a little bit about health care. we need this affordable care act. enge that some of these issues that came up, i know well about hippaa, there were questions about privacy and no health care information is going on to the website. there may be a question about smoking but hey, if you want to file for life insurance there's a question on there about that. i think people give more information online when they're applying for credit cards, including your mother's maiden name and things like that, so i think this is actually going to work when they get rid of the glitches, as they call them and i think it'll be a good thing. >> what do you think about some of the discussion that's been mentioned, some of the criticism that's been talked about that

the site itself doesn't allow you to shop, you have to sort of register, you have to create an account before you can shop, do you think that's valid? >> i'm not sure. i mean i have gone online and looked for things like airplane tickets and things and you have to log in and you can cancel it, you know at the end. if you don't want to pleat your transaction, so you know, if it puts a snafu in the beginning of the system and it's not user friendly, they should look at it but perhaps you can't get the information you need without putting in certain -- completing certain fields. like you would when you're looking at other things online. >> democratic congressman john yarmuth of kentucky was praiseful of the kentucky website, their state website, here's jason in frankford, kentucky, also a good experience in kentucky, i guess. >> absolutely. i commend congressman yarmuth for having conceded, one that somebody actually did get it

right and the great constituent of kentucky did do that. my personal experience was quite good. however, i had to go into with the expectation that some glitches were going to occur. startup program, we could expect that stuff. >> start to finish how long did it take you on the kentucky site? >> 30 minutes. >> really? >> absolutely. >> so you're all signed up through the kentucky site then? >> not just me but my mother also. i took the liberty of helping her negotiate through kentucky's website and we both found it very user friendly, provided we were patient and went into it with the right attitude, the process worked. and i laud kentucky's officials for having had the foresight to put what they were doing

against the federal system so we didn't have to experience the same glitches and failures that the federal system did in its th process. >> appreciate you sharing your experience. we're asking about your experience with the healthcare.gov website. was it good? bad? or haven't tried it yet? the numbers listed for the appropriate response. we're also getting your reaction on twitter. reaction on twitter largely to the hearing that just finished. the house energy and commerce hearing from the government contractors involved in the development of the healthcare.gov website. here's a tweet from clancy.

>> the hash tag is #cs is span chat. we go to miami, dennis, who has not tried it yet. >> i'm 7 years old. f this national fiasco is this bad, what's going to happen when the i.r.s. comes out with euthanasia and tries to bump off us old mp off all folks. >> you concerned about that? >> they keep coming at me with these incoming things for the i.r.s. and won't give me any answers. >> let's hear about an experience in florida that wasn't so good. ray, tell us about what you encountered on the website? >> it's not the website.

i called the 1-800-number and she did it for me, went to the website and got kicked off. i spent about an hour and 40 minutes with her. she said do you have time to spend? this could take two hours. i said yeah if you go on break, put the next person on, i'm going to stay here because i don't want to get fined by the i.r.a. seasoned -- i.r.s. i was just a little bit nervous about it. it's just not right what's going on. everybody is blaming everybody, i'm watching this, and i think they ought to delay it, hands down for at least a year for everybody. they did it for big business, why not the person? and you got everybody nervous. >> perhaps some concerns from consumers and people on capitol hill as well, late news yesterday about a delay in terms of people being able to register online. here's the headline from "the washington post."

>> let's hear from marty who had a good experience, calling from dallas, texas. >> how are you today? >> fine, thanks. >> i had a good experience. i was recently laid off and last week i went in to look at the , ices on the healthcare.gov but i had no problem going in and looking at the costs prior to applying and also went into the chat module on there and asked a quick question and they responded within 20 seconds. so that was last week. so i got all the costs, of course subsidies would apply and i have no issues finding that on the website at all. >> a live look at the white house where earlier today president obama called on congress to pass immigration reform. next week the house and senate are both out, the house is tone back onweek, the senate

monday. they will hear from kathleen sebelius next wednesday. she'll testify before the house energy and commerce committee. the committee that just wrapped up. the ways and means committee in the house also will meet next eek, hearing from marlin tavaner who heads c.m.s., the centers for medicare and medicaid. we'll keep you posted on our coverage plans on the c-span networks, also next week a couple of big conference committee meetings, the farm bill conference on wednesday, the budget conference next wednesday as mandated by the agreement to end the government shutdown. they have through december 13 to come up with a plan, a budget. let's go to frederick, maryland. james has not yet try toad website. james, maryland has its own site, correct? >> yes. >> ok. go ahead. >> i would just want to comment that i worked as a contractor on

federal systems and also i worked in the -- just retired from government in 2012 and i worked on these big legacy departments arious in the federal government for years and there's an old saying that the government hires contractors so they'll have somebody to blame when things go wrong. which may be coming true today. >> talk about the time frame for this for a second. as near as i can remember from the testimony from the government contractors, i believe the start date for the c.g.i. contract was about september 30, 2011. so basically two years to fulfill something like this. is that a reasonable time to get it done? >> as complex as this law is, with 20,000 pages of policy, all of that has to be flow charted and processed and done before you can even begin to understand

the process. it's -- it looks like probably one of the most complicated processes i've ever seen in the federal government with all that policy and regulation that has to be put into the system. >> of all the projects you worked on in your time as a government contractors did you encounter anything this complex? >> i don't think i have. now i worked on federal payroll systems and federal payroll is pretty complicated, now, you know, you've got insurance, taxes, leave time, flexi time. all that kind of stuff. has to, to -- has to work into a payroll system. and you know then they track personnel issues and stuff like that in there and you can -- we had, i worked on one payroll stem we had what they called fat fingers you couldn't get the

data in and get it processed york uh had to write special code to process it each time for each vedge for some transactions. >> all right jason is sharing his experiences as a government contractor in i.t. appreciate you calling. just a reminder if you missed the hearing today we have it on our website at crmbing span.org in the video library and we'll reair it for you tonight beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. jim had a bad experience with the health care signup, he's in mesquite, texas. >> hi, jim. you know, i'm a licensed insurance agent, i work with medicare beneficiaries and i go on the c.m.s. website to help people, you know, find insurance for their medicare and then i lso have tried to go on to the ealthcare.gov and haven't been able to get in. one thing that concern medals was what representative from new

jersey said, i think his name is pallone. there's no health care information here so hippaa doesn't apply. if i have somebody who contacts me and asks me about their mother's medicare insurance if they're not a listed beneficiary, i can't tell them what plan they're enrolled in, anything about the plan hippaa does apply to this. if they're blocking that saying it doesn't apply that's a violation of the law and you can't get into the website, can't find what you're looking for, getting the wrong pricing, i can understand why the american people are upset with this and quite frankly if i quoted somebody an insurance price for a medicare plan that was based on somebody being 65 and they're 85, that would be upset, i would think, about that. >> jim, appreciate your call. let's hear from carol whose experience was bet thorne healthcare.gov website. hi, carol. >> hi, how are you? >> doing fine, thank you.

>> my husband and i are in michigan and we got on the site and bought insurance in 15 minutes. >> 15 minutes? >> 15 minutes. but the problem is that we feel that's going on because we're techies is that there's not enough servers, the servers are being overwhelmed and crashing. so you could try for three or four or five hours if the server has crashed they have to get it back up and running. >> so carol, did michigan set up its own exchange or is this through -- >> no. >> this is through healthcare.gov. >> yeah. but the problem also is that how can i explain it? when kids come home from school, they use -- there's more computer traffic, we went in after 9:00, most people watch tv between 8:00 and 10:00 so we probably did it at a low traffic

time, you know what i'm saying? >> sure. you're saying fewer people are online, so the servers aren't -- >> so if you want to hit the server hit it about 11:00 or 12:00 at night, there'll be less people trying to log in. if you're doing going to try to log in at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. at night, it's going to crash. but we need more servers they don't need to be using mother boards that are 10 years old, believe me. the stuff they're using is just not the best. that's all i can tell you. we went in, it was 9:00, we got in and out in 15 minutes. >> all right, thanks for sharing that experience. use the site later, says carol. a tweet from frank, a producer from nbc on capitol hill. looking ahead to the busy week next week.

>> you may rehaul h.h.s. briefed the house democrats yesterday. joey is calling, he hasn't tried the healthcare.gov website. >> i was calling, i don't believe in this obamacare. i only ever get sick -- i hardly ever get sick, i hardly ever go to the doctor. i believe if they try to take money out of my income tax to pay this off. >> how old are you? >> 31. >> and you don't right now have nurns? >> no. >> and nour not -- >> if they force me to do it and try to stake money out of my social security -- i mean out of my income tax, i will be moving out of the united states. >> joey is from lyle, tennessee. thanks for all your calls, appreciate your comments too on twitter. the hash tag is #cspanchat. we're going to reair the hearing tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. that will be here on c-span.

up next a portion of it beginning with the opening testimony, the opening steat statements from the witnesses this morning. >> chairman upton, ranking member waxman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. my name is sheryl campbell, i'm a senior vice president at c.g.i. federal. i have responsibilities for all of c.g.i. federal's projects at department of health and human services and several other federal agencies. i'm here to reenforce c.g.i. federal's ongoing commitment to the success of the federal exchange on healthcare.gov. let me state unequivocally that c.g.i. federal is fully committed to its partnership with c.m.s. our priority is for americans to have a positive experience in applying, shop, and enrolling on the federal exchange. to this end, we've we dedicate the very best experts to optimize our portion of the federal exchange. for context, let me first describe our role in the federal

exchange. the exchange is comprised of six complex systems that involve 55 contractors including c.g.i. federal, five government agencies, 36 states, and more than 300 insurers with more than 4,500 insurance plans, all coming together in healthcare.gov. c.m.s. competitively awarded c.g.i. federal its portion of the federal exchange a software application tchailed federally facilitated marketplace or f.f.m. specifically the f.f.m. provides functionality for eligibility and enrollment, plan management and financial management. c.m.s. serves as the system's integrator having ultimate responsibility for end-to-end performance of the federal exchange. it also is important to understand the complexity of c.g.i. federal's work on the exchange. the f.f.m. is a sophisticated software application that combines a web portal a transaction processor, and

sophisticated businessage itics to simultaneously help americans determine their eligibility for insurance, apply for subsidies, shop for health plans and enroll in qualified plans. the technology works in realtime with sophisticated analytic systems developed by other contractors, large scale data repozzer tos hosted in disparate federal agency databases and health plans for more than 300 insurers. in short, the federal exchange, including the f.f.m. is not a standard consumer website. but rather a sophisticated, integrated technology platform that for the first time in history combines the processes of selecting and enrolling in insurance and determining eligibility for government subsidies, all in one place and in realtime. since award on september 30, 2011, c.g.i. federal has worked diligently to develop the f.f.m.

by following a rigorous process that's customary for large projects. the f.f.m. passed eight technical reviews before going live on october 1. while c.g.i. federal thrivered f.f.m. functionality required and some consumers were able to enroll on act 1, we acknowledge that some issues made the process difficult for too many americans. consequently c.g.i. federal's focus shifted immediately to solving consumer access and navigation processes on the exchange. the first set of issues on the exchange concerned another contractor's eidm function. the eidm allows consumers to create secure accounts and serves as the front door to the federal exchange. consumers must pass through this front door in order to enter the f.f.m. application. unfortunately, the eidm created a bottleneck preventing the vast

majority of consumers from accessing the f.f.m. since then, c.m.s., c.g.i. federal and others have worked closely to try to resolve this front door problem. as more consumers gain access to f.f.m. and enroll in qualified plans, the increased number of transactions caused performance problems such as slow response times and data assurance issues. c.g.i. federal is addressing these problems through tuning, optmyization and application improvements. over the past two weeks, the federal exchange has steadily improved. we continue to dedicate the resources necessary to shorten wait and transaction times and improve data quality. we have confidence in our ability to deliver successfully. why? because the company i represent here today has successfully delivered some of the most complex i.t. implementations for the u.s. government including federal reporting.gov. we have partnered with

transformative projects like medicare.gov that allows 50 million beneficiaries to compare plans annually. we are recognized for our expertise in software and have level 5 credentials to demonstrate our commitment to rigorous processes. we're the -- we leverage deep resources and expertise of a global work force. i will end this testimony where i began, by reinforcing c.g.i. federal's unwavering commitment to working collaboratively with -- with c.m.s. to improve the consumer experience. thank you. >> thank you. mr. slavitt. >> chairman upton, ranking member waxman and members of the committee, good morning. my name is andy slavitt, i'm group executive vice president at on tum, a business unit of

united health group. on tum's qssi, one of the contractors working on the online marketplace. let me begin by saying we understand the frustration many people have felt since healthcare.gov was launched. we have been and remain accountable for the performance of our tools and our work product. i'll start by discussing our work on the data services hub. a large and complex project that was the subject of much interest in qssi's work for the marketplace prior to the launch. simply put, the data services hub is a pipeline. it transfers data, routing qureries and responses between a given marketplace and various trusted data sources. specifically, a consumer interested in purchasing hushes goes to the marketplace's web portal to fill out enrollment forms and select a plan. the consumer provides the marketplace with information

such as citizenship which must be verified. the data services hub directs queries from the marketplace to various sources such as government databases that can verify that information and send the information back to the marketplace. as a technology pipeline the data services hub does not determine the accuracy of the information it transports nor does it store any data. the data services hub has performed well since the marketplace's launch. on october 1, the data services hub successfully processed more than 178,000 transactions and it has processed millions more since. when occasional, discreet bugs in the data services hub were identified we promptly corrected them. in addition to the data services hub, qssi also developed the eidm a registration and access management tool used as one part of the federal marketplace's

registration system. the eidm tool helps the marketplace create user accounts and is being used successfully currently in at least two other c.m.s. applications. while the eidm is important, it is onlyone piece of the registration system. there are other functions such as user interface, confirmation e-mails, the links users click on, and the webpage users land land on. all of these tools must work together seamlessly. after the launch, healthcare.gov was inundated by many more consumers than expected. many parts were overwhelmed, including the eidm tool.

including the virtual data center environments, software, hardware, and our tools. one of the reasons for the high- volume in the registration system was the late decision requiring consumers to register for an account before they can browse for products. this may have driven higher simultaneous usage of the registration system. it would not have otherwise occurred if consumers could window shop anonymously. we worked around the clock to meet this unexpected demand, this has largely succeeded. by october 8, the eidm was processing those volumes at error rates close to zero. it continues to keep place with -- pace with demand. we are working with other vendors to plan for higher levels of activity. finally, qssi was one of several testers he used to test the functionality of the

marketplace. in our testing role, we identified errors in code. we reported back the results to cms and the relevant contractor, who was responsible for making changes. to conclude, the data services hub has performed well. after initial challenges, the eidm is keeping up with demand. we are committed to helping resolve any new challenges that may arise in any way we can. thank you for the opportunity to discuss choices i -- qssi's work. i am happy to answer questions. >> thank you. ms. spellecy? >> good morning. my name is lynn spellecy and i serve as senior director and corporate counsel for equifax workforce solutions.

and that row i am the primary , attorney responsible for day to day legal operations and i provide guidance. -- in that role, i in the primary attorney. i appreciate the opportunity to provide an update related to the income verification services that equifax is providing cms to assist in benefit eligibility. the income verification tool is working as designed. since the exchange's first went live on october 1, 2013, we have not experienced any problems or interruptions in the processing of data to cms. we have received and responded to verification requests from individual applicants from the federal marketplace as well as state agencies. equifax workforce solutions tested our verification

solutions before the start date to ensure that we could transmit data between our servers and federal hubs. we performed end to end and end testing and considerable internal testing to guarantee we would be prepared for current and future applicant volumes. now that the federal marketplace is open, we are monitoring the volumes from the hub to our services. and back. aqua facts workforce solutions' role in the marketplace is limited. we received an income verification request only after an applicant gains access to the healthcare.gov website, creates a username and a profile and enters an application. workforce solutions does not play a role in identity

authentication. we are neither involved in nor do we have visibility into the eligibility decision process or downstream display and processing of then at that election. although the majority of the verification request to date have come to the federally xacilitated marketplace, equifa workforce solution is also very incomes.verifying the continuing appropriations act for 2014 included new requirements for hhs to ensure that the federal and state marketplaces verify the individuals applying for coverage and seeking premium tax credits are eligible for subsidies. equifax workforce solutions looks forward to sharing our expertise with cms and hhs as they develop guidance regarding

verification for the federal and state exchanges. since the october 1, 2013 date, equifax workforce solutions have exceeded their contract with cms to provide verification services for those seeking coverage under the affordable care act. the services we provide to state and federal agencies have prepared workforce solutions to serve cms in this new capacity. we will continue to monitor our interface with cms data hubs and state agencies to ensure efficacy. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i welcome your questions. >> mr. lott. >> good morning, mr. chairman, congressman waxman. >> make sure your mic is set.

>> good morning. lau and i john represent serco. i am the program director for our cms contract in connection with the aca. thank you for the opportunity to appear and discuss serco's status and performance in this program. for the next several minutes, i would like to provide a review of serco's role in the program and the current status of our work. serco's contract is to provide eligibility support services in support of the paper application processing as well as error and issue resolution on applications, regardless of the mode in which the consumer submitted them. it is important to clarify that we have no role in the development of the website, no

role in the determination of eligibility, no role in health plan selection. i think there has been some confusion, i want to make sure that is clear. our primary role in the early days of the implementation is to enter paper applications into the eligibility system. as time goes on, our work will entail inconsistency resolution to clear previously submitted applications. this entails data verification and validation of the self tested data from applicants. these are problems identified through the use of a data hub and then communicated to us. serco has successfully opened 2 of 4 processing centers in

kentucky and arkansas. a third will be opened in missouri, and in four or five weeks in oklahoma. we have had no trouble recruiting competent staff and have received compliments from officials and community groups about the professionalism of our recurring efforts and ways we have trained our people. we have instilled a sense of pride in what they are doing, our staff is highly motivated and represent an eager workforce. we have built upon our starting capacity with staff members and processing efficiency. the volume of paper documents received has been increasing and is trending upward in a short period. this has given us the opportunity to make adjustments and improve our processes.

to date, we have received about 18,000 documents, about half of those are consumer applications. we have succeeded in key entering about half of those. the remaining half were missing important data and cannot be entered directly until his problems are resolved. we expect to complete processing and entering those applications in the near future. our challenges have included coping with the performance of the portal, that is our means of entering data, just as it is for the consumer. with the relatively low volumes of application, it has not presented a challenge. as i testified september 10, serco was ready to process on 10/1, and we are processing today.

i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank each of you. we will move to questions, alternating between republicans and democrats. i want to say -- as we have seen the taxpayers spent about $.5 billion, constituents across the country expected a user-friendly system. whether it is like ordering a pizza, a rental car, is a standard that many were expecting to see. i think most at this point would say it is not ready for prime time. listening to your testimony, i have heard words like performing, you want a positive

experience, that is not what we have heard from folks at home. my first question is -- was it ever an option to delay going live on october 1? did any of you come forth to the administration and say this may not be ready on october 1, we might want a delay until we can get right? any hands up? no. prior to october 1, did you know that healthcare.gov was going to have crippling problems or did you not know about these problems and chose not to disclose them to the administration when you figured out that it was not working they way that it was designed to work? maybe i will get comments from each of you as it relates to those questions. starting with ms. campbell. you all testified in september. either you did not know about these problems or you knew about them and chose not to disclose them, which one is it? >> from a cgi perspective, our

portion of the application worked as designed. people have been able to enroll, not at the pace or the experience we would have liked. but the end to end testing with the responsibility of cms. -- was the responsibility of cms. our portion of the system is what we testified in terms of what was ready to go live. it was not our decision to go live. >> it was not your decision? >> it was cms' decision. >> did you ever recommend to cms that it was not ready? >> it was not our position to do so. >> so you chose not to share those thoughts with them? >> let me clarify -- cms had the ultimate decision for live or no go, not cgi. we were not in a position.

we were there to support our client. it is not a position to tell our client to go live or not not go live. >> who at cms were you sharing those decisions with? >> i did not have a position to make that decision. >> who at cms made the decision to go live? >> it is a body of individuals. >> mr. slavitt? >> we had a limited view of the entirety of the project, we were confident in the ability of the data services hub, where we spent the bulk of our efforts. we were confident it would work on october 1, and it has. other than that, all of the

concerns that we had, mostly related to testing and the inability to get as much testing as we would have liked, we expressed those concerns to cms throughout a project. >> so you shared that there were real difficulties? that we sawe risks and all the concerns we had regarding testing were all shared with cms. >> what was their response when you shared the pitfalls in terms of what was going on? >> my understanding is they understood those and were working on them, but i do not know further. >> did they ever come back to you in terms of the shortcomings and what needed to be done? any concerns that were raised? got anever -- i never depiction from them. we did talk about the risks we saw. we passed those along all along the way.

solution was ready to go october 1, 2013. we successfully completed end- equifaxesting between workforce solutions and the cms a data hub prior to that date, so we did not anticipate any sort of problems with our connection and have not experienced any. lau?. >> we were also ready to process on october 1 am a an extensive internal testing of our processes and systems and our first awareness of difficulties with the hub was october 1 -- with the portal, i am sorry, it was on october 1. >> so you did not test it prior to october 1? >> no, sir. evaluate the problems

with this website, i think it is important that we focus on the facts. my republican colleagues have been predicting that health care reform would be a disaster for three years now, and every time they have been wrong, they set insurance rates would skyrocket. in fact, they are lower than predicted. is that health care costs would soar. and fact, they have grown at a record low rate. they said medicare would be undermined. in fact, it is stronger than ever and seniors are saving billions of dollars on prescription drugs. what we need to do is separate s to reach ar u determination. sun has set fixing the website would take six months to a year. others have said there are 5 million lines of code to rewrite. some have urged health and human services to pull down the entire system and start from scratch. cancampbell, i hope you

help us but these dire predictions in perspective. expected it would take six months to a year to get the application and enrollment process working smoothly on healthcare.gov. >> we anticipate that the system homeproving day over day and we anticipate that people will be able to enroll in the timeframe allotted that is necessary for them to have insurance. that is for the january 1 timeframe. >> that means what date? don't they have to have the application in by december 15? >> that is correct, sir. >> so you anticipate by that date, the system will be working. >> the system will continue to improve. as painful as it sounds, i know it has been a difficult experience. the system is working. people are enrolling. but people will be able to enroll at a faster pace. the experience will be improved as they go forward. people will be able to enroll by

the december 15 time frame. >> very good. have to rewrite 5 million lines of code to fix the problems? >> no, sir. the 300 plus employees at the office would probably walk out if i told them they had to do that. >> do you believe it will be necessary to scrap the entire healthcare.gov system and start from scratch? >> i do not, sir. >> so you think the website will be fixed in time to assure americans who want to get coverage for next year, that it will be available to them? >> i do so. >> why are you so confident? and you explain that, that these problems are going to be fixed and time? >> as i said, we are seeing improvements day over day. we are continuing to run queries against our database. we are running -- reviewing system logs. we are fine-tuning our servers. or are analyzing the code f

anomalies. every day we are seeing we are finding challenges in the system and making those corrections, as you would with any system that would go live. when a system goes into production, these are things you would typically find after production -- maybe not the level of detail that has happened in this experience. but when a system goes live, these are the things you typically do. you continue to provide system build and put performance-tuning to the application to make sure it continues to improve time over time. >> thank you. mr. slavitt, your company has been deeply involved in troubleshooting and fixing the problems on healthcare.gov. do you have any reason to believe the problems being experienced with this launch will prevent americans from getting insurance for the coming year? >> i am confident that the data qssi developedat

and the eidm tool are working well today and will continue to work well. >> you had problems early on, but you fixed it. >> for the first seven days, correct. >> so problems can be fixed. >> we doubled the capacity of that tool within seven days. cgi system pass its tests before the system went live? >> yes, it did. >> my understanding is you velti system was ready to go on october 1, correct? -- you felt this is the was ready to go? >> that is correct. >> did you are anybody else at the table think the system was not ready to go forward on october 1? correct. >> we do not make a recommendation. we made everyone aware of the risks that we saw. >> we did not make recommendations. >> we did not either.

>> thank you. >> chair recognizes the vice chair of the committee from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for your testimony. i would like each of you to submit in writing for me how much you have been paid to date and then how much you are being made on retainer. if you will submit that to us for the record, that would be wonderful. youor compliance, where compliance prior to the contract? ms. campbell? >> yes. >> mr. slavitt? >> yes. >> ms. spellecy? >> yes. >> mr. lau? >> yes. >> did your company's meet with -- as a group with hhs before you started the process? anyone? did your company's meet together with hhs to discuss the

integration? >> yes, the security people from and othersco coordinated. >> let me ask each of you a question. how many people in each of your companies have physical access to the database servers storing the enrolling information? >> we have zero access to the database. answer is alsoe 04 qssi. >> for the verification? >> we have no access to cms servers. >> 2000 people. >> 2000 people have access to the database? entry of thee key applications. >> ok. under regulations, no one is supposed to have direct access to that database.

under the current technology infrastructure, how many separate servers or virtual servers in the cloud are being used to host and store data for healthcare.gov. how many servers and the cloud are being used? >> we have anywhere from 80 to 100 servers. 100 different servers holding information? >> that are passing information. >> ok. mr. slavitt? >> we do not have the answer to that question specifically as to how many servers. we can follow that up. we do not store any data, any personal consumer data, in any of our systems. >> ms. campbell and ms. spellecy , let me ask you this, the application information -- is

that being stored separately databasepatient information? ms. campbell? >> could you repeat the question? >> the applicant servers and the patient database servers, are you holding this information on and on thets database separately? >> we are not holding any information. >> you are not holding any. ok. >> we are provided only with limited information. social security numbers, names, and date of birth, which we used to match against our system. >> ok. mr. lau, you mentioned that you all are working through the ntry and then-- e the data entry from the applications. >> correct. >> where are you physically storing the data collected and

given to you? >> when the paper comes in, it is converted to electronic images. in the paper is destroyed once the image has been verified. the electronic images that into a database and kept only until the information is key entered, and then it is put in archived and will be retained no more than 30 days. >> retained no more than 30 days. ok. let me ask each of you -- does you current system keep detailed error logs that can be with the difficulties surrounding healthcare.gov? ms. campbell? >> yes, we have error logs. >> yes, we do keep error logs for our products. >> yes, we keep error logs. >> we keep track of successful or unsuccessful applications. >> ok. do you want to submit these

error logs to us? >> i will have to confer back with cms as to what documents we can and cannot provide. >> ok. you know, it would be interesting to see this error logs, because i think it would give us an idea of how many people are actually accessing , and then the problems you have had with scalability on this -- i think we would like to see what is causing the systems to crash. the security flaws may be in this also. i will yield back. >> thank you. >> we are having some questions before us which are very important. i know the problems are not

surprising given the fact that there has been considerable obstruction to the program going forward. i received a letter from a constituent recently. houraid i only make $12 an , and i can barely afford insurance or need to purchase it through the exchange and will therefore be eligible for subsidy, making health care affordable at last. this is what the debate is all about. there are problems, but we are trying to fix it. so let's work together and get this matter resolved so that the people can't in a fit and do not -- so that the people can benefit and do not suffer. these are yes or no questions. forgi responsible developing the software for the federally facilitated marketplace? >> yes, sir. obtained this contract or a competitive bidding process? >> yes, sir. >> does cgi have experience

providing other information technology services to the federal government? >> yes. ofdoes cgi conduct testing your software for the marketplace website prior to october 1 when the launching took place? >> yes. >> was cgi responsible for testing the function of the entirety of healthcare.gov? >> no. >> if not, who was? >> cms. >> ok. do you believe that it is unusual for such a large project to experience some problems? >> no. >> despite the initial problems can peoplebsite, still be able to enroll in health insurance plans? >> yes. >> do you believe that the progress has been made getting the website to run as intended since it launched three weeks

ago? >> yes. >> these questions are for mr. lau of serco. responsible for handling and processing paper applications for health insurance in the marketplace? >> yes, sir. what's with all the problems with the website, many consumers are now turning to paper applications. does serco have the capability to handle a larger amount of taper applications than was originally expected -- a larger amount of paper applications than expected? >> yes. >> do you all commit to working all the, congress, and stakeholders until the website is fixed and a as intended? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> i would appreciate it very much if you would each submit for the record eight summary -- havemary of actions you

taken to fix the website after the october 1 launch. could you please do that? >> yes. >> i would also ask that you submit also for the record suggestions for there to be changes and improvements in the way the matter is being dealt with by the federal government and any changes that you might deem would be useful in seeing to it that the matter goes forward as it can and should. could you do that for me, please? >> yes. >> yes. i want to thank you all. dois clear we have plenty to in the coming weeks. i urge my colleagues on the whenttee, this is a time we can work together on something good. a.b. we did not agree with the

program or with the legislation, but we have a duty to see if it works for the american people and that we achieve the benefits which we hope we can achieve. i would note this legislation originated under the hand and 10 , and dear friend bob dole of john chafee and is therefore i think subject to the charge that it has some bipartisanship. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i want to put slide number two back up. right there. -- unfortunately, that blue highlight is hard to read, so i will read it again. this is the part of the sign-up

that is hidden. the applicant does not see this, but it is in the source code. what that says is you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication board data transiting or stored upon this information system. you all said you were hipa compliant. how can this be compliant when protectdesigned to privacy, and this says in order to continue you have to accept this condition that you have no privacy -- or no reasonable expectation of privacy? that would be the decision made by cms. >> this is news to you? you are the main, prime contractor. you have never seen this before?

are one of the prime contractors, yes. >> have you seen this before? >> this requirement is-- >> are you aware this is in the source code, yes or no? >> yes. hipa, how can this be compliant? compliant.is is hipa you know what. you just told ms. blackburn it was hipa compliant. you know that is not hipa compliant. you mentioned you knew it was in there. it may be their decision to hide notbut you are the company, you personally, but your company is the company that put this together. we are telling every american, including all my friends on the democratic side and their huge

privacy advocacy. are telling every american, you signed up for this or 10 too, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. it is a direct contradiction to hipa, and you know what, yes or no? cms has us comply to a set of rules and regulations they have established under our contract. that is a cms call. that is not a contractor call. >> to break the law? do you agree with that decision to break the law? >> sir, i cannot speculate on cms. is the first time i am becoming familiar with that source code. >> so you were not aware of it? >> i was not aware of it. >> let me go back to ms.

campbell. she admitted she at least knew about it. who made the decision to put this in the source code in the first place? >> i cannot give you that answer. >> who do you report to? was it some junior underling at cms? was it the director of cms? decisionscally made at the policy level that you are interfaced with? give me that person's name? >> there were many decisions made under this program. >> is this another example where things go into a cloud? all you are is a contractor that spent $300 million and it goes to some amorphous cloud and then it comes back from down on high? who wrote that? >> i am not clear as to who wrote that.

let me ask it this way. do you think they should be -- do you think that should be a requirement to sign up for obamacare, that you give up any a reasonable expectation of privacy? >> sir, that is not my jurisdiction -- >> i will answer, i do not think it should be. i do not think it should be. let me ask -- my time is about to expire. let me ask one more question. ms. campbell, did you do a pilot program on this before it was rolled out? >> know, the risk of pilot program. >> and you said it was, located and big, but it was meeting your expectation. do you think it is right that 99% of the people that tried to go to this system get rejected, cannot even complete the application? is that a system you are proud of? >> sir, this is a system that we

are working every day to make improvements. we have a system that almost no one can successfully navigate, then we have to go to the paper system for this gentleman's company down here. with that i yield back. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i started in my opening statement saying there was no legitimacy to this hearing come and this last line of questioning certainly confirms that. hipaon the up applies -- only applies when health information is provided. that is not included today. why is that? pre-existing conditions to not matter. once again, there we have my republican colleagues trying to scare -- >> will the gentleman yield --

this, i will not yield to monkey court. i am not yielding. i'm trying to tell you that the problem here -- [indiscernible] a pre-existing condition. does not apply, you're asked about your address, date of birth, i am not asking health information. why are we going down this path? because you are trying to scare people so they do not apply, the legislation gets delayed or the affordable care act is defunded or repealed. that is all it is, hoping people will not apply. there are 20 million people were going on this site and will apply, they are ultimately going to be able to enroll. many of them already have enrolled. that is my i think my republican colleagues forget a lot of people are enrolling to state exchanges rather than the federal's exchanges. if it was not for the fact that many republican governors

including new jersey's had agreed to set up state exchanges, we would not be putting so much burden on the federal system. i want to give you some examples. in new york and washington, over 30,000 people have enrolled and been covered. in oregon, over 50,000 people have enrolled. inalifornia, over 100,000, kentucky, nearly 16,000 people have enrolled. this federal website is not the only way you can apply. you can go to your community health center, 1 to the-800 num peopleere are many ways can a role, and all we are talking about here is the website because you're trying to make a case that people should not enroll. i want asked two questions. ms. campbell, am i correct that cgi is doing work in several states in addition to the w healthcare.gov?that is

correct. we are >> supporting a number of states, and those states, we are a prime cut tractor in -- prime contractor in colorado, hawaii, massachusetts, vermont. we are a subcontractor in california, a subcontractor in kentucky, and a subcontractor in new mexico. >> and that appears to be going well, obviously. a lot of people have enrolled, as i set forth previously. asked ahen mr. waxman question, you said you had confidence that weather problems -- whatever problems existed that they would be fixed by december 15 and you expect that the millions of uninsured people and others who are trying to enroll would be able to buy then so their insurance would be effective in your he won. was that my understated? >> that is correct. >> the data your company set up is working well to connect to

the federal data when residents of those states apply. what i'm asking is if i go through new york or california, some of the other states that have responsible governors that have set up these state exchanges, unlike mine in new jersey, that if you do that or if you go through the one-800 number or the other means that you can to apply in person, that they can access the hobbit. >> that isrect? correct. >> i want to put -- point out to my colleagues all the success of all the state exchanges, and a lot of people are being able to enroll. the figures show when state governors were to expand medicaid and make sure their citizens get coverage, they can make a big difference, and they also show these statistics how shortsighted republican governors are to refuse to expand the medicaid programs because that is another factor to the affordable care act that

is not being discussed today. again, i never cease to be amazed how the gop uses taxes to try to scare people. that is what is happening today, and i was hoping this hearing would accomplish that goal, so i am asking the public try to find means to enroll. there are a lot of things other than the federal website. do not be scared by my howeagues for saying some you will you lose your privacy, there's no health information provided as a part of this exercise. >> thank you. entitled ppaca information -- implementation failures. often attempts

to paint republicans as being out of order, downright crazy, in their criticism of the health care law. i want to talk about that. i'm here for my district and from americans across the country. the craziest part of the last few weeks is seeing the president toss top health care official laughing while americans have to deal with the president's of the care law. i have a teacher in my hometown where she has to face premiums that will consume nearly one/four of her current income. or another constituent that's

tried to comply with the law but has not yet received information about their coverage as promised and claimed, "i am very concerned that my family will not be in compliant, will face i.r.s. fines. they are calling for a repeal of the individual mandate and most of them are calling for that. yet, another who has been advised that their current coverage will end december 31, 2013. so much for keeping what you have. and concern it this dysfunctional health care will expose me to unwanted liability that i won't get coverage through the website. now -- and how verbose is this? you know, the founding fathers in 1776 declared their independence. next year they wrote a constitution that was 4,500 words. this wording in here, the regulations not voted on by congress contains a massively 11,588,000,000 words. i just don't know how anybody could ever answer these things. i just want to ask you in an environment where people are worried whether or not they have a job and there's no jobs now and if we go on like we are going now there won't be employers a year from now, they now have to worry about navigating a flawed law where

the chances of finding affordable coverage are often less than before the law's existence. so my question to each of you is, c.m.s. has had three years and most of you had over a year to ensure this law could work. what do you want me to tell the americans who are terrified of really facing i.r.s. fines for not being able to access coverage they actually can't afford? i guess we start with you, ms. campbell. you chose not to use your opinion. are you in position to use some words that i can give hope that the american people that you are doing your job that you were hired out to do? is there hope? >> so if i understand the question you're asking, is the system going to be there for them to sign up? >> i beg your pardon?

>> what is the -- can you repeat the question? >> just give me something to tell these people that i related to you that are real people, honest people that have to live with what you all have created. you set up, you run the website for people to sign up or exchange. >> and we're continuing to -- >> you must know a whole not -- lot more to know what to tell these people. i'm asking these people to give some help along that line. if you can't express your opinions to the people you report to, you sure can't express them to me. >> i would tell your constituents that the system is improving day over day and that we are continuing to work to make improvements for them to be able to enroll. >> did you really start with one in delaware? >> pardon me, sir. >> did you really start out with one in delaware? that is what the liberal press is reporting. >> i am not familiar.

>> how about my time? how much more time do i have? >> 38 seconds. >> all right. i'll yield -- yeah. i'll hear from any of you. i'm asking for help. i want help. i have 700,000 people that i have to report to. and i think about 690,000 of them hate the obama law. my time's up. i yield back. weover the next few minutes, will get your reaction to what you saw, but to ask you about your experience on the website, healthcare.gov. here's how to participate. if you have used the website,,

5885. if you have not used the website, 3887. calls andt to your comments in a moment. a reporter. thank you for being here. what did the committee learned from the testimony of the government contractors? >> this is important for the committee. they honed in on some of where these problems may have started. the take away the committee took thethe administration is one responsible for making these decisions. the contractors said we did what cms told us to do. the republicans are feeling it is the administration's fault.

nswer whens the a they talked about the pretesting? >> they said there's systems had been tested. they wished there had been more time for tests. they had concerns. cms decided to go ahead and launch the plan on october 1. they felt they were improving it and they were good enough to work, maybe not work as well as it could have, but they said you can never have enough time for testing. we wished we had months and months to test, and not the weeks that we had. >> over the course of the hearing there were tough exchanges on the privacy laws, the hipa. whenit started early on joe barton was asking about hipa

file asians and whether people with personal information was being shared with these contractors. all the contractors said they do not let people who should not be health carete information access that information. that was the point the democrats pallone came up and said this was a monkey court and recused the republicans of fear mongering to scare them from staying away from the exchanges. -- i will expect to hear more about that. >> the hearings next week, the one we will hear from the head of cms, the centers for medicaid and medicare services. also kathleen sebelius. the ways and,

means will hear from the center for medicaid and medicare services. on wednesday, secretary sebelius. i talked to some of the leaders after the hearing, and they said they are so excited to have the administration and from of them. they will coordinate committees to make sure every question get of both of these leaders, the administration, and they will go after them. they gave it five hours . we will see intense questioning. de, thanks for the update. >> thank you for having me. >> now your calls and comments about your experience with healthcare.gov. new jersey.lanes, a pretty good

experience. of course, there are flaws, although i am supportive of the aca. i am on medicare advantage, and the person on the call line did advantagehat medicare was, and i had to explain it to her, which these people should be knowing what they are talking about. they decided to send me through the mail information, so it was not like a full sign up. i guess there are some major problems that are going on which they will just send you stuff in the mail. i am fully supportive of the aca, that we should not appear down just because of the website. let's be real. active the day, it was teddy tried to who basically

create universal health care in 1912 running as an independent. it was the heritage foundation their ownat proposed romney care, and if romney care is so bad or the aca is so bad, then why is romney care in existence today? badnother caller with a experience in new york. which was the exchange? >> the florida exchange, actually. hcare.gov.t i gave it a shot, and i'm still trying to get past my login. they keep resetting my password, but it does not work. not understand that maybe somebody that you have on could talk to is from what i understand there is only two variables once you identify the county you are in.

and those very balls -- variables are the estimated income and the age in whatever county. they will tell you what plan you have. why do you have to go through an updated application process? the irs puts out huge tax tables, income and rates. i do not understand why they force you to apply for something -- it seems like it would make the whole process more complicated. why don't they just provide spreadsheets by county, by age, and that is my comment, but that is why i have not been able to get through. used theiras not website in illinois, but what are you hearing? >> hello. i'm watching the hearing that was on live, and the cgi representative, her name was on her ownbell,

volition objected to extending the time period beyond the end of march for people to sign up -- when she objects to giving the public more time to consider , that is kind of like the congress does when they shove a bill out there to where nobody can read it before they vote on it. her objecting to the public having a little bit more time to that the authors of confusion are shoving down our throats, and her trying to deny us more time shows that cgi has no consideration for the public at all. not happythe tweeters with the testimony as well. rick is in page, arizona, who

had a good experience with the exchange. is that the state exchange in arizona? arizona [indiscernible] and it worked pretty well. [indiscernible] how long does the whole process take you? >> 15, 20 minutes at the most. i had no problem at all. >> we're looking at the arizona state exchange. back to more of your calls, but we want to show you the reaction from the white house today. .pokesman jay carney [video clip] we are focused not on monday morning quarterbacking but on thatving the access

americans have to the information they need so they can shop for and purchase affordable health insurance. as i said yesterday, tests were we learned upon launch is the problems with the site were greater than expected and it is debated, significant lay, and significant work needed to be done to fix those problems, and that is what is happening. a are only 3 1/2 weeks into six-month process. we are making progress everyday. yesterday, we will make sure that information about the progress is being made is available to you through regular cms ands at information being provided from the teams that are working on the improvements. our focus is on getting it right, because the endgame -- the fact that there are problems

with healthcare.gov is something we've knowledge, and that is why we are addressing it head on. the fact that some critics of the affordable care act who have worked assiduously for years to repealdo away with it, it, sabotage it, arch resting great concern about the fact the website is not functioning or early should be taken with a grain of salt, because we are focused on getting affordable health insurance to the american people. some folks in washington, especially republicans of course, principally, have been focused on preventing that from happening. >> this contractor said a system of this magnitude should require months of testing a month that that did not happen. are people at cms

where you can get your questions answered about. -- basis of your question is goes to the heart of the matter -- should the website have been functioning more effectively on october 1? the answer is yes. the president the website is improving every day to read the consumer experience is improving every day. it's incremental and what those teams are focused on making those improvements so that the goal can be achieved, which is the availability of affordable health insurance to millions of americans. >> does the president think the launch date should have been pushed back knowing what he knows now? >> again, the website should have been better functioning on october 1. what you are asking me and let these questions them from the people who either