concerned, and the fact that they are enacted that gives credence to the political argument they make is a unique capacity that the u.s. is bringing to the table that does not exist anywhere else. it is the ultimate purpose? but what is the ultimate purpose of all this? the ultimate purpose is to see this region of the world, where this becomes the most important economic engine of the global economy, is allowed to become the most important economic engine of the global economy. without the u.s. being engaged in the region. i think there is a big question about that? >> when i talk to u.s. officials, they say it is hard for the u.s. to have a leadership position. they are rife with internal disputes, with the approach on international security and economic issues. rough. was always

any part of the globe that you care to look at. countries have division. this is marked when it comes to partisan politics. what is in theat balance as all the chatter goes states -- this is a very attractive but very large elephant. this is a smack down in the middle of southeast asia. they have sort of been poking the elephant to see what noise it will make. just as long as the offer is there. these people will work out how significant the element is and how -- and what ways it is useful to. >> the importance of southeast asia, i clearly agree.

therefore, the japanese prime minister has visited eight out of 10 asian countries this year. he is planning to visit the remaining two countries. this year is the 40th anniversary of the -- we will invite all the afghan leaders to japan in december. engagement with those countries is important. it was unfortunate that the president could not make it. especially in asia. we really hope that the united states will be able to show sometime in the near future to the region. and also -- >> has anyone heard when the president may return to the region? we will not tell anyone.

>> he normally calls me before he goes. but my phone ran out of batteries. this question comes from the audience. any thoughts or comments on the holiness, the dalai lama and his visit to japan? i would welcome any panelist comments on the situation into tibet, which is not any better for the tibetan people. visit, they talk about the upcoming visit to japan. he has made some visits to japan in the past. past, nonk that in the japanese high-ranking official -- if he does visit in the near that -- think

>> let's talk about human rights. this does not often get a lot of attention. is the human rights situation still a matter of concern? has this fall and so fall off of the radar that security and economic issues have pushed this off of the agenda? or is this something that each of your countries are still active about? understand, as they lead between the senior chinese officials and the senior human rightscials, have always been issue, and this may refer to particular individuals at any given time. this is a matter of discussion and you talk about this. we have a regular human rights dialogue with the chinese. you make your point. we don't question this as being

part of china, we do not say that the chinese must be eliminated from. we expressed concern about cultural issues, and religious issues. basically, response, we don't think that they are off limit areas, discussions between any seven countries. this includes discussions with china. this is not simply china within australia. dialogue, in the asian area -- >> may i ask you, do you see the trend of human rights in china positive or negative situation and is that sufficient ?

>> i don't think that you can move this in that direction. there are things that were i think the administration has done some good things. let's go back to what the ambassador said, there are discussions -- the reason you do these is because china listens to you -- is not just because china listens to you, but because were leaders in other countries realize that discussion is a priority. but we human rights, also have to continue on intellectual property rights. we cannot back away from some of these issues because they are uncomfortable and the chinese don't want to talk about them. we have to talk about them in a bold fashion. was this damaged by the recent revelation --

hurt atutely, this has this does not mean that you back away from them. it is important to continue having these discussions both for what we are doing and for what the chinese are doing. >> one last question, we have a new, u.s. ambassador to japan. it is conventional wisdom that they celebrate an ambassador who is close to the president and not necessarily one with experience, is this true? how do you view the appointment of this ambassador? -- kennedy has approved by the senate and will arrive in japan next month. the u.s. ambassador to japan --

not to direct the answer for your question, there was a strong personal attachment to japan. we understand that mr. kennedy -- mrs. kennedy, in her honeymoon visit to japan, she does have a very strong personal belief in the relationship between the united states and japan, which was evident in her confirmation sentence in this -- confirmation in the senate. that kind of ambassador who has a strong personal connection to japan, and in addition to that we welcome ambassador kennedy and her close relationship with the president, and also the secretary of state. >> let's give the speakers a big round of applause.

>> the house energy and commerce committee heard from three of the government -- four of the government contractors who took part in the creation of health care.gov. we will show you that hearing starting at 8:00 eastern in c- span. congressman mike rogers, congressman elliot anders, part of a discussion in washington earlier talking about the civil war in syria. this is almost one hour. >> welcome back. the executive director the foreign-policy initiative, we ask that you move back to your seats as we get ready for our conversation. it is an honor to have mike here, for eliot engel the next discussion about the crisis in syria.

before beginning this timely conversation i want to welcome everyone watching on c-span and invite you to join the piforum.tion at #fd you can submit your questions at the question box at your table. david ignatius is an opinion writer, and he writes to us with contributions to the for -- post-partisan blog. i thank mr. ignatius for moderating this discussion and ,urn the microphone over to him and those who did so much to advance the debate on syria. >> this will be a good and lively discussion of a difficult issue. you will have a chance to ask your own questions. please be writing on the cards, questions that will be set up so

you can play a part in this conversation. let me introduce the panel, starting on my far right thomas congressman mike rogers from michigan. i say the same thing in which is thatm, he has taken one of the most divided and partisan committees in the house, and made them function as a bipartisan that passes authorization legislation every year among any has worked with ranking member, from maryland, and that thing that you wish would happen throughout the congress in which members from both parties have each other's back as they try to do the countries work is actually happening in the house intelligence committee and this is terrific. i want to say that. the ranking member of the house foreign affairs

committee has tried to work on bipartisan solutions to combat the problems that matter to the country. he became the ranking member berman left the congress. he has been a member of congress since 1989 with a great record of legislative achievement and commitment. it is great to have two people who are really trying to do the people's business in congress on foreign-policy. i would like to ask each of you to begin by setting the scene for us. have had a turbulent few weeks, with syrian policy in which it appears that the united states was going to go to war, to launch tomahawk missiles after a very fiery statement by the secretary of state, john kerry, and in the president determined it was most wise to take this to congress and get congressional support.

behold, thew and russian foreign minister and the russian president announced a willingness to work with united states to deal with the problem of the military attack that they were intending to deal with by a joint russian and american program to destroy these weapons. congressman rogers, i would like to ask you to begin this conversation by telling us where we are. some people say that this is terrible, and paint this in very dire colors, but what do you think? >> let's talk about the security footprint and what is happening in syria. so you have this interesting trend happening in syria. al qaeda actually disagrees with itself on the very issue of conducting external operations. alre is a large pooling of qaeda affiliated groups in the

east, that is certainly cause for concern. friction because they feel that they are in a safe position in the east, should they be conducting external operations to syria. this is a concerning turn of events. hezbollah, still actively working on the half of the regime, in syria, you have some kurdish groups, up along the turkish border, they are looking for some territory that they can claim as their own, and have, autonomy is too strong a word but they want to be able to influence things that happen in the north and the east of syria. one negative thing that happened, on the russian have, autonomy is too strong a wordagreement was you saw that e theyans and the regime,

used their opportunity to refresh their troops, to restock and take some offense of operations, mainly through artillery strikes and small union -- unit movement to take advantage of that position. most people would see this conclusion. we see a hardened position today. and any time that you can have an agreement to take chemical weapons off the battlefield, this is a good day. what worries me is there was an egg -- a narrow focus and we missed the opportunity to stretch that to conventional weapons systems. the missile systems that they have -- are mainly supplied through russian means, this is very troubling. are they stepping over conventional weapons systems. probably.

this is something that i hope that we can reengage with the russians pretty quickly. i reject those who want to define this is a simple civil war in syria. this is a regional conflict, with regional concerns in the area. russians pretty quickly. i reject those who want to define this is a simple civil war in syria. this is a regionaltrying to infe with money and arms, and even backroom diplomacy, that is very concerning. jordan is at risk from the sheer number of refugees, israel is obviously very concerned that, for the first time they have al qaeda elements on the northern border, something that they have with to thatal degree thus far. iran is cornered by what is going on in syria and hezbollah as militia that cause us concern. they have departed to another country and engaged in fighting -- and candidly, they are very successful.

that is all concerning and the last thing we have to worry about is the number of foreign fighters exceeds the number of foreign fighters we saw in iraq and afghanistan. that sheer numbers should give you pause. when this is over they will be combat trained and combat hardened him a and they will want to go home. we will have a wave of ,ndividuals who are committed with training we have not seen before in europe, and the united states as well. all of that, we are trying to work through. we will have to have a long debate about the role we should have with the russians and the iranians moving forward. want to come back, congressman rogers, to some of what you said, about these entrenched al qaeda fighters, and what to do about them.

but first i want to ask congressman engel, if he can take us back to the days immediate after lee -- immediately after the president's speech, where he said, i feel it is important for this action to be fully legitimate and take this to congress and get congressional support. it is said that one of the surprises and decisive itelopments of that was appeared increasingly that the hold his ownld not caucus. the house democrats were unlikely to support the

president in sufficient numbers, despite fairly strong lobbying on behalf of of this resolution, favoring military action, by the pro-israel blogger -- lobbying group that is very well- connected on capitol hill. some resented that they had been pushed into the fight, saying that this is directly about the security of israel. is it true that the democratic caucus was increasingly unlikely that they would support this resolution? and were you at all troubled by the linking of this to more traditional issues involving the security of israel? >> you have to take the lack of support for a strike in syria into talented, not just look at democrats but also republicans. the united states is weary of war, we're all hearing from our constituents, overwhelmingly, they did not favor any kind of action in syria. i publicly said i supported a strike in syria, and i supported this not because i like strikes, but i think that this was a way that theg assad

president said that using weapons of mass destruction on his own people is not acceptable. i think that the situation in congress -- i was one of the people who thought that the president did not have to come to congress initially. i felt that the war powers act gave the president 60 days to come to congress and i still feel that way. the president felt otherwise and i respect that. when he came to capitol hill, he and his people found that there was a lot of resistance. there was quite frankly more resistance on the republican seemed strange to me that many of my republican colleagues who had supported the war in afghanistan, desert storm, things like that, were suddenly so opposed to supporting president obama on strikes in syria.

it seemed like a disconnect to me that it was politically motivated, rather than substance, but this was also a hard sell. ultimately, if this had come to the vote i think most democrats would have supported the president but in terms of where the president would get the support of the congress -- the republicans were overwhelmingly opposed to this. i have always felt that foreign policy should be bipartisan. you complement to the way he has run the committee in a bipartisan fashion, wepresident, despite fairly strong lobbying on behalf of of this resolution, favoring military action, by the pro-israel blogger -- lobbying group that is very well- connected on capitol hill. try to do that with chairman royce on the foreign affairs committee. we made a trademark this year to talk about bipartisanship. policy --erever wherever possible, foreign policy should be bipartisan.

i think it strengthens us and the president, and it is important we keep this in a bipartisan fashion, but i think the reality was that this was very iffy. it was not wrong for them to get involved. israel is in a very difficult area, and what happens in syria, is very important to israel. the bordereights is between syria and israel. i think the pro-israel community, if they decide to get involved with this, did the right thing, and the reaching is not just on the democratic arty or republican party. this is really across party lines. i think they have built the most

effective lobbying force of any organization on capitol hill, with strong ties and influence in both the democratic caucus and the republican caucus. i think it was appropriate to we involved, and i think will never know what would have happened because the agreement that the president agreed to, with russia and syria is a good agreement. it is good that this happened. but it troubles me that assad is in power after all these years. i wrote the syria accountability act 10 years ago and got the signed with the republican congress and republican president because i think they and theye bipartisan, have been bad players for so many years. >> let me ask you a brief follow-up.

one thing that was said at home and abroad is that the difficulty in getting said or two assert this norm against the use of chemical weapons, told the world how war weary america is, and that that sense this was a worrying precedent, for the much larger and more consequential issue said or of the iranian nur program, they were looking at this and thinking it was less andly that america president obama would take the country to war, to stop the iranian nuclear program. what would be your judgment about if there is anything to worry about here? >> surely, there is something to worry about. iranians were

watching carefully how this out, it wasn played obvious that the united states is weary of war, and i think they watch us very carefully and this was one reason why i was for striking syria, because i turned that assad himself into the proxy of iran i n syria. the war was going poorly until hezbollah came across the side,, and thought on his winning back all those towns, and was very successful. controlled -- are they are a terrorist group, controlled by iran, and the iranians want assad to win. this is something that is intertwined. believe some of the dissatisfaction we saw with some

with whaties, happened in syria, place to the thatthat everyone knows they are there and watching. i think that president obama, to his credit, said that all options are on the table, just the way i believe it was a credible threat of american and thist forced him agreement on the syrian front, allowing them to agree to it. i think this is the incredible threat of american force that will help, if there is to be an agreement, to make sure this is a good agreement. help, if there is to be an agreement, to make sure this is a good agreement. i am for an agreement, but i want a good agreement. thatno agreement is better thaa bad agreement, and the president continues to say that all options are on the table.

the negotiations ongoing, i believe time but i is of the essence and i think that we should know in a few weeks if they are serious or if they are just trying to string us along. this is a situation where time does not play in their advantage because of the sanctions. i want to ask congressman rogers about the next big date on the syria calendar. conference,va 2 which seems to be tentatively for the third week of november. don'tose of you who follow this carefully, this will be following onto the transitional procedures, that kofi annan negotiated when he was a special envoy for syria, a joint u.s. russian project,

discussed at great length by john kerry, and the russian foreign minister lavrov. i want to ask whether you think this is possible to achieve anything significant, at this conference now, and do you support this going forward? and perhaps you could also take this opportunity to discuss one of the issues that is central to this conference, how can the opposition gets strong enough, to bargain effectively at geneva, and do better on the battlefield. >> this was the problem with the first go around, it will be the problem in geneva 2.

when the deal was done with the russians, it was done by two entities playing different roles in syria. what happened is a general who was trying to hold together the free syrian army, hopefully free of more radicals, not going to be the case given how things are when the deal was done with the turning in syria, they felt, so, theiregitimately legs were cut out from under them. if someone does not have the credibility to tell the opposition where they will go forward on a deal, we will get no deal that will hold. u.s. and russian led event in syria, that tells me it will not be successful up front. they are the key players because there are very few people who walk in and say, this is it. no more spare parts or weapons, no more gasoline, no more finances, your days are numbered. they are really the only ones

an who can play that role. that is why it was important to engage the russians. but who walks into the opposition and says -- this is the way forward. he is here for 18 months. this is how we do the transitional government. there will be a cease-fire. no government can do that. saudis are frustrated and how they are pulling away from american interest and publicly stating it. this is concerning. everything is working against success. i think that is why we both cosponsored a bill that eliot authored on trying to find a way forward, to arm the opposition and train opposition in a way that allows us to have friends

and influence for a peaceful conclusion. i know many people think this is economy by giving them weapons -- but we believe that if they are strong enough, and have enough influence to turn the tide on the battlefield, this is the time the u.s. and russia can actually sit down to broker a deal that can lead to lasting peace that does not create chaos. assad was taken out today we would have chaos in syria that we would all pay the price for. i think he needs to go but we are in a different place than we were two years ago or 18 months ago. this situation has deteriorated so badly that we have to find a way to stop the chaos that will follow when he eventually leaves power. .his is what i worry about

we felt we were promised something and many people thought this meant airplanes and tanks, sophisticated weaponry that was not part of the discussion. show up on theot battlefield for the opposition, this created a real or perceived credibility problem and this is the challenge they will have walking into geneva. >> let me ask you this quickly before i turn to questions from theaudience, to address issue at the core of the question, to make the opposition more stronger and more credible, this is a program -- a hard- nosed program sponsored by agencies of the u.s. government that would work to train, and to some extent arm, members of general interest and the force, to create commando units and the

kind of command and control muscle that they have needed. to this i guess you have to be careful, but tell us what you can about how this is going, this is so important in terms of the larger story. i can't talk about specific i can tell you early on that many of us believe that, what can the united states bring to impact on the battlefield in syria early on. nobody does training better than the united states. intelligence packages allowing a trained unit that learns command and control, armed in a way to be effective on the battlefield, to get to the right place and affect the right outcome of the position. nobody does that better than the united states. the other piece of this was the united states trying to corral what is a whole bunch of countries who have large influence in the region,that, ws

bring to impact on the battlefield in syria early on. nobody does training better than the united states. throwing weapons systems over the border and running like heck. there are nationstates we work well with, who don't really care where the weapons systems end up, as long as it is pointed at assad, this is a good day for them but this is not good for u.s. snatch net -- national interests. we have had a reluctance to sit at the table and show u.s. leadership. you will hear that complaint from all of our middle eastern allies. why you see this public discussion of saudi arabia pulling away from the united states, and hopefully we can fix that and turn that around. because that would have serious negative consequences if saudi arabia continue down that path. the perception problem was, as i said earlier

is all of this good stuff was going to happen and we would have well-trained units to engage in the fight. the problem is the u.s. rhetoric and resources -- there is a huge gap. and as the situation on the ground has changed, i think the u.s. rhetoric, and our stated goals and intentions must also change. for anyone who was saying, 24 months ago, we have to do a very big, robust and public way supporting the opposition, that circumstance does not exist today. same rhetoricat when we know the more extremist elements are winning the tide of influence among the opposition funding,f better better training and better committed fighters. think that our intelligence

services are doing a miraculous job of making sure they understand who the good guys are, who are the bad guys, and who we can -- we can trust to have friends on the ground in syria, but the problem is that this is just not enough. and i think that the longer it goes in the current publicly stated goals, with what we are doing -- it will only create more animosity. this is a complicated situation on the ground, change the rhetoric and the goals, change what we hope to influence when this is done, and try to work with allies to keep sophisticated weapons around the groups we know are radicalized. we are not talking about four or 500 people, we are talking about people, this 2000 is a serious problem brewing for us.

and the foreign policy trend -- we will not meet that challenge the way that we are doing that today. amongt i hear you saying, the careful language is that -- the united states needs to have a more aggressive and focused, nonpublic row graham, to deal with the reality in syria e >> if your stated goal -- let's back up for a moment. he needs to go. the original policy is that he needs to go. we are all in and i support that position, but time has changed the facts on the ground. i don't believe that if is our stated intention, we are configured to make that happen. i would argue that we are not. we are not in position to do that on the ground. we have alienated the allies and

the opposition in the stated goals and the resource position on the ground. i argue that we should refocus where wee out, we are are with a growing problem in the east, turkish border issues with syria, you have hezbollah in the west, and in the south, we have to change the calculus. what do we want to accomplish? this is a sacred position, but not. today, wessad goes are in serious trouble from the chaos that will ensue, and everyone will try to get their hands on those sophisticated weapons. we have to reconfigure ourselves, and i believe in covert action. this has played an important role since george washington

engaged in this in the revolutionary war, this is a part of advancing u.s. national security interests. way to do is a better something that can influence the outcome so we have a more peaceful and less chaotic, more supportive outcome than the path we are on today. askongressman, i want to you a question posed by one of he had thee members, device himself as a senate staffer, and asks, what are the u.s. national security interests associated with syria? and if i may expand that just a bit, we have dealt with chemical weapons, what we are facing in reality in syria today, it the breakup of the unitary state of syria. effectively canonized. does the united states have an interest in keeping the nation within its traditional

boundaries, together? you know, i have often questioned how much we should be committed to keeping these colonial boundaries intact. we had that argument during the where many of us thought that the kurdish in the northern part of the country autonomy,allowed essentially being allowed to run their own nation. i think the same could ostensibly be said for syria. i think when mike was laying out what happened, -- two years ago thead strong feelings that free syrian army -- they would and i-- emerge victorious even put in the bill that he rebels,red, to arm the but things have changed on the

ground, and there is a lot of chaos, as well. what we doreassess now. needs to that assad go, i believe he is a brutal dictator. and a lot of uprising starts with good intentions. the uprising in serious started with people who were fed up with the weight of his regime, the way it was strangling the people of syria and they wanted to have a free syria -- a free syria that we would feel compatible but jihadists have been pouring into that country, even to a larger degree than we saw anorak. and again, that allies in the region, the close allies of israel and saudi arabia.

do have a state in terms of what happened. we are shifting into the middle of having this shift. i think the united states needs to be engaged. this very well may happen. the king of jordan came to see us a few months ago on the foreign affairs committee. he took the map and started drawing, showing how you would have the division of syria, and that is what he is playing for. doesn't care about the north or a lot of the area, but he cares about damascus, the capital, which would essentially enclave, which is why

many of us believe he used poison gas in damascus to ethnically cleanse the area of sunni. if we think that what happens in syria does not have the spillover effect to these other countries, we are very badly we have annd i think interest in trying to stabilize syria and trying to transition to a post-assad syria, and doing russians the . this is a long shot but we have to keep trying. >> is there anything from john

kerry or the rest of the state department that indicates in recent conversations that the russians recognize that -- to stabilize the situation, assad must leave when his term of office expires next year. >> is there anything>> i have n. this is something that we would hope because it is true, and we hope that the russians will come to understand that he has no future in syria. i think the agreement we did with the russians in terms of getting rid of the gas and the weapons of mass destruction was a good thing. i think something good came out of that and i'm under no illusions about vladimir putin or aside, but i think it is good that the united states and russia can cooperate on this. russia has experienced this level of terror -- terrorism, they had -- don't have a stake they are this large, trying to put the lid on what is happening in syria.

this is not only in the united states best interest. this is in russia's best interest as well. >> we knew early on that the russians were looking for him to stay in power. this is one of the main things that they wanted. they were asking for completely staying as long as they could get a let it, he would have gotten elected. they started adjusting on the number of months they were willing to negotiate and this collided with the -- with the position that this was nonnegotiable. he has to go. he has to be gone. that is were the friction started between the united states and russia. this is not incompatible with their position.

i think that they feel they are in a good place today, because of the chemical weapons agreement, the fact that assad is untouchable until the end of that agreement, which will be close to the election cycle. himthey going to try to get another election? ii think that they will try ther but then they will decide that he will have to go. very quickly, i think this is a classic case of why we should reengage in the world, or at least stand up to the general populace about involvement in the world. business in syria open to many of us. 600 have aided and abetted, cut outs, taking the lives of 600 u.s. holders. this was a proxy state for a

nation causing bad behavior in the region, trying to kill the saudi ambassador in the united states capital. earlier intervention, and we don't mean military intervention am a we are talking about using the assets we can bring that are -- theyo this situation are in the national security interest. but because we defeated ourselves by saying we are tired weinternational engagement, waited a long time and now we have a cauldron of that activity. i agree that had an earlier intervention helping the opposition two years ago you would not see these circumstances on the ground. you have a safe haven developing in the eastern part of syria, along the border where they talk

about conducting external operations, which is what happened in afghanistan, which led to 9/11. there are thousands of people who have come from some western nations, the united states and other places, who are going to go back. you cannot have a safe haven for people committed to ask of terrorism. to advance their political goals. the only things stopping that now is the strugglethere are bee core leadership of al qaeda, saying, hold off, don't do this yet. we don't want foreign intervention in the fight just yet. they have developed a level of patience and strategy we have not seen before. try to secure some areas in the east, and then we will begin planning for external operations. there is a group there that says they want to do something now, comfortable,and

and want to engage in external operations. this is our security interest. we said we will never allow other safe havens, but what we have happening in syria today, is the development of maybe the largest safe haven, without -- an ability to conduct operations that we have ever seen. this should concern all of us. when we don't make a decision because we believe we are doing international good, what you get now is a worse problem. --ope people study this case i think it may reinvigorate peoples interest in engaging small and effective early, so you don't get big and ugly later. now we are at a big and very ugly stage of this conflict. >> let me turn to to questions from the same direction from foreign guests.

and follow on the comments you just made. from the embassy of switzerland that asks, iran wants to be involved, in the geneva 2 conference. what is your take on that? and from the german council on foreign relations -- how can you into this. equation constructively? what should be the requirements for their participation? will they help or will they hurt? >> the most pressing problem is getting them to get rid of their nuclear weapons. i think that this trumps everything else. part, how theye act toward that goal, that will beermine whether they will taken seriously in terms of a player for peace in the region,

or as someone who has committed all kinds of inappropriate behavior in the region. supporterm as a major and financier of terrorism in the entire world. this is a record of -- i mentioned hezbollah before. they had been a particularly bad player and i don't think that they should be elevated as someone who can be constructive i think firstria, let them show that they will be constructive in terms of dismantling their nuclear program. this is what we have to concentrate on right now. i would be opposed to them having syria,d of a role in unless they show that they are trying to be responsible in terms of dismantling the nuclear weapons program. --s has to be more than just

trying to act charming, the new president, it is unclear to me, what responsibility he has, rouhani, if this is just more window dressing or if this israel. i am happy if this is real but i have my doubts. let's wait and see before we start elevating them as peacemakers. >> i interviewed him one on one and said the same thing. -- he said the same thing. let's deal with the nuclear issues first and then the regional issues. authority frome the supreme leader on the nuclear foul, but he cannot deal with the other issues. michael, do you have a thought about the wisdom of bringing them into this process?

>> i would not have them sit at the table unless they had a laundry list of things they must do prior -- they have not negotiated in good faith on the nuclear issues. just because this is rouhani, people say, he is with us -- this just has not been the case. in all of the nuclear talks the most important thing was that have more talks, that is what we got out of this. i don't see any change here today. they are actively supporting hezbollah in syria. they have conducted well over one dozen political assassination attempts worldwide, including an attempt here in the united states of america, in our capital. there was a vicious cyber attack that almost took them off-line and crippled their main cash flow in saudi arabia that does

their oil and natural gas transactions. a very devastating cyber attack. they have been probing aggressively, in the hundreds of times just this year alone, our financial services networks, in a way that would give one pause. to say we will allow those people to credibility, that is what they want here. the credibility of sitting at the table, so that they are in a better position to negotiate nuclear issues and eventually what is happening in syria. i think it would be unwise at best, really damaging to our ability to control the largest supplier of international terrorismthe credibility of sitt face of the

earth when it comes to a state government. >> let me ask a few more questions. one of them is a twitter question, @ mayhill. how threatened is the monarchy syria -- that is what i hear the most about when i talk to israeli sources about this situation, that as a sunni gets stronger, the consequences for the king of jordan becomes more serious. what do you think and what should the u.s. do about this? >> i think the u.s. needs to do everything possible to work closely with the king of jordan. jordan has been a loyal and trusted ally of the united face of theany years, earth when it comes to a state government. and jordan is feeling the weight of these hundreds of thousands of refugees pouring across the

border, from syria. we have been helping a lot with that. whenever he comes to washington, to speak with us, i feel that this is a breath of fresh air coming from that region. he has it all together. he understands what is happening. with what the united states should do. if anything happened to his regime it would be devastating to our policies. they need to be looked upon as someone who is loyal, a nation that stays with our allies. jordan is one of the more important allies.

feeling the strain of these refugees and the war. >> is there something new that we should be doing, congressman rogers, to help them go to the question of jordanian stability? we should just continue what we have done. belief,de humanitarian with protecting the military and protecting them, and we are encouraging good relations between jordan and egypt, jordan and israel, and saudi arabia. we need to let them know that we are dependable. people rely on the united states. this is a good part of us being al qaeda wasally,

planning and plotting, when we were not going after them, when the soviet union -- they were thrown out of afghanistan, we allowed that country to fester instead of making sure that the county fund did not rear their ugly head. we cannot afford to do that anymore. havee all tired, but we responsibility, as the leading power of the world, i am a new yorker and i remember september 11, 2001 like it was yesterday. one of the most visceral moments in my life and everyone's life. we have to make sure that the people who would do us harm are

prevented from doing so, and the people alive with us today, like saudi arabia and egypt, that are aligned with us, this is a two- way street. this protects them and keeps them working with us, but also protects us. >> imagine if 100 billion people showed up in the united states in the next three or four months, this would be a devastating problem to keep up with. i have been in the camps along the border. issues,er and sanitary they built camps in the middle of nowhere. create atrying to small town on the border and is filled up in four days. they have doubled the population if they have interesting --

you have interested relatives, you can live in that community and may have doubled the size of these small towns that already had water and sewer issues. this is a real problem. the syrians are understanding that there are flames to be fanned, in causing trouble. trouble brewing in the camps. pressureat is adding on a country that has little resources to offer its own people, but let hundreds of thousands of people who are not citizens in. we need the international community to do more. one of the things we can do is contain the refugee flow by trying to offer some areas of stability in syria that allow

people to find a safe haven of their own, and talking about a good safe haven, where they do not feel like they have to cross the border to protect their families. they are populated with young girls, and kids telling their parents to flee -- it is a event to meetgic these young folks who have been displaced by some awful combat fighting in syria. all of these things need to happen at the same time. other than events in this, we do not talk about syria much anymore. after the big kerfuffle over should we do a surgical strike on their chemical weapons, we have moved on as americans. that is a tragedy, if we do not put more emphasis on this problem. >> let me ask for one quick response from congressman rogers, because this is an important question, because this is an important question.

this is from the foreign-policy initiative. how confident are you that i ssad will really give immediate and unfettered access, which is what is demanded, to all chemical weapons sites and declare every chemical weapons transfer out of serious since 1946, as he is -- out of syria, since 1946, what is your confidence level? >> they are trying to do the best they can. my confidence level is low that we will have access to all the sites we need. and one time they were talking about as many as 42 sites. opcw has been at 14, 15, and in the time they have been there, they have found equipment used to manufacture, but we have tons of the stuff left.

i think we are fooling ourselves if therek they'r -- is not a black set of books on the chemical weapons program, i will eat that table. clearly, there is. they are going to try to game -- >> never make a bet you cannot keep. >> i probably could eat that table. i do worry we think it is done and it is neat and clean and we have a clean solution. this is not something we should walk away from elegantly. we need to continue intelligence gathering to find the gaps. we are seeing some disturbing reports about moving some of the excess in certain places, in areas that would benefit the regime. all of those things are happening all at the same time. i have low confidence we will get it all. as i said, am i glad we're are

getting our hands on the production equipment? outcot, that is a good me, but we should not close the book on their chemical weapons. as moderator,ay any day when you get a sensible, bipartisan discussion about the big foreign-policy issues, and knowing more than you did at the beginning of the day, it is good. please thank our guests. thank you very much. [applause] with election day less than two weeks away, the final virginia governors debate is dbj int, hosted by w roanoke and virginia tech.

we will have that for you at 9:20 on c-span2, and we got a preview this morning from a richmond political reporter. what do you expect from tonight's debate? recent polls suggest mr. mcauliffe is way ahead. the republican nominee clearly ofying catch up in the argot contemporary politics. he is hoping that tonight he can use this debate to change the narrative. one of the things we have been seeing a lot of in recent hours is a new, fresh, and more vigorous attack on health care reform. this seems to be more an effort to rally the republican base

than really reach to vast numbers of swing voters, independents, who typically decide elections in virginia. host: what have you seen in the past few hours from the cuccinelli campaign? host: this morning, another statement from operatives trying to link the muff-up in the obamacare rollout to mr. mcauliffe. the republicans who control the house of delegates are dead set against it, or so they say, and it promises to be a big flash point if mr. mcauliffe is elected. what we are basically seeing here is guilt by association.

host: terry mcauliffe has had a lead here, and do you suspect that that continues, or does that narrow as we get closer to election day? guest: it is likely that it will narrow somewhat as voters come home. however, the biggest issue in this campaign seems to be mr. cuccinelli himself. he is a tea party conservative republican, make no apologies for that. however, when he ran for attorney general in 2009, racking up over a million votes, it was quite clear he was not subject to as close scrutiny by the electorate. that scrutiny has elevated in the years he has spent in the attorney general's office with a number of high-profile crusades, if you will. one of the first attorneys general in the country to challenge the aca, a big

struggle in court, unsuccessful, over the university of virginia over a scientist researching climate change, and continuing efforts to restrict abortion in virginia. that shows up consistently in the polls in terms of an enormous gender gap. women are breaking to mr. mcauliffe by double digits, and this seems to be largely a consequence of the republican nominee's outspoken opposition to abortion rights. host: are these independents that are breaking for mcauliffe? who are the undecideds? guest: the women who are breaking to mr. mcauliffe are not only democrats, there are a good number of republican and independent female voters. for them, a big issue of course

is abortion rights. host: what about the libertarian candidate in this race? who is he? what role might he play? host: robert sarvis, who ran unsuccessfully a few years ago, seems to be a big drag for mr. cuccinielli. the polls again are really curiosities, and they suggest that he is running in low double digits. he is presenting problems for mr. cuccinelli in terms of drawing away libertarian republican votes. he has not had a chance to participate in any of these debates because he has not really maintained a double-digit standing in the polls. we are expecting to see him tonight in blacksburg where he may be live tweeting from virginia tech.

host: how will the government shutdown play out in tonight's debate? guest: virginia has a substantial portion of its economy, about 26% of its economy, that is directly derived from federal spending, military, and civilian. the beneficence of uncle sam touches the lives of many virginians. as a result, there are many virginians who were very upset over this shutdown. it is not just those who work for the federal government or federal contractors, largely concentrated in northern virginia, but all along the i-95 interstate 64 corridor, down the atlantic seacoast, the defense-rich southeastern region, also a big factor down

there. it is clearly driving up the negatives for the republicans. mr. cuccinelli has gone to great lengths to distance himself from what occurred in washington. however, he is doing this at the same time, relying on such important national republican figures as ted cruz and also rand paul. host: so, jeff schapiro, the "richmond times-dispatch" did not endorse a candidate. why not? what does that say about this race? host: the editorial page of the "richmond times-dispatch" for the past 40 years has shown great preference for republican gubernatorial nominees. it has not endorsed a democrat for governor in 10 elections. so it is widely assumed to have

been a default republican newspaper, certainly in gubernatorial election years. the conventional wisdom is the silence of "the times-dispatch" on this governor's race is an indication of continuing republican discontent with mr. cuccinelli. host: jeff schapiro, thank you for your time and for setting up this debate. >> you bet. debateill show you that tonight at 9:20. bring you awill do meeting of the house energy and commerce committee, speaking to contractors regarding healthcare.gov. lawissue of the health care and its launch and the website

came up a number of times in today's white house briefing. he was asked about the president's awareness of what problems existed prior to the launch on october 1. [video clip] >> we are focused not on monday morning quarterbacking, but on improving the access that americans have to the information they need so they can shop for and purchase affordable health insurance. as i said yesterday, tests were done, and what we learned upon launch is the problems with the site were greater than expected

and anticipated, significantly, and significant work needed to be done to fix those problems, and that is what is happening. we are only 3 1/2 weeks into a six-month process. we are making progress everyday. as i said yesterday, we will make sure that information about the progress is being made is available to you through regular briefings at cms and information being provided from the teams that are working on the improvements. our focus is on getting it right, because the end game -- the fact that there are problems with healthcare.gov is something we ackknowledge, 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 try to do away with it, repeal it, defund it, sabotage it, arch -- are expressing 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, or entirely, 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. >> there are briefings at cms where you can get your questions answered about. the 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 said that in the rose garden. the secretary is not satisfied. the website is improving every day, 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 these questions stem from the people who either want to eliminate obamacare or delay it so they can eliminate it later gets to the other part of the matter which is how much longer do you ask americans with pre- existing conditions to go without health insurance? how much longer do you ask a single mom with breast cancer in awareness month to go without -- how long do you ask her to go without health insurance, to go without coverage? it is available now from october 1. americans have been able to shop

for and enroll in affordable health insurance plans. one portal through which they can do that has been inadequate and has functioned poorly. we are fixing that every day. will hear all of the hearing on the health care law with government contractors tonight at 8:00 on c-span. ahead of that, we will hear from you, your calls and tweets with healthcare.gov. until that time, we will show you with a portion of the question day, with a about the problems the website had before the launch. up on thesellow comments.

we would like the names of the youonnel at cms who provided the risk that you identified in your analysis of other contractors. can you do that? >> let me follow up with you. colleagues to ask for names. there areous cms -- people there, and i will venture to guess that the bureaucrats did their job, the political appointees manipulated the system to hide what they did not want the public to know. we will find out who that is, because that is the crux of this problem. from aa letter whose -- constituent who says we have never been without health insurance. the affordable care act may force us into the position of going without it. this whole dowdell is whether

americans can have affordable health care. and this system is not helping in this day. -- i was friend 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 resistance, health- national schedules of electronic reporting authorization. those i asked for a hearing on the health care law. it is in the congressional record, statements like on april 28, we must hold hearings on the new health reform act. may 6, 2010, should also call belius to se testify. 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

from cms. >> who would i have to go to to get that cms? who is your point of contact at cms? >> so there are a number of people. >> give me a name. >> henry chow. >> 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 testing 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 something 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.

>> will you provide to 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. a 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 health care act since they tried to defund it, they tried to kill it, to 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 health 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 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 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 aca 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

its 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 their newfound 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 this 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 cgi 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, with 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 of 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 gotcha 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, >> 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 it was overwhelmed. poor coding, poor hardware. volume. ms. campbell, why doesn't healthcare.gov work properly?

>> sir, if there was a silver bullet answer to 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 that. >> 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, 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 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 problem 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. >> ok, 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 address 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? >> that 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.

i was in small business 22 years. we dealt with software upgrades. i'm feeling a lot of those emotions come back today. when we put in a new system, there would be multiple vendors, and every system operated perfectly except when it came together. then they all pointed fingers at somebody else. today,ling a lot of that only as a person who represents three-quarter of a million people with $500 million on the line. it is why we are here, to figure out what went wrong. it sounds like each of you has said that you design your system and tested it to the specifications that you were given by cms. is that accurate, yes or no? >> that is correct. >> yes. >> yes.

>> our systems are not integrated. there andget to sit not have quite as much opportunity today. i want to go then to the first two. if you designed it to cms specifications and tested it and felt it was good to go, where did this breakdown? in most systems that you operate in, the do you do and to end tests prior to the rollout? and if so, when would you have preferred the end and end testing have been done by cms? ms. campbell? >> let me see if i can get all of those questions. them i will make it simple. when should the and to hand testing have started? >> -- when should the end to end testing have started? >> there is never enough. probably september. >> this mammoth, 1/6 of the

nation's economy, millions of people coming into it, did that adequate timeany to make sure everything was integrated and to work? >> it would have been better to have more time. >> how much would you have preferred to have? >> i don't have an exact -- >> did you make recommendations for the and to end testing to occur sooner than this went live question mark, i did not. >> did anybody make a recommendation? >> i would have to go back. >> i would like to know that. >> ideally integrated testing would have happened. >> how far in advance of a major website coming online? >> with enough time to correct flaws before they began. >> do you do any work for anybody else outside of cms where and to in testing is required? >> yes. >> are those commercial situations where government? >> both. >> what is the standard protocol, what is the recommended industry standard for testing before rolling out a major website like this?

>> months would be nice. >> ms. campbell, is that accurate for your company as well? >> that is correct. >> you were given two weeks, yet months would have been nice. if you were to do a contract for a system like this,con what would you askt for in terms of and the end testing? >> it was not ourselves doing the end to end testing. >> i think that is correct, but as a vendor, you want your company coming out of this looking good, not spending time with us, is much as i am sure that you enjoy it. but what should the industry standard have called for? have you ever undertaken up a website, being

part of something this big, effecting this many people's lives? >> i would say -- >> yes or no, this big? >> of this complexity? i testified that this is by far i think the most complex in our country in a very long time. >> and i think you are right. >> i would say -- >> yes or no, this big? when should the testing have been done, if your company could have made that decision? what would your recommendation for the complete integrated testing to begin? when should that have started? >> we would have liked to have had months to be able to do it. >> months. i was hearing that from the outside. i would reach out and just ask, how you think this will work. this is how outside people predicted it would turn out. and here we are today. this is not a partisan issue about health care. people expect this thing to work. i went through this in oregon with the department of motor vehicles. million, $600

million in the late 1980s and scrap the system because it was a complete failure and we said stop. i don't want this to be a failure, but a when you do get it fixed. but i'm very disturbed that cms 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 is ready, i am ready to go. anduse you all came here told us, and through us the american people, it was good to go, and it was not. >> ms. campbell, you testified before the house subcommittee on september 10, correct? >> that is correct. >> at that hearing, you testified that cgi federal was confident it would deliver the functionality that cms directed qualified individuals to begin enrolling in coverage, correct? >> that is correct. >> in your written testimony of

today, you also testified that cgm and others developed this past the eight technical reviews before going live october 1. >> that is correct. >> even at that hearing september 10, 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 said in those hearings were testing was needed, and i was there. >> is your question whether i testified of testing? >> that is correct. did you ever tell this committee more testing was needed to make sure that it would work? >> i don't believe somebody asked me that question. >> thank you. , you were only witness who was not here on september 10, but somebody from your organization was.

testified,er 10, he "our delivery milestones for data service hub completion are being met on time. we expect cms data service hub to be met as planned october 1," correct? >> i believe that is correct. >> and in your written testimony today, you echo to that you completed the testing in june, there was an independent security risk assessment completed on august 30. is that correct? >> correct. >> today in your testimony, you said that you share the problems that you identified with cms. were those problems shared after the september 10 hearing? >> yes. that youwould request supplement your testimony today by telling us the problems you identified to cms. we you please do that for us within 20 days question mark >> i would be happy to get back to you. >> thank you very much.

r organization tonization testing with a number of 200 people and that failed? that is what we have seen in the press accounts. all of not familiar with the accounts from the press. i think you're referring to the testing that occurred in the final days leading up to the october 1 launch. >> was that done with only 200 people? >> minor staining is that was a test that failed. once the systems were put together for the first time. >> ok, but where there tests with more people coming in as well? >> yes. is thisore thing i have issue of privacy. in my opening statement i said 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 disturb barton's statements and saw his slide, which i got a copy of it as i cannot see it, i

realized in fact a lot of people don't want the affordable care act to work and are raising all of these specters, and this privacy issue was a specter. mr. barton's questions, i am sorry he is not still here because his questions came from an article in the weekly standard. where there apparently is a line of code which says, and it is not visible to the user, it is somehow in there, it says you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication or data transiting or stored on this information system. so this is some sort of standard boilerplate, but mr. barton is assuming this violated hippo, but it would only violate hepa if people were putting their personal medical information into the application. 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, ms. campbell? >> that is correct.

>> that is my understanding. >> we would not have visibility into that. >> what about you? >> that is correct. >> so people are not putting confidential medical information onto the internet, so therefore they would not be violating hepa, and i'm disappointed my friend would go down this road and i would ask unanimous consent but that article on the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> one last question, when can these exchanges be ready and when can people get on them with reliability? ms. campbell. >> as soon as possible. we are working as hard as we can. >> we're doing everything we can to maintain them and assist. went onalth care aide to the national exchange. she lives in virginia last

night. she was able to register, research plans. i hope this happens for the rest of america. right here i just went on my ipad and i was able to access the choices of plans to my constituency in california, within 5, 10 minutes. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. chair. you.ank from ms. campbell on down, the first two questions are more or less yes and no questions. did you or anyone from your company consult with or discuss today's testimony and your answers to potential questions with anyone from cms to prepare for this hearing? ms. campbell. >> we talked to cms about our testimony, but not any detail at all. >> who did you discuss that with?

>> i don't recall, i do not discuss it with anyone myself. >> there are always intermediaries. >> no. >> no, we do not have specific conversations. >> no. >> ok, that's good. ms. campbell, did your company or any of your subs use any people who work outside of the united states to assist in your respective parts or your contract with cms, otherwise known as outsourcing? of thewe're very proud fact we created jobs all in the united states. >> all of them? >> all of them. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no, sir. >> very good. now, i'm concerned about the front door of the system, of this website.

is this system able to track how many people are accessing what we call the front door, ms. campbell? >> we are not responsible for the front door. >> you know, it's very confusing, because in your testimony on the 10th, you did suggest, and somehow that piece of a per is missing right now, in your testimony that you provide it you said eligibility and enrollment will service the front door for consumers to fill out the online health insurance application as one of the responsibilities. so i am confused by that. >> i understand. we are the face of -- if you think of a house, we are the outside structure, but the front door that you go into -- >> just the siding that was put up? dad did constructional his

life, small business doing construction. i think in those terms. >> so wall of the front face accessing? >> ask the question again. >> sir, are you responsible for the front door questio? >> we supply a tool that is one of 5 -- >> not trying to be rude, but what i am trying to get to is, which of you is responsible for the application that allows cms to know how many people are actually accessing this website? is that you? >> we have access to the data which shows hominy people are coming through the registration tool. and under that data that is 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 we 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 hominy people have tried to access on any particular day? do you have that data? >> i don't. >> does your company? >> yes, we do. >> are you allowed to share that? >> i will follow up that right away. we will follow up and see put into that. >> has cms made any instructions to you regarding your ability to provide us the data of comedy people have tried to access through the front door? not to my to me, knowledge. >> ok, ms. campbell, do you have access to the information of how many people have tried to access -- >> we have some aspect of that data as well. >> has cms instructed you not to give that information to us? >> we have under our cms contract we have to have

permission from cms first to provide that information. ok, so has cms allowed you to provide us that information yet? >> no. >> so if i ask you, you will deny or say you cannot answer that question, even though we are a panel of members of congress? >> i would say based on our contract we have with cms, would have to get permission. >> are you wonder the same contractual obligation with cms? >> i don't know, but we will check into it. >> would you still provide that information as you under oath and you have the information? >> if we can, we will. >> that was a good nonanswer. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the order ofues, offering questions, the order of niority is when the gavel falls, so we will

recognize mr. butterfield. >> thank you for your testimony today. it has been enlightening. i will associate myself with the comments made by our colleagues. i represent 700,000 people in north carolina, more than 100,000 of those with no insurance whatsoever. they are here to get enrolled and we have to get this right. and soon. ms. campbell, let me start with you. issay, congressman darrell 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 about this is because the chairman says the source for his accusation is you and your company, cga. -- cgi. he is talking about the decision

by hhs to disable the anonymous shopper function on healthcare.gov website, but suggest this decision was made instead by the white house for political reasons. chairman i so wrote this letter after receiving a briefing from cgi last week. "cgiding to the letter, officials told committee staff that cms officials and employees constantly mention the white house. when discussing matters with cgi. although cgi officials were not able to identify who within the administration made the decision to disable the anonymous shopping feature, evidence is mounting that political considerations motivated the decision. i would like to ask a few questions about this. first, did cgi provide a briefing to the staff last week? myself, but ihere

believe that meeting occurred. >> to the best of your knowledge? >> i think it did, but i would have to confirm. i am not close enough to the situation. >> who do you answer to within your organization? >> the president of cgi. >> do you know she'll participated question? >> i don't know for sure. allegations correct, did they order you 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 cgi actually made those statements directly in that manner. i think they may have been taken out of context. i would have to get back to you with confirmation of that. to my knowledge, no, the white

house has not given us direct instructions. >> i would like that information from you. it is a serious allegation for the chairman of an oversight committee to make such a callous accusation. based on the meeting with your company last week, they said evidence is mounting that political consideration is motivated this decision. do you have any evidence -- do you have any evidence that political considerations motivated this decision? >> i am not privy to anything of that sort. knowledge ine any any white house role in specific decisions related 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 kind. mr. chairman we need to work together to make this program function e