my vote. m colorado says, does the money gravitate to candidates who are winning? guest: yes, to some extent, it does. that is a very good point, too. it is a tie the knot that exist on the data. people who have more money to spend on political races and are doing better in the polls and can get more media, although that helps contribute to the fundraising. and again, the data we looked at was primarily looking at fundraising and it looked at spending. we looked mostly at the spending side in an effort to try to move past that bias, because fundraising can be different from spending and there are ways -- effect, there is an which the non-squeaky wheel gets the grease. bump, our final week bank. our democracy is diminished when it comes to who can spend more rather then having to debate the issues. thank you, philip bump.

you can see his piece on the atlantic.com. and now, the house is in session, live coverage here on c-span. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip each, to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for five minutes. thank you, madam speaker. yesterday in deyton, i hosted a

community forum regarding the impacts of sequestration on wright-patterson air force base in the deyton community. we had a distinguished group of local leaders who participated in the event. the expert panel included colonel cassie b. bar low, 88th base wing. jeffly hogan, chris kershner, part of the chamber of commerce and another an advocate for the defense community in my community in deyton, ohio. each of these local leaders talked how sequestration affected our community in 2013 and what would the effect would be if the sequester continues. for a community like deyton with such a strong relationship with ohio's largest single site employer, the message was devastating. the budget control act of 2011, which i voted against, was signed into law on august 2, 2011. the budget control act

establishes series of spending caps and forced reductions designed to indiscriminantly reduce government strength. these forced reductions, also known as sequestration, greatly impact our national security by requiring the department of defense to reduce its budget by roughly $500 billion. already in its second year, this poorly conceived and flawed process continues to compromise our defense capabilities and greatly impact military communities like deyton, ohio. reducing federal spending is important. but the sequester, as proposed by president obama, applies 50% of the cuts to less than 18% of the spending. the department of defense represents less than 18% of overall spending. due to the president's sequester, this year roughly 14,000 civilian men and women have been furloughed in the state of ohio as a direct result of the sequester.

these forced furloughs have not only cost our state tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue but has negatively impacted nearly 30,000 men and women who work at wright-patterson and live in our community. if allowed to continue, i believe that the sequester will potentially result in a loss of 13,000 jobs, the loss of jobs matched with reductions in spending could cost our community in dayton roughly $8.6 billion. while it's important to note the impacts to dayton, we must also take into consideration the impact of our national security and the future of our country. the president promised sequester would not happen and yet the department of defense suffers under the effects of these drastic cuts. as many of the experts pointed out, sequestration will greatly compromise military readiness and modernization for years to come. without a ready and able force, our military will no longer possess the capabilities to rapidly and effectively respond

to conflicts around the globe. during a recent testimony before the house armed services committee, the chiefs outlined the devastating effects, note, the army has been forced to cancel for the combat brigade teams not slated to go to afghanistan or part of a global response force. that means two out of 42 army brigades are fully trained and ready to deploy at a crisis. the navy has canceled multiple ship deployments as a result of the devastating budget cuts, including the u.s.s. truman carrier strike group that was scheduled to deploy earlier this year. due to the cuts we had to reduce deterrent presence in order to surge our ships if needed in a crisis. air force leaders have told congress that modernization forecasts are bleak. these modernization efforts are critical as many of our assets in our inventories are decades'

old. it is imperative that we find spending cuts to offset the sequestration on the department of defense. our military leaders have come to congress on numerous occasions to explain the limitations the budget cuts are putting on our national security. it is legislative malpractice for this congress to continue to put our nation at greater risk. the president needs to come to this congress with a proposal to offset his sequestration in a responsible manner so the department of defense can be restored, our national security protected and the community of dayton, ohio, no longer suffering the effects of sequestration. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, for five minutes. madam : thank you, speaker. i rise today as a member of the safe climate caucus to say that climate change is making extreme weather worse and costing us in lives and dollars.

last week the typhoon, the strongest storm to make landfall in recorded history, struck the philippines with sustained winds of almost 200 miles per hour and thousands reported dead and missing. sandy, irene, katrina, wildfires, floods, droughts. if you flip a coin 20 times, it's possible that an honest coin will land on heads every time, but you should start to suspect that there's something wrong with that coin. sure, the recent extreme weather events might be coincidence, but as superstorms continue again and again, you should suspect that something is wrong with our climate. we should begin fissioning our broken world, not pretending that all is well. his week markets the climate for numb warsaw where members from over 190 nations will be discussing climate change and how the world should be

responding. for international climate negotiations to succeed, the u.s. should take the lead. and leading internationally will require us to start here at home. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. cclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: madam speaker, this summer the biggest fire in the history of the sierra nevada mountains burned 400 square miles of forest land. the fire left behind a swath of environmental devastation that threatens the loss, not only the effected forest land for generations, but sets events in motion that could threaten the surrounding forests for many years to come. the fire also left behind as much as a billion board feet of dead timber on federal land that could be sold to raise

hundreds of millions of dollars, money that could then be used to replant and restore the devastated forests. in addition, processing that timber would help to revive the economy of the stricken region. but time is already running out. within a year, the value of the timber rapidly declines as the wood is devoured by insects and rot. and that's the problem. cumbersome environmental reviews and the litigation that follows will run out the clock on this valuable asset until it becomes worthless. indeed, it becomes worse than worthless. it becomes hazardous. bark and wood-boring beetles are already moving on to feast on the dying timber and a population of pest atlantas will continue. the beetles will confine themselves to the fire areas, posing a mortal threat to the

surrounding forests in the years ahead. by the time the normal bureaucratic reviews and lawsuits have run their course, what was once forest land will have already begun converting to brush land. and by the following year, reforestation will become infin natalie more difficult and more ex-- more difficult and more expensive. the smaller trees will begin toppling on this tender. it's not possible to build a more perfect fire stack than that. intense second generation fires will take advantage of this el, stair liesing the -- threatening the surrounding forests for many years to come. without timely, salvage and reforestation, we know the fate of the sierras because we've seen the result of benign neglect after previous fires. the trees don't come back for many generations. instead, thick brush takes over

the land that was one shaded by towering forests. the brush quickly overwhelms any seedling that is trying to start. it hurts the ecosystems with scrub brush. for this reason, i've introduced h.r. 3188, which waives the time-consuming environmental review process and ends the endless litigation that always follows. it authorizes federal forest managers following protocols for salvage to sell the dead timber and to supervise its careful removal while there is still time. the hundreds of millions of dollars raised can then be directed toward replanting the region before layers of brush choke off any advance of forest regrowth for -- chance of forest regrowth. credited for the speedy

recovery of the forest. this has spawned tales from the activist left of uncontrolled logging in the sierras. nothing can be further from the truth. this legislation vests full control of the salvage plans with federal forest managers, not the logging companies. it leaves federal foresters in charge of enforcing salvage plans that fully protect the environment. the left wants a policy of benign neglect. let a quarter million acres of destroyed timber rot in place, surrender the land to beetles and watch as the forest ecosystem is replaced by scrub land. yes, without human intervention the forests will eventually return. but not in the lifetimes of ourselves, our children or our children's children. if we want to stop the loss of this forest land and if we want to control the beetle infestation before it explodes out of control, the dead timber

has to come out soon. if we take it out now, we can generate the funds necessary to suppress brush buildup, plant new seedlings and restore these forests for the use and enjoyment of our children. if we wait for the normal bureaucratic reviews and delays, we will have lost these forests to the next several generations. that is a choice. congress must make that choice now or nature will make that choice for us. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi, for five minutes. , . pierluisi: madam speaker monday was veterans day when our nation pays tribute to those who have served honorably in the armed forces. today, i rise to express my gratitude to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from puerto rico. both, those who aren't leaving

and those who have left us. since world war 1, almost a century ago to afghanistan today, american citizens from puerto rico have built a rich record of military service. if you visit any u.s. base, you will see warriors from puerto rico fighting to keep this nation safe, strong and free. they serve as officers and enlisted personnel, as special operators, in infantry, artillery, as pilots and aviation technicians, intelligence on ships and submarines, in combat support positions and in every military specialty. in his book, puerto rico's future, a time to decide, former u.s. attorney general dick thornberg observed that puerto rico has ranked alongside the top five states in terms of per capita military service. in the forward to that book,

former president george h.w. bush noted, i quote, this patriotic service and sacrifice of americans from puerto rico touched me all the more deeply for the very fact they have served with such devotion, even while denied a vote for the president and members of congress who determine when, where and how they are asked to defend our freedoms, end quote. as i address this chamber, men and women from puerto rico are serving in harm's way in afghanistan and other locations. since the attacks of 9/11, island residents have deployed about 35,000 times in overseas contingency operations. many have deployed on multiple occasions. each time they go they leave behind spouses, children and parents. as veterans will tell you, military life requires enormous sacrifice from their loved ones, those quiet heroes who support our uniformed personnel who must live and work in their

absence and who pray for their safe return. . on veterans day we honor not overwhelm those who fought but their families as well. there is a frame in my office wall -- on my office wall containing photographs of service members from puerto rico that have fallen in the last 12 years. i often look at those photos, row after row of young face, usually posing in their dress uniforms against a backdrop of the american flag. those images make me sad, but they also give me strength. they inspire me to keep working for my people. they remind me what courage is and what sacrifice means. nd they help me remember why serving puerto rico in congress is the greatest honor i have ever known. i have met many veterans from puerto rico. i have found that they value deeds over words. they expect their elected leaders to produce vults or at least to work tirelessly

towards that end. i'm proud of the record we have compiled on behalf of the veterans from puerto rico. we obtained funding to renovate the v.a. hospital in san juan, to improve existing clinics, and build new clinics throughout the island, and to provide vehicles he so that residents of our state veterans home can visit their families and travel to medical appointments. we also achieved puerto rico's inclusion in a federal initiative to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans. and i am working to honor a military unit that perhaps best exemplifies the service that residents of puerto rico have rendered this nation. congressman bill tosey of florida and i have introduced legislation to award the congressional gold medal to the 6 a 5th infantry resident, a unit composed mostly of soldiers from puerto rico that overcame discrimination and won admiration for their performance in the korean war.

our bill has nearly 160 bipartisan co-sponsors, and there is a companion bill in the senate that has also garnered strong support. i hope all my colleagues will join me in honoring this special group of veterans. this veterans day i renewed my commitment to fight for the men and women who have fought so valiantly for us, and i thank them from the bottom of my heart for their service. i do so again today. thank you, madam speaker. steve: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, for five minutes. mr. flores: madam speaker, i rise today to honor the 75th anniversary of the city of college station texas. college station has been and is the home to tens of thousands of texas families, students, businesses, and residents throughout the years. and i'm proud to offer my congratulations on this

milestone. college station was an unincorporated community for over 60 years before officially being incorporated as a city on october 19, 1938. in 1869 the houston and texas central railway was built through the area and in 1871 college station was chosen as the location for what would eventually become one of the largest public universities in the nation, texas a&m university. the city got its name because the a&m campus was the focal point of community development at the time. in 1877 the area was designated college station, texas, by the postal service, deriving its name from the train station located to the west of the campus. since incorporation in 1938, college station's population has grown to over 97,000 today. over the past 75 years college station has served as a vibrant, supportive, and safe

community for thousands of families. texas a&m university is still the city's main focal point and the largest employer in the city. the university is rich in tradition and history, and due to its supportive fan base, sporting events bring in hundreds of thousands of tourists each year. college station is also the home to the george bush presidential library and museum, one of the region's most popular tourist attractions. college station is a fast growing city with a thriving economy. it has recently been recognized as one of the nation's best places for businesses, jobs, families, and retirees. college station prides itself on having the fifth lowest property tax rate among similar sized communities in the state of texas, and the city was recently ranked number five nationally on the forbes business of best places for businesses and careers. college station is among the safest and most family friendly places in texas, maintaining one of the best safety ratings

in the state. college station has also been a community that comes together and shows support when needed. whether it was the collapse of the aggie bonfire in 1999, or the loss of one ever our constabbles in august of last year, our community comes together in the midst of terrible adversities to support one another. the residents and leadership of college station worked hard to make their city one of the best places in texas to work, live, and main tan an enjoin joible and fulfilling life. it is my -- enjoyable and fulfilling life. it is my honor to represent this city. please join me in commemorating the city of college station on their 75th anniversary. before i close i ask that all americans continue to pray for our country during these difficult times and the military men and women and first responders who protect her. god bless the american people and god bless college station, texas. thank you, i yield back. steve: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, for five minutes.

mr. foster: i request unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. revise and extend. steve: without objection. mr. foster: madam speaker, i ise today to honor march shell linedorf who committed the image of the doomsday clock for the june, 1947 cover for the bulletin of autumnic scientists. it was founded by university of chicago scientist who is worked . the manhattan project march shell's clock remains a singular reminder of the risks we face from nuclear weapons and the effects of climate change. a renowned landscape painter and long time residents of shalmbourg, illinois, march shell died at the age of 96 on march 26, 2013. and will be remembered tomorrow at the bulletin of the atomic scientists fifth annual doomsday clock symposium here

in the nation's capital. fittingly titled, communicating catastrophe, unquote, the symposium will reflect her sensitivity to the urgency of exy tension threats and her brilliance in using art and design, quote, to move past the numbness and create new ways of feeling just as we tap science for new ways of knowing, in the words of the executive director benedict. march shell's legacy continues as members of the bulletin and science community board annually assess the state of world affairs and use the hands of the clock to signal humanity's capacity to meet challenges of nuclear weapons and climate change. world attention to the doomsday clock confirms the impact of what designer, michael beirut, in a 2010 tribute to marchell, titled, designing the unthinkable, called, quote, the most powerful peace of information design in the 20th century. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in

honoring the late marchell for raising the world's awareness about grave threats and also the bulletin of aatomic scientists for providing information and rational analysis that points to a safer world. and to close on a personal note, it was at one of the annual parties at her garden in chaumbourg during a conversation that was one of the first times that i began seriously considering my own stepping away from my career in science to begin one in public service. i yield back the balance of my time. steve: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. holding: madam speaker, president obama promised the american people that if you liked your health care plan you could keep your health care plan. period. no exceptions. now as the obamacare exchanges have opened and enrollment has

begun, there are hundreds of thousands of people in north carolina who are finding that the president's promise doesn't hold true. according to the north carolina department of insurance, over 183,000 policies have already been terminated. impacting over 473,000 people and their families across the state. when obamacare supporters talk about the new health care law, they focus on the number of people who previously did not have health care and will now be covered. what you don't hear them talk about is the people who already had health care and are losing it now. they don't talk about the canceled policies and the alternative plans offered that are vastly more expensive and far more comparable. this is extremely misleading, madam speaker. and this administration has demonstrated a lack of transparency when it comes to the real impacts of obamacare. madam speaker, i have heard from hundreds of constituents whose health care plans are going up in cost or being

canceled all together. a man in his 60's from zeb by lon, north carolina, wrote to my office that his wife's current plan which costs $292 a month will be discontinued because it does not comply with obamacare standards. she will be moved to a comparable plan that doubles her monthly payment. on top of the increased cost, the new plan is not tailored to their needs. the couple is in their 60's, retired, children are adults, yet their new plan includes newborn care plus dental and vision for dependent children. a constituent from cary, north carolina, wrote in with similar concerns. he and his wife currently pay about $715 a month for their health care plan and were informed it was being canceled. their new plan will cost them double annually, and will no longer include vision care, but they are now both covered for maternity care. he wrote that his present policy is better and more suited for two people in their

60's and it just doesn't seem quite fair that two people who have always been responsible and done without things in order to afford health care insurance and save enough to retire should now be faced with this. madam speaker, i agree. men and women of all ages across my home state and the country are feeling the negative impacts of obamacare. i received a letter from my mother in wake forest, north carolina, who got a notice that her monthly premium for a family of four is going from $624 a month to $1,207 a month. this is as much as their mortgage payment. so now her family is forced to pay the seep increase or choose a plan that includes a smaller premium but with fewer benefits and much higher deductibles. so much for keeping the health care plan she liked. another constituent from cary wrote that a difference in cost between his current blue cross blue shield plan and the lowest option under obamacare is about $700 a month, tripling his

current rate. how is this comparable to the plan he already has and now cannot keep? madam speaker, these are real people who have real problems with obamacare. president obama needs to listen to north carolinians and american families across the country. stories like this indicate that what president obama said simply wasn't true. people are being forced into plans that include coverage they don't need or want and they are not being able to keep the doctors and plans they had for years. obamacare gives little choice and puts many in an impossible financial situation. madam speaker, this is simply not right. the american people want to be able to keep their doctors and health care plans as they were promised, and they were promised this by the president and that promise should be upheld. i yield back. steve: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, for five minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam speaker.

we all heard the promise over and over again, if you like what you have you can keep it. it was probably the most often repeated promise since barack obama's been president. for five years now that promise has been made, and unfortunately now millions of americans are realizing that that promise has been broken. over and over again. over 100,000 louisiana families are seeing that broken promise. in fact, i asked through social media we had a social media site called share with steve where we asked people in louisiana's first congressional district to share their stories with me, and the stories i have heard have been compelling and heartbreaking. in fact i started sharing some of those stories with the secretary of health and human services. when secretary sebelius was before us a little over a week ago. i shared some of those stories with her. one of those was sean from covington, i read sean's story of the health care he has now

lost for his family. because of the president's health care law. and our president heard the question and of course you got secretary sebelius who is running the president's health care law, and all these broken promises we are hearing about. i said what would you tell sean, madam speaker, who has now lost the good health care he has for his family, when you promised him that he would be able to keep that health care? and unfortunately we -- all we got was a smug response from a bureaucrat in washington and her response to sean was, well, you can shop around in the health care exchange. well, first of all that's not the promise that she and the president made to sean. the president promised sean he could keep his health care if he liked it, and sean likes his health care and doesn't want to lose it, and even more doesn't now want to have to go to some website that doesn't work to buy a plan his family doesn't need. what sean conveyed to what he conveyed to me what he's being presented now are

options that are even more expensive and don't include the things that the kind of coverage that his family wants. so i think what's most insulting to americans is not only now that they're losing that health care, that president obama broke that promise, that sacred promise between a doctor and a patient, but now you're hearing this elitist washington politician response where you got these bureaucrats and politicians in washington telling people like sean, we didn't think your plan was good enough for you. and so not only have they broken the promise, but now they're deciding what they think is good enough for a patient and their doctor. and so a family in a place like covington, louisiana, that i represent, all around the country that had good health insurance, that liked the plan that they had are being told not only they can't keep it but some washington bureaucrat didn't think their plan was good enough even though they thought their plan was good

enough. so this is what's wrong with government-run health care. this is why we fought this bill back in 2009 when it was going through the energy and commerce committee and here on the house floor. when you had then-speaker nancy pelosi, you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. of course, american families are seeing what's in it and they don't like what they are seeing in this bill. later this week we're bringing a bill up on the house floor that i'm proud to co-sponsor that allows you to keep the plan if you like it. the president's plan should be, if barack obama don't leek your plan -- if barack obama likes your plan you can keep it because that's the only way if you can keep the plan is if the federal government likes your plan. if not you'll lose it. many people who voted for the president's health care law are acting as if they had no idea this was going to happen. of course they knew this was going to happen. if you read the bill you could tell that people would lose the good health care they liked. there were reports coming out in 2010 that said millions of americans will lose the health

care they like. and yet now you have senators over there and even some house members who voted for the president's health care law acting like they had no idea this was going to come to pass. of course they knew that millions of americans would lose the good health care that they like. they just didn't think maybe that people would realize that it was the president's health care law that caused it and hold them accountable. and so now people are starting to be held accountable as they should. but madam speaker, there is a better way. in fact, i'm proud to have led an effort to bring forward the american health care reform act. a true alternative to the president's health care law that actually starts addressing the problems to lower costs, to allow people to keep the good health care plans that they like and to give people real options. in fact, our bill has over 100 co-sponsors now, including medical doctors who serve in congress who helped draft this bill who understand that the doctor-patient relationship should continue to be maintained and be that sacred relationship that it used to always be before the government started coming in between people's health care, before

i.r.s. agents started coming in between's people -- in between people's health care. so this allows people to buy insurance across state lines, giving people real flexibility, real choice, real competition in health care where people will be competing for your business to dramatically lower costs to allow people to have the option to buy their own health care instead of going through their company and they will be able to have the same tax benefits that a company gets. so if they buy a health care plan on their own that's better than what their employer provides, they'll be able to deduct that cost which they can't do today. it allows small businesses and even individuals to pull -- pool together and even -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. scalise: this is the way we should be doing this, madam speaker, not this government-run approach, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the ntlewoman from california -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker.

thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, millions of americans are now experiencing firsthand the failures of a massive undertaking to roll out the affordable care act. while well-intentioned, our colleagues who had a democrat supermajority in the white house, the senate and this house pushed through a partisan bill, ignoring warning like those like myself who worked in health care for decades. prior to working in congress, i spent nearly three decades in a nonprofit health care setting, serving my neighbors who were facing life-changing disease and disability. when it was time to weigh in on public policy, members like me were muzzled. we were told to pass a bill to see what was in it. well, that's exactly what happened despite our continued dess sent. folks were ringing the phones office. ook in

they are angry. they were made a promise by the president that they could keep their health plans. reportedly more than five million individuals have lost their policies. undoubtedly, this is just the beginning of americans not being able to keep the insurance that they like. one of my constituents, sam from erie county, pennsylvania, has been affected. he's been on the same policy that's provided him with adequate coverage, exactly what he was looking for, for years. he's no longer got access to that coverage. or lisa and her husband, both self-employed and hailing from punxsutawney in jefferson county, pennsylvania. they have five children, two in college, two in high school and one working. after receiving notice that their effective insurance has been canceled, they have been saddled with increases of

$20,000 a year. how about john who emailed my congressional office this week after being informed by his insurer, due to changes under his fordable care act, policy is now canceled. he owns a small business that no longer qualifies for the group plan under the law's requirements. then, there's sonya from northeast, pennsylvania, -- right on the shores of lake erie. she's had the same policy for the last four years and it is being canceled. she said it's unfair she should buy more expensive insurance, not to mention, she says, it will cost much more over the long run when you factor in her new deductible. madam speaker, this is an outrage. these are just several of countless examples -- i will say endless examples of real harm being experienced by hardworking americans. my constituents, as a result of

this flawed law. madam speaker, the time granted on this floor is not sufficient for me to tell you the growing concerns who are having their policies canceled and being forced to buy insurance that they can't afford, that they don't want and they don't need. those at the white house that masterminded this catastrophic attack on insurance affordability and choice released their preliminary numbers for winners and losers yesterday. nationwide, roughly 100,000 have obtained insurance policies through the national and state exchanges combined. many of these individuals unfortunately are now experiencing the sticker shock of significant costs when premiums and deductible expenses are combined and considered. the sad part is that these are the winners. that is just how bad this health care law is. americans deserve access to health insurance that they choose and can afford. madam speaker, a large block of members in this body are standing up and putting forward

solutions to these failures, including some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. senator mary landrieu, a democrat from louisiana, announced a proposal for all americans to keep their existing insurance coverage under balm care. but it's, -- under obamacare. but it's, quote, it's not red state democrats as "politico" reported. senator feinstein said she'd asupport a legislation that americans will keep the plans they support and like. these proposals are being put forward by my democratic colleagues means we would have to change the law. unfortunately, senator -- leader reid doesn't like having the debate on its merits. even if it would help the americans to keep the insurance they know and like, as the president repeatedly promised. i want to thank the growing number of my colleagues for doing what is right and placing good policy before politics. this law is flawed. it is sikhing by its own

weight. we -- it is sinking by its own weight. those who want to protect the political reputation of the white house will allow it to continue, no matter how much harm is caused upon the american people. madam speaker, the american people deserve better. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house today.ss until noon

the tremendous team led by mr. jeffly xi ons which i am glad to be part. you have my assurance, whenever i'm asked a question i'll tell you to the best of my ability and to the best all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks understanding. that's what i'll continue to do. >> let me ask it this way, did you engage in a, quote, pattern of interference and false statements, end of quote? >> no, i did not. my best understanding at the time and i'll continue to do that. as my understanding gets better i'll rely that, absolutely. >> before you were subpoenaed to come here today, your office wrote a letter describing extremes of many workload for the next two week and offering to testify in december instead. was this concern coming just from your office or was it really a legitimate concern of yours that you would be pulled

away from the website issues to prepare for testifying here today? >> so it's never been a question of if i'll testify. just a question of when. it had been the hope of me and the team that's working to fix the site that i continue to focus intensely on helping to fix the site this month and come back in a few weeks. that being said, i understand that the chairman came to a different decision. i respect that decision. i'm the son of immigrants from korea. i have incredible love for this country. i have a huge respect for the institution of congress and its role in our democracy, and if the committee wanted me to be here today and decide i should be here today, then i'm happy to be here today and make the time to answer your questions. >> if i understand it -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. chairman, just ask -- >> you asked the last question after your time had expired. with that -- and it was completed. we now go to the gentleman from florida for five minutes.

>> mr. chairman, i think it was about four minutes that you exceeded your time for that. >> i went to one question after the end which was mr. chow. >> four minutes. i'm asking -- >> the gentleman is recognized. >> so you're not going to -- you are going to go out and do this all the way? >> the gentleman from florida is recognized. >> thank you for yielding. it's kind of interesting to see as obamacare implodes how everybody's running for cover. yesterday, we saw the former president of the united states, bill clinton, put the current -- throw the current president under the bus, so to speak, on this issue. today we heard the other side, mr. cummings, our democrat leader, start out by citing that the problem with this is republican governors, that a lot of them opted for an exchange. are how, how many -- well,

these governors arkansas, delaware, illinois, missouri, montana, aren't they all democrat governors and they opted out of the exchange? are you aware of that? well, they are, just for the record. but it is interesting to see how they run for cover. i have a question for all of you. do you -- each of you, i want to ask you this question. it's obvious that obamacare was not ready for primetime from both an i.t. performance ability and also from a security standpoint. were you aware of that, mr. connor, before october 1? >> g.o. did issue a report in june -- >> were you -- >> there was a lot to do with the schedule, correct. >> were you aware of it, mr. chow?

>> can you repeat the question again? >> that obamacare was not ready from an i.t. operational and also from a security standpoint for primetime on october 1? were you aware of it? >> i was aware that there was security -- >> you were aware that there were problems -- >> there was no -- >> i said from an operational -- so you thought it was operational -- >> i'm just trying to answer your question. >> operational and security. mr. bateman? >> i was aware that various nodules part of the system wasn't working. >> anything on security, mr. park, operational and security? >> not as i recall, no. >> ok. >> i am aware that any system, private sector or public sector -- >> what about the security? >> any system needs constant -- security needs to be constantly addressed. did you review a

development prepared by miter -- it hasn't been released yet -- security testing and capability? >> no, i did not see this. >> september 23 that ighlighted some of the issues. >> ok. first of all, it looks like political decisions got us into this straight. chao, that d, mr. you needed to make decisions and the construct, right? >> correct. >> and there were regulationes that were not imposed, and i think you also intimated that some of them were stopped by the white house prior to the election. >> no, i did not. >> mr. chao, you said there was a significant problem and pressing time frame and

actually the white house pressured to stop those regulations coming out before the election because they didn't want folks to know what was coming, you're not aware of that? >> i think you're paraphrasing from my testimony. >> ok. here's your comment to our staff. you can't test the system without requirements so if requirements are coming in late, then obviously you are going to be a little nervous, was that your statement? >> i think that holds true for any -- >> that was your statement. ok. >> my answer in the context was for any development project that requires requirements in order to build the system in a compressed time frame. >> you knew -- did you know that security had -- and the testing was done by miter of security, is that correct? >> yes and blue canopy. >> ok. both respectable forms. and this was the report. let me just take -- mither was unable to -- miter was unable to test confidential and

integrity of the exchange system in full. are you aware of that? >> well, that seems actually true and appropriate because the full system isn't built -- >> and it was never fully tested. has it been tested? >> no, i think what it was referring to, there are other components of the marketplace program that still need to be built. >> sir, can you sit here and tell us that there are not heightened risks of nonincrypted data, identity theft and loss of personal identification -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. powner, can you respond? >> we wanted to generally highlight the potential risk that applicable to any system of this magnitude that is serving the public in collecting information about people. >> mr. powner, if you have anything else? >> i think the key that your

staff shared that document with me, i think the key that was an early assessment, not on the complete system, and a key question going forward is what has been done in terms of security testing and assessment while the system is -- continues to be built. >> thank you. the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney. >> thank you. i'd like to thank all of the panelists for their public service and thank the chairman and the ranking member for this oversight hearing. there is a success story in the state that i'm privileged to represent, new york state. nearly 50,000 new yorkers have enrolled in health insurance plans through the new york state health program. almost 200,000 new yorkers have completed full applications on he new york state. the customer service operators have provided assistance to more than 142,000 new yorkers. and the rates for the plans represent a 53% reduction compared to the previous year's

individual rates. and in addition to the cost savings, it's estimated that nearly 3/4 of individual enrollees will qualify for financial assistance. this is according to an official state report from new york. so this is certainly good news, but we do need improvements on the federal user experience. and i'd like to ask mr. park, have improvements been made daily on the website? are you working to make improvements every day? >> thank you so much for the question. and there's terrific news coming out of new york. so to answer your question is people are working every day to make things better. i say it's getting week by week. if you look at the trend line, it's better week by week. system response time, this is the rate of which the -- displaying a page like you want. just a few weeks ago that rate

was eight seconds which is total low unacceptable. it's now actually under a second today. another metric of user experience -- >> that's really good news. how much faster can the public expect the website to be? now you're under a second, is that what you said? >> on average, yes. >> account public expect -- can you make it any faster than a second? >> yes. the team believes that it can. the team is doing this work. we're most of the way i think in terms of average response time we want to be -- we want to get it down further. we're -- >> so i would say reducing wait time has become a priority, right? and that certainly will help enrollment numbers, don't you think, mr. park? >> yes, yes, ma'am. >> great. that's terrific. now, are accounts registering properly at this time? was that problem solved? >> that problem has actually largely been solved. that was of course a significant problem upfront that folks experienced. but thanks to expanded

capacity, thanks to system configuration changes and code fixes, that problem has largely been solved. people can actually get through the front door and begin the application process and start shopping for affordable health options. >> so how many registrations can the system handle now? congratulations on solving that, by the way. >> so i believe that the latest number is about 17,000 registrations an hour. and the plan is to actually up that in terms of new accounts being created. then, of course, people who are registered previously are coming back to keep working on their application, shop for plans, etc. >> and how are you reaching out to people who may have been discouraged and encouraging them to come back and try again? is there any effort to reach out to them or just the notice that it's happening? >> yes, ma'am. so c.m.s. is currently engaging an effort to reach out to folks who got stuck in that account creation process and encouraging them to come back and make it through the front door and start applying for coverage. >> are there resources there to help people navigate the

process? i'm hearing they're confused. is there any resources there to help them figure it out? >> yes, ma'am. there's help text. there's the call center. and the team is also working quite vigorously to keep improving the user interface and the flow so you need less help so it's more and more clear to you what to do. >> and how are you assessing or distributing the feedback that you're getting from users that have used the system and want to tell you how they could make it faster? but i don't see how you can make it any faster than a second, quite frankly. but how are you communicating that feedback from users? >> you can make it faster, by the way. people are working on that. but there's feedback coming from a variety of different sources. from users, from folks in the field, from the call center, from testers and that's actually being fed into a list of things to do and priority

order to make the website better and better. >> and i understand that the hub, the data hub is working well, is that correct? >> the hub has worked extremely well from day one. it works in the federal marketplace and the state's marketplace, including new york's great success, and that continues to hum along nicely. >> thank you. my time has expired. i see that work is paying off. >> the team. i'm just a small part of it. the team is doing work. >> your team, congratulations. >> the team. >> i thank the gentlelady. we now go to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. while i am very skeptical about government's ability to run our health care system, what i'm re concerned about or object to more is all the sweetheart insider deals that government contractors get under these programs and all the people and companies that are getting

lthy rich off of these programs. i have an estimate here on the cost of all the technology that was -- the estimate of o.m.b. as of august 30 before all the problems surfaced and they said we would spend $516.34 million on the technology. and now we've gotten -- we've seen estimates way above that. and so i have a question about that about how much all this is going to cost us to straighten this out and are these going to be continual costs each year? are we going to have to spend more and more and more on the technology? but secondly and a greater concern, i have two stories here from -- one from "the washington post" about 10 days ago and one from cbs news a couple days later and they say

the administration knew 3 1/2 years in advance that these problems were going to occur. "the washington post" story, may, 2010, after the affordable care act squeaked through congress, president obama's top economic aides were getting worried. larry sommers, peter orszag, head of the office of management and office, had a full-page letter that warned that no one in the administration was up to the task of overseeing the construction of an insurance exchange and other intory cassies translating the 2,000-page statute into reality. so what i'm asking, and i welcome comments from anybody on the panel, how much is all this going to cost to straighten out these problems that we now know that we have? and secondly, how long is it going to take when the administration or y'all have had 3 1/2 years warning that

this was going to happen? how much longer is it going to take us to straighten all this out? >> mr. powner, you seem to be giving the best answers. >> i can comment on the cost figure what we know to date. if you look at o.m.b. documentation, there are exhibits fiscal year through the fiscal year 2013, so by the end of september it was north of $600 million spent. now, i will caveat that by saying that did include i.r.s. costs associated with that and some other government agencies. it wasn't just all c.m.s. and h.h.s. but your question about what it's going to cost to fix, that's where we're kind of blind to that. i think that's a key question how much that will end up being. >> all right. does anybody know if we've spent $600 million already and it's not working, does anybody have any idea how much all this s going to cost us in the end? nobody knows?

how long is this going -- go to the second question, how long is this all going to take, if you had 3 1/2 years to get ready for this and we heard promises about you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor, your health care costs, premiums are going to go down, as much as $2,500 and we know that all that was false or incorrect, how much longer is it going to take us -- is it going to take us another 3 1/2 years to get this straightened out? >> i think it's important to note, sir, that americans are getting insurance today. the system is passing through and people are registering and the focus today, as i said in my opening statement, is about continuous improvement and making sure that we make that even better and stronger and that -- >> millions are getting their policies canceled and millions are getting -- are finding -- getting sticker shock because of premium increases, too.

what i'm asking about is all the technology. the had 3 1/2 years that administration has known that this was going to happen and they couldn't fix it in 3 1/2 years, how much longer is it going to take us? >> if the gentleman will yield? >> yes, sir. >> you know, we have two distinguished individuals from the private sector, and i would and ct that athena microsoft, they knew what their burn rate was, they knew what their time rate was. neither of the companies would exist if they had launched their productworking quite like this. even windows vista launched better than the obama website. but they could include their experience in the private sector if they would compare this launch with the launch of each of their companies. >> so i think it's important to note on this the way that federal budgeting and federal

i.t. is managed and empowered and i think we emphasize this as well as the many memos is empowering agencies to do their mission work, to execute against the budget. we formulate the budget within the office of management and budget and then the congress and the appropriators actually grant that budget to the agencies to then execute and the tools that we build to track, spend, to make sure that diligence is happening is about empowering the agency to make the smart decisions about what they do so the private sector is not directly paralleled because not on the ground actually running these programs day-to-day. >> yes, you're begging a capitalist to give you one more chunk of money they may or may not give you. we go to the gentlelady from from the district of columbia for her five minutes. . >> thank you, mr. chairman. although you call witnesses who are being asked to fix a plan while it's in the air -- plane while it's in the air, i do

believe oversight is appropriate. let me try to clear something up, mr. chairman. there was a round of questions about the preflight checklist that -- and i do have a document that said testing successfully, yes. i don't know if that means conducted a test or what. because if you look more deeply into the document, you would have had this before you where , have the c.g.i. checklist the report, it is entirely consistent with what you have said because this defect report says there were 22 defects. >> would the gentlelady make that document available? >> i would. i would be glad to make this available to you and the press. now, let me -- i'm also troubled by how the committee often pulls

the white house into these matters without any evidence. the white house in this case rollout is accused of not knowing enough and now they have been accused of directing matters with respect to the shopper function, anonymous shopper function. even the chairman has said that publicly on television. chao like to ask mr. about that issue. this motion and the question whether s to do with and ere forced to register , that change was made

from shop then register, register to shop whether that change was made because of the involvement of the white house in any way. >> absolutely not. it was a decision made on the results of testing. it would be pretty egregious, and i understand that a lot of folks are wondering why the website is functioning the way it is, but to consciously know that it failed testing and to then put it in to production for people to use is not what we do. we use the dess available information, and the test results show it's not working, we don't put it into production. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> i certainly will, mr. chairman, if you will make sure i get my time. >> of course. would you stop the clock. the gentlelady's information, i have been told, the one you are referring to, is, in fact, a rollup to the decision that it had passed.

in other words, your document is not inconsistent with it. i think mr. van roekel made it clear there are still fixing x.p. after they no longer support it. i think the conclusion of the document is clear, you're asking mr. chao, he's still saying this thing failed the test, when in fact documents show it passed the test. was it perfect? no. if you can only get six people registered on day one and only 240 registered on day two, some might say that the website was not passing the test in those first two days, either. hopefully that document you can make it available to all of us, but i have been told that is simply part of the supporting documents for the conclusion that c.m.s. has in their own documents, which is that that portion which was excluded, we have been told in testimony that n. fact, they were told by people at c.m.s. to turn it off and that those people were being instructed by people at the white house. >> let me clear that up, mr. chairman.

>> i just want you to understand contractors told us -- >> let's have people look at the fine print and decide whether or not these -- when these 22 defects were noted, because i got it in black and white here. now, you say the white house did not say to turn off the anonymous shopper, is that your testimony? >> yes. >> because the allegation of the chairman was that the white house ordered it because they wanted to avoid sticker shock. i remember seeing that on television. now, let me ask you -- let me say something about sticker shock. i had a staff member go on just to test d.c. health link, which is where we all will have to go, boothe found that the same

that's now 267 different policies, insurers on d.c. health link, and she found the same blue cross blue shield she is now getting from the federal employee program, she can get for between $160 and $220 less. so sticker shock, at least some people are finding sticker shock works the other way. now, i want to -- i want to drill down on this decision from the white house. was there a white house the ive that because decision came not because -- i want to make sure, your testimony remains because there's been some difference the chairman cited that there was no white house directive, but the

reason for pulling the anonymous shopper was because the function failed testing, does that continue to be your testimony? >> correct. if we would have put it into production, even though it's a nonshopping or browsing, it requires some attributes about your preferences, your demographics, to approximate potentially what premium tax credit ranges you would qualify for so you can then move into shopping or plan compare. it didn't work in either calculating the approximate tax credit, nor did it work in plan compare. so if we allowed people to go to that they would have gotten even roanous information, and that uld have -- gotten erroneous information and that would have been worse. >> did you get --

>> the gentlelady time has expired. would you briefly finish? >> did you get any direction from the white house to disable or to delay this -- the shopper function and were there any political considerations that went into your decision to do so? >> none whatsoever. i look at the facts of whether a system is going to be ready, and of course not everything is always 100% perfect. there are certain tolerances. but in this case it failed so miserably that we could not let people use it. >> i thank gentleman from we now go to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. could you yield for 10 seconds. >> happy to. >> thank you. mr. chao f. it couldn't calculate the prices properly, is it your testimony that when people went through the backdoor those six that got through on the day one, that it did calculate what their plan and let them shop through another part or completely different portal? >> if you don't go through what was -- >> no, i have taken six seconds

for the man i don't want to go past. >> if you filled out an online application and put your information in you get an eliblibility determination, you ask for financial assistance. >> you're saying you didn't get the right price through the same software that would determine the right or wrong price -- >> anonymous shopping was using different software. >> ok. that remains to be seen. mr. mchenry, thank you. constituentsall my are about, when they log on is there data, all their personal ible -- identifiable information, is that will as secure as if they do online banking? >> it was designed, implemented -- >> that's a yes or no question. >> it was designed, implemented, and tested to be secure. >> so it was fully tested and best practices under the federal

government standard for i.t. proposals. >> correct. security enrollment assessment testing conducted by mitre and another company. >> ok. so it's fully tested as the other i.t. projects you have overseen to that same standard? >> i'm trying to understand what you mean by fully tested. it was tested in according -- >> fully tested. holy cow, this is like a new low . complete the -- a integrated testing. is that correct? >> it is tested, prescribed framework and nist controls specified as a standard. >> why did your office -- why did your boss resign? >> he didn't resign. >> ok. your readiness --

>> i think he designeded to make a career change. >> i think it's a fantastic time to hightail it out after this great rollout. let me ask another question. marilyn taffener signed the authority to operate ma'am dumb. traditionally under -- would your -- ma'am dumb. would your office -- memorandum. traditionally -- would your office sign previous memorandums to operate? >> myself i have not. >> would your boss or previous boss? >> not that i know of. i do not manage that. that's done between the chief information officer and chief information security officer. >> they would traditionally do it not the c.m.s. administrator? >> i think would you have to ask them. >> ok. fantastic. we plan to do that. let me ask you, mr. park, you said on "usa today" on october 6, quote, these bugs were functions of volume, take away

the volume and it works. healthcare.gov. do you still stand by that statement? >> thank you for the question. what i was specifically -- >> do you still stand -- mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to submit this for the record. have you seen this "usa today" -- >> without objection, so ordered. and the question is on the statement not on what you would want someone else to believe. >> these bugs were functions of volume. take away the volume and it works. do you still stand by that? >> i sthan stan by the fact the bugs that the report was referring to, were, in fact, functions of volume. what i will say now based on additional understanding, in addition to volume, computation process was wrong. also affected by particular functionality bugs which have

been fixed. most of which have been fixed. along with volume capacity expansion and other -- >> mr. park, let me tell you a story. i've got a woman named sue who logged on. she filled out everything else. she did not fill out her middle initial. she got a processing error. she went back to try to fix it. put in the middle initial. she had to wait 48 hours to get another update. turns out that her income was not verifiable because she put in a monthly income. she called the navigator. the navigator says, yeah, we've got some problems with that. maybe you can do it on an annualized basis. unfortunately she couldn't get back into the system. so then had to call back for another navigator, and the navigator says, gosh, we've got a little issue here. let me try and annualized income and put it in on the back side, back end the navigators can do. she's still waiting.

she started on october 1. she's still waiting to be successfully logged in to this website you said has a -- these bugs were functions of volume, take away the volume and it works. is is such a deeply flawed data rollout, and my constituents are most concerned about trying to sign up, much less when they do sign up they don't have their data stolen. so, mr. chairman, i yield back. steve: thank you very much. mr. park, you can answer if you see a question there. >> that would be great. thank you. i was actually talking ecifically about issues -- there are issues down stream as well. and again each time i speak with you, each time i speak, i relay the best understanding i have and try to be as precise as i can be. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

let me begin on a bipartisan note. mr. chairman, you and i helped write, joining together the act requiring reform of i.t. acquisition, federal i.t. acquisition. mr. van roekel, you seem to have been equivocal maybe at our last meeting in january. but i want to reid to you a statement by the president of the united states. he said just recently one of the lessons learned from this whole process in the website is that probably the biggest gap between the private sector and the federal government is when it comes to i.t. how we procure it, how we purchase it. this has been true on a whole range of projects. a reasonable inference from that statement could be drawn that perhaps we do need some more legislation, some new legislation to free up some of the morinubd rolled roles. >> would the gentleman yield?

of course. i couldn't agree with you more that in fact one of the lessons i hope all of us take out of this hearing today is that we have two people from the private sector who know that they would never do a process like this one was done, and yours and mine legislation is really about trying to create at least a modicum of simslaret in i.t. procurement in the -- similarity in i.t. procurement in the federal government the way it is done in the private sector. i thank the gentleman for his comments. >> i thank the chairman. so i commend mr. van roekel the statement of the boss. mr. chao. >> now i'm the boss? >> you are, too -- you mean the president? >> the other boss. >> his boss. >> the big boss. >> mr. chao during your interview with committee staff on november 1, you were presented with a document you had not seen before. and it was entitled authority to operate signed by your boss on september 3, 2013, is that

correct? >> correct. >> the republican staff has told you during that interview that this document indicated there were two open high risk bindings in the federally facilitated marketplace launched october 1. is that correct? >> correct. >> this surprised you at the time. >> can i just qualify that a bit? it was dated september 3 and it was referring to two parts of the system that were already -- >> you are jumping ahead of me. we are going to get there. so when you ask questions about that document, you told the staffers you needed to check with officials at c.m.s. who oversee security testing to understand the context, is that correct? >> correct. >> the staff has continued to ask you questions, nonetheless, and then they -- or somebody leaked parts of your transcript to cbs evening news, is that correct? >> seems that way. >> since that interview, have you had a chance to follow up on

your suggestion to check with c.m.s. officials on the context? >> i have had some discussions about the nature of the high findings that were in the document. >> right. and this document it turns out discusses only the risks associated with two modules, one for dental plans and one for the qualified health plans, is that correct? >> yes. >> and neither of those modules is ackive right now, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so the september 3 document did n. fact, not apply to the entire federally facilitated marketplace despite the assertions of the leak to cbs notwithstanding, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> these modules allow insurance company to submit their dental and health care plan information to the marketplace s. that correct? >> correct. >> that means those modules do not contain or transmit any personally identifiable

information on individual consumers, is that correct? >> correct. >> so to be clear, these modules don't transmit any specific user information, is that correct? >> correct. >> so when cbs evening news ran its report based on a leak, presumably from the majority staff, but we don't know, a partial transcript, excerpts from a partial transcript, they said security issues raised in the document, i quote, could lead to identity theft among buying insurance, that cannot be true based on what we just established in our back and forth, is that correct? >> that's correct. i think there was some rearrangement of the words i used during the testimony in how it was portrayed. >> just summarize, correct me if i'm wrong, the document leaked to cbs evening news didn't in fact not relate to parts of the website that were active on october 1. they did not relate to any part of the system that hadges personal consumer information, and there, in fact, was no

possibility of identity theft despite the leak. >> correct. >> thank you, mr. chao. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> 26 seconds. have you read the november 6 letter from the ranking member to me? >> yes, in fact, i think i co-signed that letter. >> that's good. you're -- the gentleman's well aware that even today there are significant security leaks that the ranking member was concerned if discovered would allow hackers to take people's private information, if there is a security risk, and i was cautioned by you not to let that out. -- i ive you the answer hear none. >> i'm sorry, i'm not following the question. >> i was trying to let the staff speak to you. the bottom line is that there were security risks today according to you and the ranking member that there -- this

website still has vullnerments if discovered that would lead to personal information coming out s. that correct? >> mr. chairman, that may be. but i'm talking about a deliberate leak that frankly distorted reality based on two modules that were inactive and using that misinformation to suggest that it applied to an active website. >> but end-to-end security problems in your letter do apply to the active website. >> they may, mr. chairman. right now my questioning to mr. chao -- >> identify understand you're rehabilitating mr. chao. >> mr. chairman, let's be fair. i'm trying to get the facts on the record and correct a deliberate smear against mr. ciao. -- chao, not rehabilitate him. but get the truth out because somebody deliberately leaked something and distorted it in the name of this committee. >> i appreciate your concern. > i'm glad you do, mr. chairman. >> mr. chao has the mitre

report, that report even redacted, you didn't want released because it shows a road map to the vulnerabilities of the site as it is today. that's your letter. >> mr. chairman, i began my questioning by acknowledging our joint bipartisan effort to in fact try to legislate reforms in i.t. acquisition. that is an acknowledgement on my part and yours that in fact the federal i.t. acquisition process is broken. whether it's this example or some others. i have no desire, no motivation to hide anything. but i concerned at a pattern of calling people to give us testimony and cherry picking their testimony to make a political point that, frankly, it does not serve this committee well in terms of its oversight role, and does damage to good public servants' reputation. >> i appreciate the gentleman -- >> i thank the chair. >> mr. jordan is recognized. >> i thank the chairman. mr. chao, we could go, the

president was interviewed last thursday and was asked about secretary sebelius. he said the president defected interview.from the argued that the website bugs aren't necessarily her fault. quote, kathleen sebelius doesn't write codes. she wasn't our i.t. person. who is the i.t. person? who is the person in charge, who is the person responsible, who is the one who signed off on this bhf it went public? >> the person that's somebody is our administrator, marilyn tavener. >> did she base her decisions on the memo you sent her on the 27th, isn't that right? is that the authority to operate memo? the president talked about i.t. person. miss tavener person. who is that? is that mr. van roekel? mr. park? mr. chao? which of you is that person? >> i don't know. i didn't speak to the president.

>> he refers to a person. who would it be? who is the i.t. person in charge? >> i don't know what the president was referring to. >> let me start with slide c-3 if i could. this is the report, final c.m.s. final report came out october 13 after october 1, just want to read the first, was unable to adequately test the confidentiality and integrity of the exchange system in full. end to end testing never occurred. did you know about this before october 1, mr. chao? >> i think it's taken out of context. >> it's pretty plain language. didn't test it. no end-to-tend testing done before october 1. yet the i.t. person in charge, whoever the president's referring to, somebody said it's ok to start this thing. >> i say it's taken out of context because there's still quite a few -- >> mr. van roekel, did you know the results of the mitre testing before october 1? >> i haven't seen this document.

i'd love to -- >> you got the fancy title. you are the chief information officer of the united states of america. that's a pretty big title. you didn't know about this before the biggest domestic policy program website in the history of this company ever is launched, and you didn't know about this? >> sir, i haven't seen this document. >> that scares us. mr. park, you're supposed to be the guy that solves everything. you're clark kent coming out of the phone booth. did you know about this before october 1? >> i did not. >> would you like me to explain why? >> i would like someone to tell me why you didn't know that end-to-end testing wasn't done -- >> it's not about not knowing. that's that for example the first payment to the insurance companies, issuers, are not going to occur until sometime in the first part of january. we are still building the system. >> we just had the system all worked together. it wasn't tested all at once. >> we are still building parts of the system to calculate payment, to collect the

enrollment data from all the marketplaces, and to make that payment -- >> there's more systems to be built. we can expect more problems in the future to add to the problems we have already seen? >> security test something ongoing. >> let me ask you this. this to me seems to be the billion dollar question, whatever. why didn't you delay this? you guys knew there were going to be problems. you hadn't done end-to-end testing. we hope the test would work when we present it to the white house, why didn't you delay this? mr. chao, why wasn't it delayed? >> that's not my decision to make. >> this is the thing. the chief technology people don't know, but october 1 is october 1 a date that's in the law? it's not. it's just a date -- let me tell you this here. "the washington post" article, i think it's important, david cutler sent a memo to the white house says, you know what, couldn't deep the political people in the white house. bring in outside people.

larry summers agreeed with that assessment. peter orzag agreed. the president said no. we are going to keep nancy in charge of this. kept the political people in charge. your testimony, to the committee, mr. chao, you said this, when asked about october 1, my marching orders were, get the system up by october 1. right? >> correct. >> why? if you got all these problems y. not wait? >> i didn't ask why. i said that's -- >> what i'm suggesting is the folks at the white house knew this thing had problems. evidence by the testing that wasn't done end-to-end. they for political reason picked this date. for political reasons they had to adhere to this date anti-end result is, americans' personal information is put at risk. >> i tried to correct your perception of what this excerpt is from. it's about a long will chain of systems that needs to be built. and this is a point -- >> mr. chairman, i have two

seconds. let me finish with this. we have asked, you and i have asked, ms. depaul, ms. lam breaux to come in front of this committee next year and the letter we got back yesterday was they aren't going to come. they are the people we need because they are the political people in charge. they are the ones who determined october 1 was the date that needed to move forward on. they are the ones who i think ultimately are responsible putting at risk americans' personal information. with that i yield back. >> ok, mr. powner, there were all these questions and you seemed to have an answer you wanted to give on this end-to-end testing before it was done. do you want to weigh in at this point? >> i would just reiterate the point that the security testing was done early on an incomplete system and the fundamental question is, what is being done now and how adequate is that to date? >> thank you. mr. davis. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, there's been a lot of information over the past

several weeks regarding the security of healthcare.gov and whether consumers who use this says tell are at risk. i'd like to hear from the witnesses about this matter and eparate fact from fiction. mr. chao, the federal information security information act, known as fisma, requires agencies to protect information systems. fisma specifically requires an authorizing official to sign off before an agency begins operating a system. in the case of healthcare.gov, we have a memo that was signed by administrator tavener, on september 27, 2013, entitled, and i quote, federally facilitated marketplace, end of quote. this memo's saying that the

security contractor, quote, has not been able to test all of the security controls in one complete version of the system. it also states, this resulted in a, and i quote again, level of uncertainty that can be deemed as a high risk. million chao, can you explain how c.m.s. tested -- mr. chao, can you explain how c.m.s. tested various components of the system for security risk? >> in general, in most large i.t. projects that require several what we call environments that are used to move from a developer's machine in writing code, and to test that locally and then to put it into a larger environment to test with other code, and you go through this stepwise process of

constructing the system, i think what the statement reflects is that in any situation similar to the marketplace systems, security people have to test when they can and when they have a window, as i mentioned there is a compressed timeline. and that compressed timeline affords some ability for security testing to occur, as the software's being developed through its lifecycle. i think what the memo was just trying to say, and it was erring on the side of caution, that as software is continuously being developed, it was tested in three cycles. by the end of three cycles it will fully tested the necessary functions to go live on october 1. there are, as i mentioned earlier, other system functions that are yet to be built and

will continue to have security testing conducted. so it's a security testing is a point in time, risk acceptance of that security testing results is a point in time, and that in that memo will you also see that we have applied various mitigation steps to try to offset the potential risk that was identified. >> do you know of any other i.t. systems in your experience that were authorized without completing full system security testing? archthink that is a slight in the wording of that. i think every system, the federal government puts into live production, needs to have sufficient security testing per fisma, and o.m.b., and nist requirements. whether we tested in three cycles, whether we tested annually, or every three years, testing is an ongoing and ever

present kind of part of the process. when we are testing the controls for a portion of the system that will is ready for a particular delivery date, we fully test those. for a portion of the controls for a part of the system, as i mentioned earlier, in which we do not have to make payment on october 1. that is then tested at a later date when that function is ready and needed in order to go into operation. so it's an it aive ongoing process. >> has a security team been established? >> yes. >> has c.m.s. been performing weekly testing? >> yes. >> i have no further questions. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding back. we now go to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. >> i thank the chairman. i thank you-all for being here. since the end of august, how

many times have you personally met with secretary sebelius. >> i'm not sure. probably once or twice. >> when was the last time you met with the secretary? during ieve that it was the shutdown the secretary had regular meetings with senior leadership. >> one time in october? >> i believe sow. >> you're the chief information officer. you met one time in october with the secretary. my understanding is you engaged a hacker to look at healthcare.gov, correct? >> c.m.s. asked us to help them with various -- >> you engaged the hacker to look at the system. >> we engaged someone who is called a ethical hacker. >> an ethical hacker. when did they start this -- their hacking? >> it was during the shutdown. >> how long did it take them to complete his hacking exercise?

>> i think it's an ongoing activity, but he's actually based in atlanta and spent a couple days. >> he gave you a report. how many serious problems did he find? >> i don't know if i call them serious. i think that there were something like seven to 10 items on that report. >> so had you seven to 10 items of hacking, some of which you don't believe are serious, but some are obviously serious. what percentage of those have been fully rectified? >> i turned those over to c.m.s. for their review. some actually weren't systems issues. they included things like physical security as well. >> you have no follow-up. you have no idea what percentage of those hacking incidents were rectified? >> i believe c.m.s. got back to my staff last week and said the majority of those had been remediated. >> you don't know what percentage. it's not 100%. >> i don't believe it's 100, no. >> you shared that with c.m.s.

did you share that with secretary sebelius? >> i have no. >> are you the chief information officer for the health and human services. >> these are fairly technical items. the appropriate place to share them with is -- is with the system owner. >> it's not safe and secure. that's the fundamental concern is even after the october launch, you are the chief information officer, you get a hacker who in a couple days fines probably 10 or so problems and challenges, it's that easy to get in and hack the information. that's the person. mr. powner, is this ready? from mr. mchenry's question, is the site in your opinion currently as safe and secure as an online banking site? >> i would have to look and assess the security. and all that stuff that mitre did and authority to operate is preliminary because it was on -- mitre said they didn't test the interface. the interface testing needed to occur. all that stuff that's

preliminary, raised issues, but again -- >> would you put your information in there? >> i would have to see what the security testing and assessment has been since then. i haven't seen it yet. we are going to look at t >> the answer is not yet, yes. mr. chao, would you put your personal information about you and your loved ones? >> yes. i recommended my sister who is unemployed right now to actually -- >> did she successfully register? >> i haven't talked to her lately. she's been out of the country. >> interesting. you have this report, then, for mr. bateman about the -- baitman, the hacker's report? >> i do not personally. as i mentioned there are security teams in place. including permanent security staff that coordinates with franks. >> mr. chairman, this is stuffer we have to follow up on. mr. park, are you a very bright and talented person. the federal government is lucky to have somebody of your caliber engaged in this process. it 250u8ly gives me comfort you're looking at this and

spending time with it. i i have a fundamental question i want to ask you. have you ever shopped on amazon.com? >> yes, sir. >> on e-bay.com? >> no. we'll have to change and work with you on that one. >> i'm from california. >> amazon experience, when you put something in your shopping cart s. that considered a sail -- sale? >> no. >> thank you, i yield back. >> would the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> mr. chao, you have been fairly defensive about things being out of context. i am ' going to ask unanimous consent that the c.m.s. document of september 3, 2013, the memorandum, be placed in the record in its entirety, but before i do so, without objection, so ordered, but i want to make something clear. we had previously redacted information. is there anything that that -- in that memo you believe needs to be redacted? because otherwise we'll put it in in its entirety so there is

no question about that. >> i would have to review it. >> in the record now. by close of this hearing, if there's something that needs to be redacted i need to know because i'll consider redacting it. >> i just wanted to make sure there is no sensitive information in there. >> that's the problem. i'm just trying to obey the law, mr. chairman. >> this thing's already in the record. if we choose to redact something, the question is is that there are numerous things that give us citings of lines in september 3 that clearly this thing wasn't ready for security on september 3. when our people questioned you about september 27, and there was no end-to-end, and security concerns, you want to say you were taken out of context, but both september 3 and september 27, what we find is there was no end-to-end testing. at any point of vulnerability is a point that could access people's private information. isn't that true, mr. powner? so the absence of end-to-end

testing means that anything that can reach into the database, in fact, could be a significant security risk to people's personal information. and has nothing to do with whether or not a module is about shopping, isn't that true? >> that's correct. >> ok. yield back. at this point i recognize the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, next. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm worried that the net effect of this hearing might be to exaggerate the security difficulties of the website. i serve on the armed services committee and our own pentagon is attacked many thousands of times a day. sometimes by foreign powers. the entire internet could -- probably should be more secure. we've got to acknowledge some system problems for the whole internet, and then there are other issues we can deal with. another concern i have is the witnesses being badgered and i would like to offer witnesses, baitman,r. batheman --

mr. park, and others to respond. i believe in fairness, american people do not want to see a kangaroo court here. the way this hearing has been conducted does not encourage good private sector people to want to join the federal government. i personally had the privilege of hearing mr. park speak in nashville, tennessee, a couple years ago. he spoke before a hard core private sector pro-capitalist business audience. and they told me he -- they had never heard the speaker who understood business better, who got it, and it was a real tribute to me that someone of your caliber was willing to work for the federal government because that instills faith in the process. we are the best nation on earth. we got to act like it. we do face problems sometimes, but the american spirit is the can-do, we can fix it attitude. not the blame game. not the bickering game.

if our witnesses would like a chance to say a few words in public because you have been treated unfairly in my opinion and i would like this to be a full playing field. >> would the gentleman yield? have i cut off anyone's answer here today? >> i would be able -- >> of course. >> you cut off the ranking member of this committee. >> i cut him off into a minute of question and answer. no witness here today has been cut off. >> mr. chairman -- >> every witness has been allowed to complete -- their entire answer. i just want to understand kangaroo courts is quite an accusation and i hope the gentleman from tennessee when he uses the term kangaroo court in the future will think better of making an accusation. no witness has been cut off. every witness has been allowed to complete their entire answer in every case. we went about six minutes before i asked mr. bateman to conclude. that's the closest thing to anything. this is not a partisan hearing. i will not have it accused of

being a partisan hearing. we have a website that the american people have seen doesn't work. we are trying to get to an understanding of why it didn't work so that it doesn't happen again. and these happen to be experts and for the most part we are relying on them to be the people fixing it. the gentleman's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a hearing on a broken website by a broken committee. and the air is thick with innuendo, when the chairman discusses rehabilitating witnesses, that implies they need rehabilitating. in some cases the witness vs. perhaps already been abused. sometimes by leaks. whether deliberate or not. so let's focus on fixing the problems. i think mr. baitman was about to speak. >> thank you, mr. cooper. there's one thing i would like to clarify in response to my comments to mr. chaffetz. we found vulnerabilities with the system. there will always be

vulnerabilities. every system that's out there, systems that are live, systems we trust right now, banks, online shopping sites all have issues because they are continually making changes to their code. that introduces vulnerabilities. it's up to us own a continual basis as mr. van roekel pointed out, all software goes through continuous improvement. what we are doing right now is continually improving our software on an ongoing baycy, identifying vulnerabilities that exist. >> any other witness, mr. chao? >> what i would like to say, if i come across as being defensive i apologize, but i am being defensive not in terms of me, i am being defensive in terms of the truth. and i believe that that's what this committee is trying to get to. in fact, i think that's what you said in the beginning. so when i detect that there is distortions or misuse or unrevealed things about that i spend nine hours with your staff

basically being deposed, i am going to be defensive because that is not the truth. that's all i want to make clear bout my defensiveness. >> any other witness? this committee has many talents and broad investigative jurisdiction. to my knowledge, and i could be wrong because my colleagues have many talents, to my knowledge none of us could do a website on our own. we are not software engineers. you could? >> i think unfortunately you have several here, including one who made a living doing it. >> none of us would want to certainly be engaged in this task, volunteering to work -- >> none of us want to own this particular website. >> it's easy to criticize. it's hard to perform. and as the gentleman, mr. van roekel, pointed out, even microsoft with winos x.p. is still revising it 12 years

later. software is a process. the internet is not perfect, but it's still one of the great technological accomplishments of mankind. it is transforming the planet in a good way. overall. but there are glitches. we work on those. so when we swear witnesses as we do when, we put them in a very uncomfortable position, deliberately, in some case when is we subpoena them, unilaterally, that creates tension and it creates -- it's actually going to slow the fix of the website. i worry about that. the chairman and mr. connolly have already collaborated on what sounds like an excellent bill to fix overall federal i.t. i was very impressed when mr. van roekel pointed out that's an $82 billion issue. but we are talking about here today from the august cost estimate is a 0.6%. why don't we focus on the larger

issue and fix it, because as i said earlier it's much better to light a candle that curse the darkness. >> if the gentleman would yield. maybe we can close on a positive note. both mr. powner, who has constantly talked about stress testing end-to-end, and mr. van roekel who knows very well that microsoft never put a new operating system up that wasn't stress test end-to-end, it still had bugs, it still had vulnerabilities, but -- by the way whenever you add a new driver or new something else, you create a potential new one that has to be tested, but stress testing end-to-end was something that this committee wanted to know at the onsefment why it hadn't been done because t is a best practices, which geohas -- g.a.o. has kindly made clear, the nine points that g.a.o. made in their report of best practice that is were not followed. so mr. connolly and i, mr. cooper, we are trying to get to where best practices will always

be used. and in this case not because of these individuals, per se, they are here as experts, but development over 3 1/2 years short cutted some best practices, and it's not the first time and it won't be the last time, but it's one where, as i said in the opening statement, it's so important when the person people -- american people are focused for us to say you can expect better from your government in the uture, and i don't mean on healthcare.gov, i mean on all of that $82 billion worth of i.t. aappreciate your comments to that end. >> mr. chairman, let's see about getting your bill to the floor. >> that's something we all would like to do. i'll talk to the leaders. >> you are the majority party. a i'll tell you what, ail get it to the floor in the house if you'll help me in the senate. we'll get this done. >> i have lots of influence in the senate. be happy to help. >> thank you.

>> with that we recognize the gentleman from michigan who knows great deal about health care websites from his state, mr. walberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing and panel as well thank you for being here. you have penalty to do. wish you didn't have to be here today. but when i receive letters on top of letters and contacts and six town hall meetings i held last week, live town hall meetings, like this one from rachel in eaton rapids, michigan, where she talks about the fact being cutting off from her insurance. her husband and five children. and she says this, hated the idea of getting on the healthcare.gov website as i believe insurance is a private matter. i did it anyway. the website did not work. so i called the number. she goes on to talk with pearn on the phone and ultimately being hung up on. that's the reason why this

hearing is important, frankly, mr. chairman, i believe that this whole act that was put into place law with a cover of darkness with votes from the other side of the aisle now take offense at us having hearings on problems and doing proper oversight is the reason to have this hearing today. because people like rachel haines and her family are concerned not only about security but right now that's one of the biggest concerns on a website that doesn't work for her. i want to go back to some of the concerns in the mitre report. i want to ask first question, mr. chao has already in earlier statements to questions just efore me, indicated when asked on e didn't push back opening this thing up on october 1, he didn't ask why.

'm going to go to mr. baitman. i think that's an important question. why did we have to open up on october 1? the question i would ask here, mr. baitman, mitre is responsible for conduct thing the security control assessment for the federal exchange, is that correct? >> that's my understanding. >> according to mitre, the final security assessment for the federal exchange occurred from late august through mid september s. that your understanding? >> it is. mr. baitman, to the best of your knowledge did mitre conduct a complete integrated security test to the federal marketplace? >> i didn't answer that. >> i would like to document -- a document put up that deals with this test and the outcome f. i could have this particular document. you see there f.f.m., the website, the marketplace,

complete percentage, 66% complete. that's it. 66% complete. this document was obtained by the committee we have in place. let me ask this question, mr. baitman. is it a problem that mitre wasn't fully able to test one third of the exchange? >> i can't answer that. this project was run and managed by c.m.s. they are responsible for the security. >> in the security control assessment dated october 11, 2013, a preliminary copy was given to c.m.s., on september 23, 2013, mitre writes they are unable to adequately test the confidentiality and integrity of the health insurance exchange system in full. they go on to say, mitre also writes the application at the time of testing was not functionally complete.

mr. powner, what are the dangers of conducting a security assessment on an incomplete system? >> you could have vulnerabilities that go untested. also, too, on this document. there's a lot of dates that don't add up. my understanding is mitre conducted their security assessment in august and september. and it was later september. there's data all over the place. the bottom line to your point it wasn't done on a complete system. >> mitre told -- >> identify want to point out that's a c.g.i. provided document. not from c.m.s. you see on the bottom -- >> i understand that. mitre has told committee staff to their knowledge there has not been a comprehensive test of the entire system. one of the dangers posed by not conducting a complete integrated security test of all thecy tell components, mr. powner? >> in order to ensure that your

data is secure and the system safe to use, you want to test on as complete a system as possible. >> sensitive personal information at risk when it opened on october 1, 2013? >> i don't know what happened mid september on. that's the only -- there was testing done through mid september, and i have -- i am blind to what happened in that period. >> could you then ensure -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. if you could wrap up. >> last question. can you ensure the american people that the website will work on november 30? >> the gentleman may answer. >> asking mr. powner. >> that's not my responsibility. >> you can't -- the gentleman's time has expired. anyone else wants to answer november 30, they may, mr. park, will it work on november 30? properly, fully? >> the team set a goal of having

healthcare.gov function smoothly for the americans t the team is working hard to meet that goal. with secure information. >> thank you. the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to the ranking member and to the other committee members. to our witnesses, this is an important hearing. our constituents are rightfully concerned about their right to be able to access affordable health care on the website, healthcare.gov. while the rollout has been problematic, what's been more troubling is the fact that this has been turned into more of a game than it has been about how we can work together to fix the problems of the site. and my certain is one of security of personal information. i also sit on the homeland

security committee. we are having a hearing also this morning on this subject. and so i want to ask about the potential security risks to consumers. illion chao, do you agree that protecting personal ible information -- identifiable information on healthcare.gov is important and something that can be achieved? >> i think that's something that we at c.m.s. and federal agency comply with fisma and o.m.b. and nist special occasions for securing people's data and then following hipaa's kind of requirements for confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data. > can you explain how c.m.s. protects consumer information? how that is safeguarded by

c.m.s.? >> i think one of the things that is very obvious when you come to healthcare.gov and if you go to, in my opening remarks, i mentioned there are two sides to it, two legs, if you go to the insurance side, one of the first things that you have to do is to register to establish an account. and we have mentioned that registrations are up to about 17,000 per hour right now. and that registration process allows you to establish what we call a level one assurance, of assurance account which based upon the national institute of standards and technology, that's very similar to something like what you would establish in terms of opening up a g mail or yahoo! account. it's basic information. >> move on to the next question. we are very limited on our time. >> basically the answer is it's about authenticating you. it's about are you who you say you are before by let you into the system.

that is one major step in ensuring that people's privacy are protected that they only see their own data. >> is healthcare.gov, any more or less risky to consumers than other sites, including private company information in the banking world or using credit cards to purchase information over the internet? >> i can't speak for what privacy frameworks and programs apply to private sectors, but for the federal government, we followed fisma guidelines and requirements set forth by certain o.m.b. directors, and we use independent security testing contractors to ensure we comply. >> mr. park, you spent some time with this website. have you been able to understand the security features that are inherent in it? >> that hasn't been my particular focus on the team, no. there's a c.m.s. security team dedicated to security matters.

>> based on your review of that, do you believe the site poses any unreasonable risks to consumers? >> i have to actually again dive into that personally, my understanding is c.m.s. is applying best practices to the site and c.m.s. has a great track record in protecting the privacy of americans. >> mr. van roekel, i understand you worked on the data hub. can you explain why you believe consumers should have confidence that their information is secure as it passes through the hub? >> i didn't actually code the hub itself. i didn't do the day-to-day. one thing that should be pointed out -- >> we are going to leave this hearing now. it will continue live on c-span3. house members are returning from a break for legislative work. one bill on the calendar today seeks frauden as it's bose games. and may consider a motion to

instruct house negotiators in regards to the farm bill. live coverage of the house here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in session. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain. the chaplain: may it be your will that the members of this house faithfully represent all citizens of