and he will talk about communication and monetary policy. that will be live tonight, at 7:00 p.m. on c-span numeral pre-. john -- c-span 3. john, independent line. to talk about the coverage i have that is being canceled. had $190,000 of medical bills. i paid the total out of my pocket. host: the house of representatives is coming in. we will take you to the house. unication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., november 19, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable george holding to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. 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 , but in o five minutes no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mccolin ton, for five minutes. -- mcclintock, for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, we're now seven weeks into the implementation of obamacare. we know that in the first four weeks 106,000 americans placed health plans in their shopping baskets although it's not clear how many of them actually purchased plans. meanwhile, it's now estimated that some 5 1/2 million americans have lost the health insurance that they had, that

they liked and that they were promised that they could keep. the inconvenient truth is that this law has dramatically increased the ranks of the uninsured. yesterday came word that college students are seeing their low-cost student plans canceled with replacement costs as much as 1,800% higher under obamacare. although the president recently assured the nation that the cancellations were confined to the individual market, we're now learning that his administration gives a mid-range estimate that 2/3 of the small employer plans and 45% of the large employer plans face cancellation as well. some estimates are as high as 93 million americans who have employer-sponsored plans will lose their plans next year. and these reports don't account for the millions more who are seeing massive rate increases in their current plans. nor do they account for the millions more who've had their

hours cut back to part time or who've had their wages cut back or lost their jobs altogether as employers struggle to stay in business while bearing these staggering costs. nor do they account for those that discover that by accepting obamacare plans they're losing their doctors. wal-mart now warns that the financial impact of this law on families could materially depress holiday shopping. mr. speaker, we're watching nothing less than the wholesale destruction and collapse of the american health care system, which for all of its flaws, was still the most advanced, accessible, adaptable and responsive health care system that the world has ever known. if you doubt that for a second, ask yourself, where the world's elites came when they needed first-class medical care, it wasn't to canada or england or mexico. it was to the united states. and now we're losing that. there was nothing unforeseen

about this fiasco. republicans have been warning of these outcomes from the very beginning when we warned that americans would not be able to keep their health care plans, we were called extremists. when we warned that obamacare would result in massive cost increases on consumers, we were called alarmists. when we warned that many americans would lose their jobs or have their hours cut back or see salary cuts, we were called racists. when we asked for a one-year delay in this program to address these issues, we were called demagogues, arsonists and jihadists. but now all of these warnings are coming to pass, and still the democrats persist on imposing this law on an unwilling nation. and doing so great violence is being done to our constitution. implementing this takeover of 1/6 of the american economy, the president has repeatedly asserted what can only be described as a doctrine of executive nullification, the authority to ignore the parts

of the law that he finds inveebt orem baresing -- inconvenient or embarrassing and picks and chooses who obeys the law and who not. he has excused big businesses from the requirement that they provide health care to their employees while forcing employees to fend for themselves. he's excused members of congress and their staffs from paying the full cost of obamacare policies. and last thursday, he announced that health insurers can ignore the law that requires them to cancel existing policies. now, he said he wouldn't seek to change the law. he would delay it for one year and invited them to do the same, in direct violation of the constitutional responsibility of the presidency, to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. mr. speaker, i appeal to my democratic colleagues to consider the damage that this law is doing, both to the american health care system and

to the rule of law itself. and above all, to the families who are struggling to deal with its effects. i ask them to heed the growing pleas of the american people to have their health plans restored to them. i ask them to join republicans in repealing obamacare and to help us replace it with the patient-centered health care system that we have long proposed, reforms that preserve the best of american health care while repairing its flaws. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, we have , days left in this session this year's session, according to the schedule. we're supposed to adjourn on december 13. somewhat ironically, friday the

13th, and yet, mr. speaker, we see time is running out and we're not addressing the critical issue and the critical responsibility of funding the government, of applying resources to our priorities. time is running out, mr. speaker, for budget conferees to send us legislation so we can avoid another government shutdown in january. a budget conference agreement will require compromise from both sides, a step that budget chairman paul ryan and many of his colleagues seem unprepared to take. mr. speaker, it has been my premise that the reason we did not go to conference for the last seven mondays months, notwithstanding the fact that the senate passed a budget and the house passed a budget, is that chairman ryan knows there's no compromise that he could reach, that he could bring back and have the support of his colleagues on the republican side, mr. speaker.

and as a result, we have no compromise. as a result, we have no product to consider. this is an extremely disappointing position, mr. speaker, because it's clear that the ryan budget is not a viable blueprint for governing. it was not when we passed it, and it is not now. it was a pretense of fiscal responsibility without any of the substance of fiscal reality or courage. that fact was made evident this summer as republicans could only pass funding bills for defense and veterans' programs, pulling their transportation funding bill and not even bringing the other appropriation bills to the floor. ust a few days ago, actually yesterday, all 12 of the subcommittee -- republican subcommittee chairs of the appropriation committee sent a

letter to paul ryan, chris van hollen, patty murray, senator murray and senator sessions and said we need to have a budget, we need to have a compromised agreement and we need to have a sequester number eliminated and a rational number replacing it, a number that can work for america. in fact, they said, if you don't do it we're going to have going to have a meat ax, not only the domestic side of the budget, education, health care, environment, law enforcement but also on the national security side of the budget. we all know how the budget really achieves balance, offered by mr. ryan, severe cuts in the same vain of the irrational sequester that targeted the most vulnerable americans and placed our economic recovery in jeopardy.

somewhat ironic that on the front page of "the washington post" today we see mr. ryan is not focused on the budget, he's focused on the poor. that is a proper focus, and this congress ought to be focused on that, but it is interesting that the ryan budget does exactly the opposite of what we need to do to make sure that the poor are reduced in number and the middle class are expanded in number. that's why, in my view, mr. speaker, regarding this budget, so many of his own party could not support appropriation bills within the framework of the ryan budget. that's why the bills were not brought to the floor. already some republicans are admitted that only a balanced aploach will enable -- approach will enable us to get the deficit reduction we need. revenues, that hated word, revenues must be on the table. representative tom cole, the former chairman of the republican campaign committee

of oklahoma, is one of them telling reporters on october 25 that, and i quote mr. cole. i think both sides would like to deal with the sequester, and we're willing to put more revenue on the table to do that. mr. cole was one of the signers of that letter to which i referred saying let's replace the meat ax represented by the sequester. unfortunately, chairman ryan continues to rule out any talk of revenues which are the key to any meaningful compromise that will replace the sequester. now, mr. speaker, as you probably know and as i think my republican colleagues know, i have said now and i have said in the past, we must also deal with entitlements. e need a balanced plan, not an unbalanced plan. without a balanced plan, the sequester will remain in place and will hurt america. instead of just saying what he's against, it's time for mr. ryan and republicans to show a

readiness to compromise to achieve results for the american people. mr. ryan is the chairman of the conference committee, yet he has to this date not put on the table what chairmen always do, the chairman's mark or chairman suggestion or chairman's proposal. we are willing to compromise and do what it takes to achieve a bipartisan deal on the budget. this was evident when we voted unanimously, alongside republicans, to end the government shutdown even when it meant supporting a c.r. at a level -- continuing resolution, appropriation bill for government at a level we believed was too low but we understood compromise was necessary. and so we voted, all of us, all 198 democrats voted to open up the government and to pay america's bills while 147 republicans, approximately 62% of the republicans voted to

keep government shut down and not to pay america's bills. i was encouraged to read the letter sent yesterday, as i said, by chairman rogers and the appropriations subcommittee chairs, making clear how important it is for conferees to send us a budget by thanksgiving -- by thanksgiving. that would be this friday because we're not going to be here next week. rather than risk another painful government shutdown and the continuation of the irrational sequester this coming year. many republicans now agree with democrats that the sequester is unworkable. who said so? mr. ryan says he doesn't like the sequester. mr. cantor, the majority leader, says he doesn't like the sequester. and hal rogers says it's an rkable and this is opportunity to replace the sequester with a sensible approach that permits congress to look stratidgically at our

budget priorities -- strategically at our budget priorities and long-term fiscal goal. if we do so it will the most important stimulus of our economy, job-creating action that this congress could take. mr. speaker, i hope that chairman ryan will set his flawed budget aside and instead embrace the approach that many of his republican colleagues are already recognizing is the only realistic path toward a compromised -- compromise by this committee. to do so could usher in an historic agreement to achieve real fiscal responsibility for america for years to come. i hope mr. ryan's leadership will result in that objective. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, in 1947, major bill hendricks, with the support of the los angeles marine corps reserve unit, collected and distributed 5,000 toys to needy children. since the program's adoption nationally, as toys for tots in 1948, the u.s. marine corps reserved toys for tots program has collected and distributed close to 500 million toys. monday, i had the honor of attending the center county toys for tots kickoff breakfast chaired by retired marine major. 2013 marks the 7th center county toys for tots campaign, organized by the nitly leather next attachment 302. about 350 collection points around center county will accept toys from infants to teenagers until december 15. this program has grown with the

support of area food banks, fire departments, businesses and hundreds of local volunteers. . mr. speaker, over the past 10 years marines have distributed an annual average of 15 million toys per year. bringing toys to an average of more than 6.3 million less fortunate children each year. we thank you in more ways than one every day, marines. and i thank you for supporting these children in need. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, in an area of violence in the middle east, tragedy in syria, and turmoil in egypt there's some encouraging news surrounding iran. the most important signal may have been the election of asan

ruani who is by no means a moderate except in the context of iran. he was the choice of the iranian people for change. a different path to reduce the collision course with the united states and the crippling sanctions we have imposed. his foreign minister is an able and experienced diplomat with strong relationships with the people who have dealt with him for years both in the united states and iran. i am encouraged by the reports in the news and the opinion pages which point out something i long argued on the floor of this house, the convergence of interest between the united states and iran. people forget the key roll of the united states -- key roll the united states played in the emergence of the modern state of iran, the constitutional revolution beginning in 1905 where american influence was profoundly dealt. unfortunately, for the last 60 years we have mismanaged our relationship with iran. how would we have felt if a

foreign power worked to overthrow our democratically elected government and install a dictator? that's exactly what the united states and great britain did in 1953 and how the shaw returned to power. it's amazing that the majority of iranians still have positive feelings towards the united states, which they do. people forget the alignment of interest between the united states and iran after 9/11. that led them to help us deal with post taliban afghanistan. and when in the capitals of some of our composed allies in the middle east, people were cheering at that tragedy. on 9/11 people in tehran were standing in solidarity with americans. this of course before george bush recklessly included them in his infamous axis of evil pronouncement. the iranian people are distinct from arabs, proud of their persian heritage stretching back

thousands of years. iran is an important part of any ultimate solution, stablizing iraq and resolving the syrian conflict. yes, they have advanced nuclear development and we right-l should be deeply concerned with their pursuit of nuclear weapons. that's why one of the obama administration's greatest foreign policy triumph has been to marshall support -- marshal support of the world. it's been a huge difference driving down the value of their currency, depleting their important reserves, and creating extreme inflationary pressures on their economy. now is the time to see if a solution can be developed. it's decidedly not the time to ratchet up sanctions even further. nothing would undercut the more moderate forces in iran, and more pressure could be very counterproductive because we are at risk of sanctions fatigue by our partners. other countries that do not

share our same policy positions and deep hostility toward the iranians have gone along with sanctions to expect the countries like china, india, and russia are going to follow us with even more extreme sanctions and turn our back on the progress is questionable at best. at worst it would end up losing support for the sanctions regime we have now, strengthen the hand of the hardliners who do hate america, and set back long-term prospects for peace not just for iran but syria, iraq, and throughout the middle east. most experts i have encountered feel iran could have built a nuclear bomb years ago. but they didn't. recently they have slowed the pace of their nuclear activities and been open to proposal unthinkable a year ago. the rush to undercut the process is shortsighted, counterproductive, and risk accelerating the development of iranian nuclear weapons. now is the time to accelerate

diplomacy not walk away. it's decidedly not the time for the united states congress to throw a monkey wrench in the diplomatic proceedings and ratchet up sanctions. we can always reimpose sanctions but may not be able to recreate this diplomatic opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holding: i rise today to honor great american, george turner from wilmington, north carolina, for his recent induction into the wade county boys and girls club hall of fame. george is a man of character and conviction who exudes principle and selflessness. he's a tireless worker and leader in his community. george's success in business is equally matched by his giving

nature. earlier this month george was honored for his years of service to the boys and girls club and induct food their hall of fame. over 700 people came to the raleigh convention center to see george be honored for his service to the boys and girls club. this is a testament to how many lives he has touched in his decades of work with the organization. as a long time board member of the wade county boys and girls club previously leading the organization as board president, george is a great role model to kids across north carolina. george attended east carolina university and served in the united states coast guard, active and reserves, from 1960 to 1968. and before he retired, george was c.e.o. of ready mix concrete company in my hometown, raleigh, north carolina. george is a real leader and in business and education serving on the blord of directors for the -- board of directors for the raleigh chamber of commerce, the national ready mix concrete association, north carolina state university engineering school, north carolina state

university school of design, and the raleigh ymca. george is a truly giving man and i can think of no one more deserving of the hall of fame than him. i congratulate him on receiving this award and thank him for his unwavering dedication to his community. it's a spirit and enterprise like george turner that will he rebuild our nation and rebuild our economy. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from new york, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am proud to represent central new york, home of the six nations of the hunter schony a confederacy. mr. maffei: it includes the mow hawks, oneidas, senecas, and later the tuss can roar a. it spreads across new york and one of the earliest civil governments in territory that now lies within the united states and canada. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the oneida leader's

evereds to change the name of the washington, d.c., national football league team. the name of the football team is derogatory to the native americans of this country. for many native americans across the land the name of the washington football team is a deeply personal reminder of a legacy of racism and generations of pain. the current campaign to change the name is supported by many groups and individuals, including native american organizations, civic and government leaders, editorial boards, and many leaders. including my colleagues, representy betty mccollum and tom cole, and many others in a nonpartisan effort. president obama said recently if i were the owner of a team and i knew there was a name of the team even if it had a storied history that was offending a sizable group of people, i'd think about changing it. i wholeheartedly join this effort. i also believe the owner of the washington team and other nfl owners should meet with the oneidas as they have requested. how can we achieve mutual understanding unless they are willing to meet. mr. speaker, in my office and with me now i keep a replica of

thelt, it was lent to me by onadogas. it symbolizes one of the first treaties concluded in 1613 between the dutch and them. the two rows which are beads made out of shells represent europeans and native americans and their equal in size and travel together along a strip of white representing peace. it was an still is a symbol of friendship and community. although the years since this treaty was concluded, i have seen much devastation and tribulation for native americans, today he they still maintain their culture. we have much to do to improve our relationship between our two peoples. after centuries of strife, conflict, and repression. but so many are working to mend the riffs and restore the brotherhood and respect this treaty belt contains. i joined can intoers this past

summer who rode together across upstate new york and to new york city to commemorate this 00-year-old agreement. wouldn't it be great if in order to show reverence and respect for the native american tribes across this country that we continue to do these things? wouldn't it be great if this on the 400th anniversary of this groundbreaking treaty we could right the wrong and change the nfl team's name. mr. speaker, this treaty was perhaps the first but it wasn't the last. in november of 1794, george washington, whose portrait is one of only two pore rats in this haloed hall, through his official representative, tom pickering, george washington concluded the treaty of can nan daiglea. president washington had a six-foot long treaty belt fashioned to ratify this treaty that our two peoples should live in peace and friendship. mr. speaker, george washington himself respected the native americans of this country and their culture. shouldn't the nfl team that

pairs his name do the same? i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. again i'm on the floor today to talk about the ongoing discussion between the united states and afghanistan regarding a 10-year bilateral strategic agreement to allow troops to remain overseas beyond the year 2014. multiple news organizations have reported that talks on the agreement have stalled because of unwillingness of the afghan government to let american militaries search afghan homes. two senior afghan officials went so far to tell "the new york times" that the negotiations had reached a profound impasse. mr. speaker, i would like to submit for the record a letter that i have written to the president of the united states egarding this issue. mr. speaker, this agreement would force the united states to continue paying trillions of tax

dollars to support afghan's president karzai, a corrupt government which we cannot afford any longer. as it is, taxpayers of the $10.45 tates are paying million every hour for the cost of the war in afghanistan since 2001. let me repeat that. taxpayers in the united states are paying $10.45 million every hour for the cost of the war in afghanistan since 2001. this is unacceptable, especially at a time when this national debt is an astounding $17 trillion and we have been forced to make deep budget cuts in the united states. just this past weekend, tornadoes in illinois killed six people. last year we watched the devastation on the east coast that resulted from hurricane sandy. these national disasters represent only one area which we could use the money that we are sending to afghanistan to help

the american people right here. in addition, the bilateral strategic agreement will expose our groups to considerable dangers and risk the loss of additional american lives. all without the approval of congress. at the very least we in congress should vote whether we agree with this agreement or not. it is not required by the constitution, but we who oversee the spending of the taxpayers' money should demand that the leadership of the house in both parties have a vote if nothing more than a resolution that we do support this bilateral strategic agreement or we do not support it. mr. speaker, i am here today again with my poster that is just such a sad commentary on afghanistan. it's the cartoon, little mr. karzai, drawing money out of a money machine that's being paid for by the taxpayers, by the way, and his commend is, i'm

just making a quick withdrawal. sadly, too, behind him is an american soldier whose thoughts are this, i would like to make a quick withdrawal from here. i would close by saying, mr. speaker, it is time for this congress to wake up and take care of america's problems and not afghanistan's problems. a 10-year agreement is unacceptable and we need to come together in a bipartisan way and send the message to the administration. we do not support this agreement and we come together, republicans and democrats. i close by asking god to please continue to bless our men and women in uniform. and ask god to please continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from utah, mr. matheson, for five minutes. mr. matheson: mr. matheson: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring awareness o our country's pancreatic

cancer and the strong and continued research of this. 40,000 americans are expected to diagnosis by pancreatic cancer, a number that's steadily increased in the past decade. only 6% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer will live more than five years, and that's a statistic that has not improved in over 40 years. earlier this year, i sat down with several of my constituents affected by pancreatic cancer. one in particular, jamie, saw her father and died nine weeks after he was diagnosed. sadly, this is all too common when discussing pancreatic cancer. i can guess we all know someone who's died from this disease. sequestration cut $1.5 million from the national institutes of research.

it would have done research on pancreatic cancer. everyone i talked to in my district agrees with the idea that funding medical and disease research is a good thing. we must continue research in this area and begin the process of reversing these remarkableably can he pressing statistics with pancreatic cancer. we owe it to jamie and thousands of other families affected by this disease and work towards a cure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today with great pride to share an amazing story of a police officer from texas 22. , 3:30 a.m. on october 26 noticed a car

sitting at a green light with his left turn signal on. a few minutes later this and as stopped that car the officer approached the car, shots rang out. he officer was hit in the neck . d face the thugs sped off. the thugs had no idea who they shot. if they knew, they would have dropped their weapons and surrendered without a fight. hey shot a wife, a mother of two young children, a former marine who's the first female to join the marine corps' boxing team.

ey shot police officer ann carzoles. they messed with the wrong marine. despite being wounded, ann returned fire, shooting out the back glass of the thugs' automobile. she jumped in her cruiser and joined the chase and she quickly got on the radio saying, shots fired, shots fired, i've been hit. for seven minutes, ann chased the shooters. the video of her dash board mera shows how cool and in control ann was. she chased the thugs through two counties with multiple law enforcement agencies joining the chase. stafford police department,

missouri city police department, houston police department, this was' deputies from fort bend county and harris county and the texas department of public safety all joined in the chase. despite her wounds, ann stayed on the radio, kept everyone telling er location, everyone all the streets she was passing while she was chasing the thugs. n was in charge and everyone knew that. ann followed the thugs into an apartment complex, and knowing , americans losing lives from gunshots in those apartments, ann continued to manage the scene. on ann's dash board camera, you

can see ann's fellow officers trying to take care of her wounds. ann can be heard saying, get out, it's not safe, and tell them to watch your back. ann's shooter was caught later that day and his two buddies were caught a few days later. i talked to ann a week after she was shot. i had two questions for ann. first question, what did you think when you were shot? she told me that her motherly instincts kicked in. those punks tried to take her from her husband and her two kids. they were going to pay for that. i also asked ann, did you ever think you were going to die?

and she said, no, sir. my chief did not give me permission to die that night. thank you, ann, for wearing that badge and for your heroism. semper fi, ann. semper fi. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for five minutes. mr. tonko: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. onko: thank you, speaker. this week it was reported that ouse republicans are looking for a legislative plan to close out the year and to move forward into 2014. and as such, passed out a blank sheet of paper as their agenda. a blank sheet. each month polls put congressional approval rates at

new lows and many organizations rank the 113th congress one of the least, if not the least productive of all-time. in response, leadership of the people's house has continued to govern by sound bites and messaging bills that simply go no. even painfully shutting down the government for more than two weeks in the process. if house leadership is looking for an agenda, they need only to look across the aisle to their friends. we have some suggestions, and chief among them is putting americans back to work. during our august work period, i participated in some 166 events, meeting with constituents each and every time. at nearly every stop, my friends and neighbors wanted to know what was being done in washington to help the private sector create jobs. my district is extraordinary, but not in this regard. i have to believe that the people of albany and ske next key and amsterdam, new york and

those in the 20th district is thinking what america is thinking. they're asking what myself and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are doing to grow the economy. house democrats stand ready to work with republicans to address the real challenges that face this great nation of ours. sequestration-related cuts are estimated to cost our economy ome 1.6 million jobs through 2014. let's work together to save jobs and pass a budget that invests by growing in a justified way, in a fairway, revenues and belt tightening so that we cut as we can so that must.n invest as we our family farms deserve the certainty that a five-year re-authorization of the farm bill has brought them for decades upon decades. our parties clearly don't see eye to eye on cutting such items such as hunger

assistance. hunger assistance for millions of veterans, millions of frail people, millions of elderly, millions of children. well, if we work together on jobs, we'll help the private sector put people into jobs and cut poverty and reduce the need for hunger programs. now, isn't that a humane approach? we see middle-class america experiencing pain at the gas pump and we worry that our foreign policy is dictated by our dangerous dependency, our gluttonous thirst for fossel-based fuels. yet, we don't have a clear definitive agenda that will create tens of thousands of jobs in the short term, boosting an american green-collar economy. it can be done. a report just last week on solar panels was interesting. if we would use just simply 5% of available rooftops in los

angeles county, we would be able to create 29,000 jobs in that effort. in the past week, we've seen major severe weather events wreak havoc on the philippines and across 12 states within the midwest of our country. even if you choose to ignore fact-based science that really proves climate change to be real and here, we can all agree that our aging infrastructure needs our assistance. it needs to be upgraded, it needs to be improved and replaced so that we're taking a proactive approach to sound infrastructure that grows jobs. instead we're allowing storms of the century to impact our communities and then have the reactive process that simply isn't the best way to do business. i could go on and on, but i only have five minutes here. immigration reform, updade daggete the voting rights act, tax reform, expanding background checks for gun

owners or passing enda. there's more for us to tackle that translates into jobs, and the vast jorts of these policies -- majorities of these policies is passed in a bipartisan fashion as the government shutdown was avoided by a bipartisan vote with unanimous vote from the democrats with a minority of votes from the republicans, we could get things done if we would allow for votes to be taken up on this floor. a simple up or counsel down vote on get it done and grow jobs. we reserved the anniversary of death of one of the greatest leaders our nation has ever known, john kennedy said never before had such capacity to control his own environment, to end thirst and hunger, to conquer poverty and disease, to banish illiteracy and massive human misery. we have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world or to make it the last. to act is both in our power and

our duty. we must tackle these problems. i implore this house to take up a jobs agenda. let's put america to work. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, for five minutes. mr. schrader: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. schrader: mr. speaker, i rise today to acknowledge the significant milestone for the confed rated tribes of the community of oregon. this friday, november 22, 2013, marks the 30th anniversary of the grand ron drives restoration federally recognized tribe. the confederated tribes of grand rock has indian tribes who live in western oregon, southern washington and northern california. this confederation of tribes was created almost 160 years ago when the federal government forced these tribes onto the

indian reservation in order to make room for the expanding settler population. before the settlers arrived on the west coast, there were more than 60 tribes living more than oregon's stretch of the pacific ocean. they were there for over thousands of years. as they went there they began to -- conflict ensued. by the 1850's, the united states government, in an effort to end the conflict, opened up the lands for the settlers and initiated treaty making for the tribes. the united states and the tribes entered into the treaty. with this treaty, the united states seized much of the valley while promising money, supplies, education, health care and protection to the indians. as a result of the treaty and ceding treaties,

about 14 million acres, over 2,000 tribal people were removed from their native homelands and forced to resettle in the indian reservation in the valley. at the same time, the reservation consisted -- at that time, the reservation consisted of more than 60,000 acres of land. before the arrival of settlers there were 20,000 native people living there. when the tribes were forced not reservation, as i said, there were 2,000. at the dawn of the 20th century, there were 392 people listed on the reservation census. many people died as a consequence of the administrative neglect or moved away from the reservation to find better opportunities for work in the cities. . by 1944 the united states found itself between the depression and war. seeking to cut government spending they began to term mate their treaty responsibilities to indian tribes and began the process of ending the united states relationship with the tribe. in 1954, congress passed the

western oregon indian termination act, which unilaterally terminated the treaties the government had entered into in the 1850's. as a result of that act, the grand ran indian reservation was closed. by this time the tribe had been calling the reservation home for over 100 years. along with losing their homes, people lost their access to health care, education, and other services the federal government promised to provide them in the treaties with the tribes. the federal government reneged on the promise to the tribes of a permanent reservation forever. though the grand ran people were once again driven from the land, they refused to surrender their cultural identity and traditions. in the 1970's, members of the reservation community united to form the confederated tribes of the grand ram. fighting for their right to be recognized by the united states federal government. after years of dedication, purrcies tent efforts by tribal

members, the united states congress finally restored its relationship with the tribe on november 22, 1983. passing the grand ran restoration act signed by president ronald reagan. this act following nearly 30 years of termination allowed the tribe to be eligible again for federal housing, health, and education services. it also initiated a process that would lead to the grand ronde reservation act and the tribes recovery of almost 10,000 acres of its original reservation. since restoration, the confederated tribes have thrives, becoming one of the most successful and vibrant tribes in the pacific northwest. with their own money they have reacquired parts of their original reservation. the population of the tribe has grown from roughly 1,500 members, year after restoration to almost 5,000 members. grand ronde boast as stable economy. the spirit mountain casino on the reservation has been responsible for a significant

part of the tribe's income since the mid 1990's. spirit mountain is the most successful casino in oregon, and also the largest employer, employing more than 1,200 people. the grand ronde dedicate 6% of the profits to its spirit mountain community fund. the fund which supports a diverse array of organizations, has given more than $60 million to local communities, nop profit organizations, and oregon's indian tribe since 1997. the confederated tribes emerged from over a century of hardship to be a thriving community. there will be no doubt the people of grand ronde will continue to prosper as they have done for thousands of years. i yield back. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation of house rules. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr.

crenshaw, for five minutes. mr. crenshaw: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise this morning to honor the congressional career of my chief of staff, john arieli. i first met him about 13 years ago right after i was first elected to congress. and i knew after that first eeting when i saw his keen intellect, i saw his wry sense of humor, his love of excel spread sheets, his laser like focus on polcy, and zany italian zeal i knew that that was the combination i needed to leave my legislative office. -- lead my lemming office. they state decision -- legislative office. they say the decision to have someone be your chief of staff is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make as a member of congress because the chief of staff not only

represents your political views, but also represents your personal values. if there's one decision that i have made that i think would be unanimously agreed upon by my constituents as well as my colleagues, it would be the choice to have john be my chief of staff. he has assembled an outstanding team of individuals. s he has led that team of individuals through thick and thin. we fought and won some very important legislative battles. one of which is a proposal, landmark legislation, to change for the good, forever the way our nation deals with disabilities.th it's called the avil act and we haven't crossed the finish line yet, but i'm sure we will, and when we do it will be in large part because of the moral clarity and hard work and

dedication from john. winston churchill once said that you make a living by what you get. but you make a life by what you give. and john has given me, he's given this institution, he's given all the individuals who have had a chance to work with him his heart and soul. he's given his expertise, his wisdom, his vision, his patience . and there's little we can do to repay him for all of that other than express to him our extreme gratitude. and to wish him well on his next opportunities, his next challenges. and so i would say to john as he leaves as chief of my staff, thank you for a job well-done. god bless and godspeed. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. kaptur, for five minutes. ms. kaptur: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, now that the republican shutdown is over, congress should be addressing the most pressing issues facing our nation. faster economic growth, putting our people back to work at living-wage jobs, balancing the budget, and investing in our future. but so far there is no republican budget deal completed to set the frame for all of this, to give confidence, to business they can invest and to the american people that there's some certainty that congress has done its job. the first step is completion of a responsible budget resolution starts in just a few weeks. and in fact, the federal fiscal year started october 1. from that would follow if we had regular order in this house 12

appropriation bills, constrained within the limits of that important budget. but rather than completing the budget bill, i observed the chairman of the house budget committee making political speeches out in iowa rather than getting the job done here. my message today is, get the job done of the budget committee. we know that the economy will grow when more people are working. and when that happens the federal debt goes down. the first chart i have here actually shows that during the clinton years when employment went up, we were able to balance the budget. here we have the terrible recession where unemployment went up and guess what? the budget deficit increased and our accumulated debt grew at extraordinary proportions. now, think about what happens to the u.s. debt when unemployment goes up and during the bush years we had over 8.8 million

jobs that were eliminated because of the great recession. when people don't have a job, taxes. n't paying they aren't likely buying a new car or spending money at department stores or other consumer spending that drives employment growth and job creation. it drives investment. moreover, people who don't have a job are likely relying on government for help, unemployment benefits that are extended, or other parts of the federal safety net, social safety net such as health insurance, health care. that cause as drawdown in federal spending. so the message to my republican colleagues is, get the job done. that's the only way you're going to be able to reduce the debt. we cannot balance our budget with the unemployment hovering at over 7% nationally. though the obama administration has successfully led 42 months of consecutive job creation compared to the bush years when

we went so much into the whole, we still have not dug ourselves out and he replaced all those 8.8 million jobs that were eliminated. that's a lot of jobs. over two million manufacturing jobs alone were eliminated. and if we think about that, we have done a good job month by month. it's not what i would call robust, but it definitely has been steady. but piled on top of this gigantic effort to try to create jobs is a nagging trade deficit. in my part of america, people know well what job outsourcing is to foreign countries. we have had continuing hemorrhaging of u.s. jobs because of trade agreements like nafta, china permanent normal trade relations -- china pntr, all in the negative, all in the black. we have not had a trade balance in this country since 1975, and the numbers show it. they just keep getting worse. can you find anything made in america anymore? $9 trillion in accumulated trade

deficit since 1975. that actually equals half of our long-term debt. because our monthly trade deficit now hovers around, get this, $39 billion more imported goods coming in here than we are able to export. this means more foreign goods, fewer u.s. jobs. over time these foreign subsidized products from closed markets replace american made products and the jobs that go with them. the word outsourcing has become all too familiar. mr. speaker, if my republican colleagues want to tackle the federal debt, then they need to bring a completed budget deal to the floor. it's months, almost a year too late. we need to tackle the federal debt by growing jobs. bring economic growth and jobs bills to the floor. and we need to no longer bring trade deals to this floor that result through fast track in the kind of job killing that we have had over the last quarter

century. shouldn't we focus on what the american people have been saying to us year after year after year? it's the economy, it's job creation. this institution ought to be focused laser beam on what the american people are telling us. why is that so hard to do? i urge my colleagues on the budget committee get back to work, stop the politicking around the country, get those committees, reaching compromises between the house, between the senate. let's get the big frame and let's through regular order bring up the 12 appropriation bills within those budget restraints so we can eliminate the debt by making this economy grow fully again. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

be? >> no. was not in your authority to put it off or make a decision going forward? >> i did not have that authority. >> do you know who did question mark -- >? marilyn tavenner. atmy time is expired, summing up, we are concerned that multiple levels, but if you which this cms document, i did not see until now, this morning, it does not take me in about 10 minutes to look at it, and it is absolutely clear that the startup of the website was not going to work well if at all on october 1. it was not. and it says that in here.

with that, i yield back. mr.he chair recognizes dingell for five minutes. amfor the requisition, i thanking you for holding this hearing. , into over six months now the implementation of the affordable care act. the website has improved, it is clear there is more work to be done. i'm hopeful the subcommittee will work hard to achieve that goal. the aca is the law of the land, and we hope to make it a functioning website. it is important to remember that we can never fully eliminate the risks when building a large i.t. system. we must take steps to mitigate them. we must take the steps to make the program work, because this is the largest undertaking in its character that when you ever seen -- that we have ever seen

by government anyway. first question -- the cms is responsible for the data services hub and the eligibility and enrollment pools for the federally facilitated marketplace, yes or no? >> yes. >> are these projects were hard to comply with the privacy acts of 1974, the computer security act of 1987, an act of 2002, yes or no? >> yes. >> cms must also comply with regulations and standards, promulgated by the national institute of standards and technology at the u.s. department of commerce. is that correct? >> yes. cmshese standards require to balance security considerations with operational permits. is that correct? >> yes. >> once the key pieces of healthcare.gov website is the

data hub. is this large repository of personal information as some of my friends on the other side have claimed, yes or no? >> no. >> i want that on the record. does the data hub retain personal information at all? >> no. >> is it fair to say the data a tool toata hub is submit eligibility information to federal agencies? >> yes. >> did the data hub pass a security test to the october 1 care.gov. health car >> no. >> is the hub working today? >> yes. >> is there evidence to the contrary? >> no.

>> is evidence of lack of security by people who have submitted data to this undertaking? >> no. >> it is always true of our duty to remember how our health care system operated prior to the passage of the aca. at that time, insurance companies were allowed to medically underwrite people to determine their premium. confusingred lengthy applications and contained a lot of personal information. oftentimes, this was submitted electronically as well. aca has changed all of this. fact, this is a question to you again, in fact, application forms on healthcare.gov did not require the submission of any personal health information. is that correct, yes or no?

>> yes. prohibits because aca this rumination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. and outlaws charging people more because they are sick. is that correct? yes. it is not collected. >> this is a remarkable improvement over the old system in terms of security and quality of care. next question -- there are a lot of negative stories in the press to create a lot of confusion. i want to get this record straight. forealthcare.gov safe and my constituents that they can use today with regard to their personal information and privacy, yes or no question mark -- ? >> yes. >> is there evidence to the

contrary? >> no. >> i yield back. >> thank you. now going to ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you. we really appreciate that you would come and work with us on this issue. i want to talk with you for a minute about some red flags. you are going to find the e-mail it is theencing, and july 16, 2013, e-mail that you , and i want to focus their. when you have something that is and thisff the rails obviously seemed to be doing. it was not proceeding as it should be proceeding, and you

expressed these concerns about the performance of cgi. what i would like to hear is an articulation of maybe what were those top three or four red flags that seemed to be going up to you that you said i fear that the plane is going to crash on takeoff and some of those wordings that we have heard from you now? give me the top three or four things. >> in the context of the e-mail, it was at a time when we were getting ready to roll out what we called like accounts, which is an initial registration process. as i mentioned before, i'm a of anxiety,as a lot that i always err on the side of caution if we are going to run out of time. i remind people that they need to move fast and they are moving

fast, they need to move faster. that is just the way i operate and the way i direct staff and contractors, and what i was afraid of was at this particular point in time is that we were falling behind in the rollout of light account. >> on light account, did your test on that go off without a hitch, or what happened? remember thexactly specifics about what tests passed or failed. i was afraid we were in jeopardy of missing the date, so, therefore, at that time am a in july, i wrote lots of e-mails -- >> did you hit the date? >> it took an extra four days. >> an extra four days on the read thed you do not member exactly what the concerns were that came to you at that time? , anhere a memo of review articulation of what transpired in that test process? >> it is not a memo.

way we operate is we have daily meetings -- >> are there minutes from those meetings, and he could use of it does to us? >> there were no minutes. i believe they were status chickens with contractors-- >> are there notes? >> i do not believe so. when my e-mails were submitted, as evidence, that is a -- >> let me go on a minute. i want to talk specifically about cgi. -- you know, if you in formerly worked in a group and did not have formal meetings or minutes and memos and things of that nature, yes it give me your impression, -- just give me on whatression your impressed you that you were behind, because you mentioned

price, and i note in this e-mail chain from monique that they had $40 million already, they were coming back and asking for another $30 million. if i had someone who had used up all of their money from a project and then they came back and asked for that much more, i think i would have to say wait a minute. obviously the-- price to you was of tremendous concern. am i right on that? >> correct. >> they had already washed -- lost your confidence there. what was in their conduct that he wrote it their confidence in their ability to transact this portion of this business? >> i think what i was trying to say is relatively speaking to i would say the most project enters that are looking at --

project managers that are looking at smaller scale projects, there might be some room to be more confident tom a my given that task at hand, confidence level had to deal with the enormous amount of activities we had to be successful at to deliver on light account that interim piece as well as a october 1 part. >> i yield back. the follow-up, did you present these concerns about being ready on october 1 when you were interviewed by the mckinsey people? >> this was in the july time frame. mckinsey, their interviewers were march or april. >> did you present any concerns to meet this dates? >> is a course of conducting project management program management that working with team, we and my discussed these teams on an ongoing basis. i recognize mr. braxton for

five minutes. >> nobody is happy with this rollout of the healthcare.gov and the administration that has taken its lumps. aside from lessons learned, it seems to me why focus ought to be and my concern is getting this thing working. americans want to be able to access the website and choose a health care when the especially those who have not been able to get an opportunity to buy health insurance in the past. that is what it seems to me if we need legislative changes we should make changes to make it work, not to repeal it. fixated on are so hating this law, and they want to repeal it, they do not even want to consider helping make it work. that is the focus that i want to use in asking you some questions, to stimr. chao.

how do we make this better? thet accurate to say that website is getting up and running? >> yes. theyaccurate that cms -- have crossed 200 items off their punch list? >> correct. >> can you give me examples of issues that have been recently addressed? >> issues related to the enrollment transactions have had some dated quality issues -- data quality issues, and issu ers can receive that data without cleaning up the issues. data quality has improved. the daily conceptions we have sent to them have improved. the response times for the website have improved. the error rate of people experiencing some level of difficulty with moving from

stage to stage in their online application, that has been reduced -- >> the administration's point person on this whole website announced on friday that you have dropped your ever great error to below one reduced theave weight time to less than -- wait time to less than one second. >> they become transparent to the user. the user can then get at the task at hand of filling out their information, finding out if they are asking for a premium tax credit that they are calculated timely and are proceeding ahead in the application so they can apply, some, or none, or all of that tax credit to their plan compare

so they can look at the offsets that occur and what the final premium should be, to make their selection and go to the process in a very efficient and speedy fashion as compared to what they experience on day one. >> how about the overall stability of the site? it was down frequently in the early weeks. has that improved? >> yes. we have greater maintenance windows, but those agents windows are used to implement improvements that you have been hearing about. numbers seem to be getting better and i expect we will see more improvements -- >> numbers seem to be getting it better and i expect we will see more improvements. the site is getting better, slowly but surely, and that is why the and rome at rate in november is speeding up significantly. i have some figures. massachusetts, when they started a similar program, it started .3% overall for

enrollees for private coverage signed up in the first month, and thus far, the affordable care act, 1.5%. both started slowly, ahead of what massachusetts was, but after that there was a surge of enrollment as people got closer to deadlines. times" reported that a number of states that have their own systems are projected to achieve their projections. doubled itsearly and roman this month. other states are outpacing their we seeote projections. an acceleration, even in the federal workplace. "the new york times those would reported the federal market

place has improved in the first two weeks of november. we are not where we need to be, but we are seeing improvements, and this increased pace of people going back on the site successfully is to me a very thanraging -- so rather just attacked a health care law and look for ways to undermine it, we ought to try to make it work, and we are anxious to make sure that you do your job of getting the website and all that working, and if we need any legislative change, call on us because we are ready, willing, and able to act in that regard. i yield back my time. >> the general money from texas. >> thank you. in response to one of the questions about a breach of a system, you responded that you could not talk about it in open session, that it would require a classified briefing. is that correct? >> that is how i was instructed

by our department. >> very well. i would like to undirected that i ask that that has a fight with staff occur. can i get your commitment on trying to make that happen? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. much talked about red team discussion document from "the washington post" this morning, which you have not seen, and i appreciate that, but you were interviewed in the sports -- in response to mr. barton's pression. you were interviewed by the mckinsey team, do you remember when? >> april time frame. >> during when this was being developed. do you require -- recall what you talked about? >> primarily, why i was intimating to the mckinsey team was a schedule challenge, because during april we had just

startedqhp submission and working with issuers. >> what is qhp? lands.ified health during that month it was a rapid process to collect all the qualified health fan data -- health plan data that you see on -ealthcare.gov and the state based workplaces. i was remarking on how that is unprecedented the only gave -- give issuers only a short time to make their data, and we need to make adjustments in the windows to make sure they could come back and make corrections. >> that is an example of what i talked about in terms of the schedule challenges that we were trying to undertake something complex,le, fairly compared to what is happening in the insurance escape today, and that this was new and we were

working on a short timeframe. those arestipulate legitimate concerns. on page one of this red team document at the bottom of the page, highlighted, the working group determined extending the live stage of a part of the analysis, and work with a boundary condition of october 1 as the launch date. in other words about it did not matter what the conditions on the ground were come hell or high water. got to go 1, we have live. were you given that impression by anyone on your team as you work through this? >> not necessarily characterized that way, but as i mentioned -- >> my time is limited. who would've made a decision like that? that it does not matter? the old saying, do not check the weather, we are flying anyway. who would make a decision like that? >> i think the decision is ultimately made by marilyn

tavener and a team of folks, i suppose, that she works with. as the administrator, she sets the deadlines for my work. >> some of the people that are referenced in the report, given to the committee by mckinsey, is that people that had discussions in the white house, the old executive office building, know ifike -- do you they were involved in these decisions? >> i cannot speak to that. i did not hear anything about those discussions. >> have you been in meetings with those people? >> yes. >> could you characterize those meetings? >> the ones i remember were dealing with coordination with tis on their f protections. >> at any point in the meetings today, but the concerned that we may not be ready trying to integrate all of these moving parts on october 1?

>> not in that context, no. >> in any context? >> concerns about whether agencies were working closely together, but not really in the context of october 1. >> one of the other things that keeps coming up repeatedly in this report is that, number one, fallinguld were he you requirements. it was not a consistent endpoint. there were multiple definitions of success, and in spite of all the concerns brought up to the report, it must launch at full volume. it almost sounds like a recipe for disaster. does it not? you're changing the deposition as he goes along. -- you are changing the definition as it goes along. you have to launch at full volume. that is a tall order, isn't it? >> it is. >> how does it make you feel to s out there,is wa

and other people know about it, people in the white house, in the agencies, and you've been the primary point man and nobody discussed that with you? how does that make you feel? by it not terribly hurt or were surprised by it. the information contained within it is something that i live on a day-to-day basis to try to deliver a working system -- >> you're playing into everyone's worst fears about what it is like to be in a bureaucracy. one of the things wrought up in this report is that there is not a single implementation leader. your timel during there has been a single implementation leader that you could look to for advice and direction through this? >> i think i looked to several, because of how -- >> name one. >> the gentleman's time has expired. will submit- we those questions for the record. i recommend -- i recognize that

determine from texas. >> thank you. i have questions about healthcare.gov, but i want to say it is frustrating for those of us on the side of the aisle who supported it, who worked a lot of times on the drafting of different versions of the affordable care act to see what 1 withoutn october the rollout, and that is the way we need to deal with it. we have been through the prescription drug plan with seniors, and that is the way you can get the numbers you really need. hopefully that will happen. lastaw is still there, and saturday in her district, at least in houston, because in texas we are unfortunate, we have so the highest percentages of numbers of uninsured people in the country, and our congressional district am a 42% of my constituents work and did not have insurance to their employer. they would be qualified to go to the aca. we did that by paper. i cannot remember and i was not

around when medicare was rolled out, that was the last time we rolled out anything by paper, but let me give you the results. three members of congress, the mayor of houston, the republican county judge, and the secretary of labor. we had 800 families show up on saturday morning and signed in, of course with multiple attendees per family. nearly 300 people set up follow up appointments after a navigator. he had 88 certified navigators there. we do not know how many applications were completed, because the number is still being tallied by navigators and hhs and our regional office out of dallas. there are people who want to do it. and we have to do it by paper, we will do it. that is the frustration we have. we want us to work because there are millions of people in our country who need this. the majority in house may not understand that, but i know in our just a do. -- in our district, they do. to partnk cms takes

the matter -- to heart the matter and everybody is your is about a improving this experience because we know in districts like yours there are quite a few number of people that need and want to enroll and uses benefit. this event. we we we are working hard to make this happen. >> there are a lot of smaller ones in our district, and partnering with media companies to get the message out. i have a question about healthcare.gov, and the goal we share as the implementation of the affordable care act. people can access the care they need when they need it. part of it requires that federal exchanges are secured pseudo-privacy one up the compromise. how is the data hub used to enroll applicants that would be different from processes used

from other agencies, such as the irs? >> how is the data hub different -- >> than the other agencies who -ave up and running ways of - >> the eligibility agency from medicare. every night ssa's field office load data about accretions into the medicare program, and we receive a file from them every night that was processed to update our systems so that providers can see new medicare beneficiaries coming into the system. lots of data moving between two organizations and it is stored and it is time intensive. the data services public goes out and for a requester of that data from a valid requester, it leaves the data where the back to transfers it the requester in a secure

fashion, does not remember the contents of that eight at them and -- does not remember the contents of that data, and about moving millions of records of data all the time, all at once, every day. it only transfers and updated to get the job done. >> for you at hhs when we have gone through two medicare and internet- enrolling by -- i mean, when we shifted from no one at this occurred -- at the social security office to do the paperwork -- you can do it online now? >> yes. >> there were glitches when it started? >> yes. >> it was built in over the time so you have time to problem solve. >> right. >> our problem is we do not have the time to problem solve. ssa pute mid 1990's,

up a benefit statement and then they had to bring it down and did not put it up until years later until they perfected it. >> i recognize the german from louisiana. >> i appreciate you having this hearing, and appreciate you coming to testify before the committee. we have had a number of hearings like this over the last few months, trying to find out first how the rollout was going to work and we have gotten testimony from the administration that the rollout was going to be fine. and then what is most frustrating is when the report came out, this mckinsey report, that chronicles the problems that were happening months ago in march and april, at the same time that administration officials were telling us that everything was going to be fine, and then telling american families that everything was going to be fine when october 1 hit, there are many things about this that troubled me, but

first, when i look at this, you say you have not seen this report to him and i have read through a number of these items that the candy pointed out in the report, that he were telling them to somebody at cms come around you come over you, under you, somewhere. these are things that should be best -- be basic testing requirement. i used to write software, wrote test plans for software rollouts, and many of these are commonsense things you do. if we made one line of code change, we would test that over and over in multiple ways to let alone major ways. what this report talks about is chaos at cms. nobody is in charge. they talk about the fact that you had multiple people that were making multiple changes and major design changes to the system just weeks prior to testing, prior to the rollout, without testing it. if you have a test lan question mark -- test plan? these are think you should have been doing anyway.

were you all making big changes all the way through and were you testing any of those changes, or saying, they told us october 1, roll it up matter what? >> you have asked a lot of questions in there. recall how toto address them. i think that certainly, yes, if you have this experience in software development, you need to have solid requirements before you can have good test cases in which to actually run tests. it is a dynamically changing environment of which if we had more time and that time would have been devoted to solidifying requirements that are translated from policy -- >> there were three years. this did not just get plopped on your desk. the law was passed and signed into law in 2000 and. there was a lot of time to prepare for it. major requirements were changed politicalre, some by reasons, by the obama

administration. somebody in cms, and if it was enner,u, maybe ms. tav somebody was making these changes and saying let's take a changes and do not test because we want to roll this thing out the matter what. orhaving written software test cases, unit or carmen's come from the business side, or the policy side. they are subject to change based on how your customer -=- >> the law did not change. the law was passed. for three years, that ought to change. the law was there. you know what those requirements were. you make changes in your karma is, you automate changes in your plan. >> the law is a high level attrition of her garments they could not develop code or test cases from. there needs to be a translation into lower-level details, and that is what i mean by schedule of challenges, that we have to receive those requirements and translate them into test cases, test data, to exercise the

system as well as build the system, too. >> they talk in the report that the contractor received absolutely conflicting direction between the various entities within cms, conflicting directions within cms. that is not a requirement change. that is one person saying to this and another person in the agency take do something differently. none of that is being tested in the meantime. that is not evolving requirements. that is chaos. within the obama administration, where they are changing things and multiple people are change and nobody is talking to anybody. >> i cannot speak to how they characterized it, but in cms we have medicaid and chip records, insurance exchange requirements, oversight requirements, -- >> and i know you have that. this reportine is lays out the chaos that was all of thist

information was known within the white house, but reports were being briefed within the white house. either obama did not know about people under him did not tell them, or he knew about it and went on misleading people anyway. if the president to not know about, this report says the white house absolutely knew what was going on and did not tell the president of he ought to be firing these people today. out, rolling out a project, this would be like buying a tv from amazon, and if he knew that it was not like that, and this report says they knew, he ought to go fire every single one of those people right now and hold them accountable or maybe that just as he did know about it, and we will see with the president says. this report is damning. >> can you clarify an answer you gave to the gentlemen here. i thought you said with more

time you would have done more testing, or something along those lines? >> that is what i mean is there is a schedule of challenges that you are trying to maximize the time that you have left as you are trying to extract a requirement or the policy that is being finalized. the longer policy takes to be finalized, the longer it takes to translate -- >> you wish you would have more time to test it? >> that is true with any project i have ever worked on. .> thank you, mr. chao i want to follow up on mr. scalise's line of question, the issue of whether or not you had three years to prepare for this. what was the deadline for state doingide when they were their own exchanges or going to participate in the federal exchange? >> the timeframe was the end of 2012. >> january 1 of this past year. when was the deadline for state

to decide whether they were going to enter into a partnership with the federal government? >> i believe it was the end of april of 2013. >> cms did not have three years to prepare, and there is probably no way to yes three years ago that only 14 states and the district of columbia were going to set up their own exchanges. the is -- was it anticipation that there would be more states who would do their exchanges? >> we were hoping so. >> it was not until this year that cms understood the magnitude of the volume of work of the website that it was going to have to come at it. >> correct, not such a clear binary decision. you do or you do not. there are still core nation that has to occur. >> thank you for that. obviously, when we talk about security, we are talking about

two separate issues. one is the vulnerability of the system to some kind of outside attack. i do not know why anyone would want to attack the federal exchange, but assuming that is an issue, and the second is the average citizen's concern about information that is there about them. i think that is one thing we're most interested in here. mr. dingell asked you directly about the fact that there really is not very much information on the website that would be considered private in nature. and i guess the question i would who areare people working with the exchange now to act or vulnerable breach of their privacy than they were under the prior system when the insurance companies had pages and pages and pages of health information, including every doctor they had ever visited, every restriction they had ever taken, every procedure

they have ever undergone over a certain time? would you say there was much more vulnerability under that system than there would be in the federal exchange? >> much more so because so much of the personal information come including health information, was involved in that process. >> ring the curse of questioning, we have -- during the course of question, with an acreage job of evoking the issue of whether the there was a security problem here. there is no evidence that there has been. that is -- there's no evidence here that would make us doubt that. that should encourage americans to participate more actively. and since one other thing has come up, and it involves the question of 80%, and something i want to clarify because the press reports have been that the ministry should has set as a metric that 80% will be able to get on the site and smoothly nrol for and role -- e

health care bridge at the end of the month. that's not mean that the remaining 20% will not be able to access affordable them a quality health insurance, is it? >> no. i cannot speak to the exact percentages, but i think there is a recognition that some people, whether it be a healthcare.gov or any system -- if you walked into an ssa field office, how many people can get their business done in one visit as compared to the greater majority of people? i think some people need extra help. they need assistance to navigate the process. and i think that is probably what they were referring to. >> thank you for that, and i want to do some shameless self- promotion for my statement out. isof last friday, kentucky operating its own exchange, 48,000 kentuckians are enrolled in new health insurance, 41% of

them are under the age of 35, over 452,000 visitors have gone to the website, 380,000 people have conducted preliminary screenings to find out if they are eligible for coverage, and most importantly, a.b., over almost 1000 businesses have begun the process of signing up for new coverage for their employees, and over 300 had actually been enrolled in a bit now to offer coverage. kentucky is doing well, and i hope the federal exchange will do just as well. i yield back. >> the german yields back. gentlemanou, -- the yield back. >> thank you. you replied earlier on a follow- up question that the chairman had, i believe you said you would have liked to have had more time for the testing. did you request for time from anyone? >> no. >> and can you tell why you did

not request more time? a targete i was given of october 1, and various other delivery dates, which i had to stay on schedule for. >> did you believe it was ready for october 1? >> i believe we did every the we could to make sure that the right priorities were set so that we could deliver a system on october 1. >> do you believe the system was delivered on october 1? >> it was. it was not performing as well as we liked and had more coaches than we anticipated, but we did deliver system on october 1. >> do you think which is is the proper word to use to describe the rollout? >> i think there are problems, defects, and glitches is just a word that is commonly used right now. >> does not seem to convey how serious the failure of the rollout has been, and so here we are, and one of the concerns that we have is what do you do about making sure that

personally identifiable information for those who sign up is protected. on the report that you have there on page 11, if i could get you to take a look at that real quick come on the mckinsey report -- at the bottom of page 11, it says -- and at the top it says options that could be implemented to help mitigate key risk -- it is name a single implementation leader and the process. has there been a single implementation leader named? that is thethink way it has been characterized before, but i think marilyn tavenner has accepted accountability. >> certainly, but that is not

saying she is supposed to be the single limitation leader. >> i did not see this until this very minute. >> you know, i spent time here when we were waiting on the time to question you. i went to the healthcare.gov si te, and it took a while to figure out how to get the information about how you protect yourself from fraud in the health insurance marketplace. it takes a couple of steps to get to the information. people probably armed forces people more a -- sophisticated than i am with be able to do this. you can't report -- you can report suspected fraud in two ways, and one way is to use the federal trade commission online complaint system. and i tried that and moment ago, and it was not very successful.

it says you can call your local police department, and that it says you can visit a site, the federal trade commission, to learn more about identity theft. the second choice is called a health insurance market place call center, and it gives that number. if you are the victim of personally identifiable information being fraudulently released or obtained, who would you call first under that scenario? >> the list of call center number, the market place call center. if you're in a federally authoritative marketplace. >> it is explained what happened and your information will be handled appropriately. how do you define that? had you get someone's identity back once there has been identity theft? >> there needs to be an analysis and collection of information make sure what type of situation occurred and then make decisions going forward. >> this is a critical matter, so some determination made -- what

is the timeframe? how quickly can someone's life be put together if this were to happen? >> it is situationally dependent, and i cannot -- i am not comfortable to give you an answer right off. >> you said that steps were being taken to prevent unauthorized access to the site. what about those who may have authorized access but released it in an unauthorized manner? what protections are in put in there, particularly for those who are navigators and a situation where there has been a background check allows immersive part in the state? how is that being handled with the use of navigators? >> the premise is when we issue a grant to a navigator or an organization or we signed a computer matching agreement with a state that there are rules of and certain

requirements that are seceded the signing that agreement or receiving the grant. >> do have a central reporting location of navigators who are in violation? >> i would have to check. >> let us know. my time is expired. >> mr. chairman, thank you so much. you were just presented with a whole series of hypotheticals. have any of those hypotheticals happened? >> no, not to our knowledge, no. >> i appreciate that, and i was just someone maliciously using information in a way that would not be allowed, with that be a crime? could european that question again? thef someone hacked into website and used information in a way that they would not be allowed to use it, with that be a crime? >> yes. >> and we can prosecute those individuals? >> yes. >> we should encourage anybody

who and prosecute anybody who is hacking this website. there was a hearing that we had on lifelines, and some of my republican colleagues were encouraging members, citizens of the united states, to go to visit a website to sign up for a lifeline or to get information from the website as to the accuracy of what the program is about. an hour later, the website was taken down, and me and another punishment asked the fcc to look into the matter, but the website is now down. i think we as members of congress need to be careful with how we are purporting information out to the american people. we need to be careful about this. there is not a member on this committee that does not believe that we should get the website working, that we need to get to the facts of what is happening,

and with that being said, i guess two things. mr. chairman, there is a report that was published on april 24 of 2012 entitled cybersecurity impacts threatening the nation, and i would like to enter this into the record. everybody -- i invite to take a look at this. it was a homeland secure the committee talking about threats our nation is facing. intelligence community, homeland security. numbers of congress websites that have been hacked into. we need to do more to make sure you're keeping information secure. has been talked about a bit, but on the front page of "the washington post," there was an article linked b that describes an analysis in 2013 that identifies risks in healthcare.gov. did you see the report at the time it was published in march

and april of 2013? >> no, i did not. >> so you're not the best person to comment on how hhs responded to its findings? >> yes. >> this illustrates the number of problems and how this has been handled. the perception that has been created when you withhold documents from the committee, and when you play games with leaking material to that press without context, it makes it appear your more interested in running a partisan investigation and finding that fact. i hope that is of the case and believe that not to be true. we need to work together to get to the bottom of this. with that being said, mr. chao, what efforts has the department of health and human services and taking to address ongoing threats? >> we listed as part of our mitigation strategy daily and weekly security testing and scans, which is something that we always do, but in this case,

we do it more friendly because we understand the sensitive thcare.gov and the trust and confidence we have obtained from people to come and use the site. >> how is the department court mating with other agencies to maintain websites that gather personal information? all ofink we work with our key partners that are connected to the hub to make sure that we function under what we call i harmonized privacy and security framework, and along with the states, have a process and program in place to handle certain situations in which there are incidents that need to be managed about potential beta potential data breaches. we have a set of operational procedures in place in coordinating against -- across these agencies. include the intelligence community, the

department of homeland security? >> yes. >> very good. i hope it is clear to you, mr. chao, to the president, that we are not happy with the rollout. we need to get this working. you're too many vulnerable americans who need access to care. you need to make sure we get them that coverage in the same way protecting that information, but it is a big support that no longer will individuals have to report the kinds of illnesses or accidents they've had in the past so they can get care in the future. i yield back. >> the gentleman's document will be admitted into the record. >> thank you, and i thank you, mr. chao. last week the president met with several representatives of the insurance industry to discuss a solution that may be possible in light of the healthcare.gov debacle. if you had conversations about changes you can make to the site to assist the insurance industry? >> i think part of the strategy

-- i have not spoken to the issue myself or been part of those meetings, but i think as part of the strategy under the administrator, to approve -- to improve the experience of consumers, but that involves key third parties that are also key to this equation of getting and rolled and working with issuers to fix certain aspects of the systems to make it work better. >> have you had discussions with them for them to directly and rolled -- enroll/? >> we have designed direct enrollment into the website or part of that architecture to accommodate that. >> that feature has been turned on or not? >> it was not working well initially, like many other things, but we have been performing fixes and optimizing it and working with issuers to get direct enrollment up.

>> do you have discussions with issuers about subsidies? >> there is a series of security-- >> that is a yes, then? >> yes. >> i thank you for that. going back to the question about the future of the website, will that happen the future, discussions about giving insurers direct access for subsidies? >> it is not direct access. it is more of a handoff, a secure handoff in which they have collected enough information about the applicant or an agent and broker, and this person has given authorization for a consent to work with them as a third-party. >> that is a yes, again, as well? directedot accessed or to eligibility information. >> the webs best the insurance

companies will be getting access? >> it will not be calculated. >> they will have information for the subsidies? >> only as a result of the market place handing that they become not touching that eligibility data themselves. >> when the committee reviews materials that certain parts of completed, were not what portion of the website remain to be created on october 1? >> i do not have an exact percentage. i think some of previous conversations when people asked about whether if things were complete, i look at it in terms of overall marketplace systems -- >> you have never talked about what is complete, what is not complete -- >> there was a set of priority functions that need to be in place. for example, you had to authenticate an individual. it is a key function -- >> how much do we have to build today? 50%?

>> is an approximation. we are probably sitting between 50% and 70% -- >> that needs to be built still? >> because we still need to know the payment systems to make payments in january. >> 60% still needs to be dealt? >> it is not just a website. it is the enteral facilitated -- it is the federal facilitated market base. the online application determination, getting and rolled them generating enrollment transaction, that is 100% there. what i'm talking about -- >> the entire system is 70% away from being a plate? >> the back office systems, the accounting systems -- >> thank you. of those 70% of systems still being built, how will they be tested? >> you mean there are mating 40% -- you mean the remaining four

percent? >> in the same exact manner as everything else. >> is difficult to review the remaining parts of the website while operating? it is difficult to review it while it is in operation, correct? >> it does not involve the front part. when we tried it out late payments, to do data matches, that does not affect website operation. >> how long will you test those parts you're building? >> an ongoing basis. >> is appropriate given the performance of the website, to launch any new applications without testing them heavily before they go live? >> we are testing. >> i have said or questions that will follow up, but thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. thanks for the hearing. there is a mutual desire to get

iss thing to work, and their two models we could use to deal with the failed rollout. one is to fix it and the other fodder toit as relitigate the battle about whether health care is the law of the land. my hope is we are past that. there's an absolute urgency to make things work. i know that is your job, mr. chao. i want to put this in context. we had a big battle in this congress. i was not here -- over the passage of medicare part d. it was a largely partisan vote. the republicans under george whoosh were for it. most of the democrats were against it. but it passed in a very close, tense good. that as itnding is went into the implementation phase, which required a computer

program and a website, there were lots of significant difficulties with that program. and there were concerns about having it work, and i want to ask you a little bit about that history so we have a context for the challenges we have today. there an excuse, because is real unity about needing to get this fixed. are the actions we take about getting it fixed or about trying to de-real and scuttle the overall health care or graham question mark americo will have to judge. can you give us a sense of what was going on inside the agency when you were preparing the medicare part d website in 2005, and were there concerns and issues that needed to be addressed then? >> the biggest and most

prominent example that i can recall was the concern around assigningnment and medicare eligibles to receive the part d benefit and switching them over january 1 and we had sent these enrollment files out to the lands, the health plans them or part d sponsors, around november, and in december, it , last-e realization minute realization that pharmacists and pharmacies who are on the frontline of helping -- thesefficient areas beneficiaries required some access to information to help them navigate this new change. as an example, we scrambled and we developed a method for pharmacies to actually get toess through authorizations

data forand rome and the eligibles that were enrolled , so at the point of say they could at least do things like two-day fills, figure out what plan they were in, and that was an example that i recall was a message scribble, time crunch, had to get it in place, lots of working around the clock, lots of urgency, pushing many, many people, not just on a contractor and the staff side but working with the prescription drug industry as a whole, including pharmacists, to make this happen. continuedse problems after the january 1 rollout that, i understand? >> correct. it was not perfected. it is not so much a technical issue. when you introduce a new business process, for example, a procedure in an administration aspect of health care, it takes people time to understand how that works as compared to

learning for data system-- websitehearing on the continues. we are continuing our coverage online at www.c-span.org. the house is returning next. members will consider two bills.