Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  November 15, 2013 7:29pm-8:00pm EST

7:29 pm
like for example, the front part, the identity management part, where we're going to apply some improvement that's going to go to 30,000 registrations per hour. >> let me tell you the reason why i ask. i've done the numbers. if you take the number of uninsured americans that are out there, and if they got on the system today, 24 hours a day, which we know doesn't happen, it would be 43,000 people an hour. so we're building a system that won't even take care of the uninsured people we have right now. so how are we going to be successful? >> i'd like to look at your calculations in how -- >> 50 million people. you can do it over the next 48 days. >> i don't think the estimates were -- >> i know the estimates weren't there, but if you do the math, that's how it works. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'm sorry that you have to look at his figures. in fact, the burn rate necessary to get done wasn't understood from day one. and the surge requirement at
7:30 pm
4:30 in the afternoon or 5:30 in the afternoon pacific time wasn't in fact what you were looking at. because i know mr. vanroers kel would understand you need two or three or four times the capacity of when people are actually going to log on and try to do it. miss loomis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chao, you said high risk is a vulnerability that could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on individuals, or organizational operations or assets. i want to focus on the part about the severe or catastrophic adverse effect on individuals. is it true that there were two high risks that were continued to be found related to the market place information systems, but you weren't told about them at the time? >> i think you're referring to the september 3rd authorization
7:31 pm
to operate? >> i am. i am. >> those two findings were, i think, earlier in the hearing today, we clarified that that was dealing with two components of the marketplace systems that deal with plans submitting dental and health plan information, qualified health plan, and didn't involve any personally identifiable information. >> the memo i have is redacted. so it doesn't -- i don't have the information that you've just testified to. because of the redactions in the memo. so maybe that is correct. maybe it's not. are you testifying that that is absolutely what it's about? >> yes. because i saw an unredacted version that was handed by committee staffers to me last week, and if it's been redacted, it's been redacted by someone else. >> did one of the risks outlined in this memo pertain to the protection of financial or privacy data? >> i don't have it right in
7:32 pm
front of me. i think there was a section, but i don't recall seeing that. >> so you don't know whether financial and privacy data were outlined as a risk in this memo? >> i don't believe so, because it dealt with our plan management, or our qualified health plan submission module, which are data that's submitted by issuers, and dental providers. >> is it true that the internal memo, this memo, outlined one of these risks as the threat and risk potential are limitless? >> no, i think it's referring to a very specific type of risk when you allow an upload of a file that has an internal macro that runs. but it's not about people. this is not personally identifiable information. >> what is it about? >> it's a plan submitting their network adequacy.
7:33 pm
it's basically work sheets that contain information about the benefit data that each issuer submits. >> okay. i'm going to switch gears. mr. chao, did you brief white house officials prior to october 1st about the status of the website? >> no, not directly about the website. >> who did? >> i don't know. >> mr. bateman, did you? >> i did not. >> mr. vanroekel? >> not only do i not know that happened, i don't know, and i did not. >> when mr. jordan asked you some questions, one of the things that he asked you was about your involvement in meetings. he was specifically referencing mrs. -- or ms. -- i'm looking for the name. well, let me just ask you this. were any of the meetings that you attended at the white house?
7:34 pm
>> it depends how you describe the white house. >> the treasury, old executive office building and new -- >> i didn't know if you talked physical or organizational. >> organizational. >> i work at an agency that is part of the executive office of the president. so every meeting i have is considered sort of part of 9 -- of that organization. >> was ms. lambeau present? >> as i answered in my question to mr. jordan, one or two meetings, yes. >> what were those meetings about? >> they were asking actually my private sector advice on demand generation and marketing to young people. how to use social media to reach out to uninsured americans. >> so who was briefing the white house about the status of the website? no one? did no one brief the white house about the status of the website
7:35 pm
before october 1st? mr. chao? >> not me personally, but our administrator, marilyn, is certainly representing the agency. so you might want to ask her. >> so we don't know whether the status of the federal exchange and the data hub were ever a focus of meetings between white house and hhs personnel before october 1st? >> i think what i said earlier, in the meetings i attended, i provided status briefings on the progress of certain i.t. builds, like the data services hub. >> and your reports on the status of the builds set off alarm bells with them? >> no. because the data services hub was actually performing well, and on time. and it was received to operate
7:36 pm
in august. >> what happened between august and october 1st? >> i didn't attend any white house meetings. >> what happened with the performance of the hub? >> the hub is doing fine. it's doing what it's intended to do. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i'll be brief. mr. chao, the eidm, or what i call the front door, is what didn't perform well, isn't that true? >> correct. >> and since the system was designed so that you had to go through the front door to get to anything else, it doesn't really matter if you had 60,000, 600,000 or 60 million capability, if the american people had to go through that front door, and only six got to the end, we can presume that the number that existed just prior to launch of 1,100 in that so-called minimized test, or as you said it was only one-tenth the amount, really wasn't true. the truth is, when people got
7:37 pm
time-outs as they tried to register, as they tried to go through the eidm, the marketplace hub, one that you forced them through by, in september, determining they could not look at a splash page to get price idea, if nothing else was available, that front door being blocked is essentially the reason that the american people have wasted, for the most part, a month trying to get registered, isn't that true? >> no, that's not true. >> yeah, well, it is. mr. baitman, where are you, as you're critically part of this process, where were you -- mr. park was brought in afterwards. where were you in the months and years leading up to this? why is it that you were not aware that on day one, this product was going to fail to launch in any legitimate acceptabaccept ab able way? >> hhs is a federated agency. the jo be for running -- >> not your job. this is an orphan.
7:38 pm
mr. vanroekel, you came out of the private sector. bill gates and steve balmer and a lot of other people at microsoft would have had somebody's net hung, maybe not literally, and maybe not fired them, but they would would want to know, demand to know, steve jobs when he was alive over at apple, or in the other programs, they would have said, who the blank is responsible for this failure? can you tell me today whose job it was to make sure that we didn't have this dreadful failure to launch, that didn't call the one person that should have known and didn't do their job? one person. who was that person? >> as i said earlier, i wasn't close to the actual development. i'm not in a position to make that call. >> i had you, mr. park, mr. baitman and mr. chao, none of you today can tell us who failed to do their job. and as a result, the american
7:39 pm
people lost a month of any effective, real ability to sign up. this website was dead at launch for all practical purposes. and i'm sorry, mr. chao, but you can give me all the numbers you want, six on the first day, 240 on the second day when millions of americans were trying to make this work. we may disagree on obama care, but we don't disagree that that was unacceptable. you heard it on both sides of the aisle. mr. vanroekel, i think you failed to understand, you and mr. baitman and all of you in the administration who were allowed to go to those meetings, mr. powner would tell you that best practices should be a lot more like it is at toyota company. or honda. in the production line, one person who sees a bad car coming down is allowed to stop the production line. in this case, a really defective, something that would make the edsel look like a
7:40 pm
success story launched on october 1st, and nobody said here today, or for that matter since i've been listening to the various hearings, nobody said, i should have pulled the stop button. mr. chao, you refuse to answer or give a grade. you all refuse to answer or give a grade. i'm going to give it a grade. this was an "f." in a pass/fail, this was a fail. every one of you should have been close enough to know there was something wrong, to ask somebody in one of those many meetings, are we sure this is going to work. and at least get an assurance from somebody that it would. mr. powner, i want to thank you for being here today, because although many people have talked about fatara and what we need to do in legislation, you're the only person here that represents an organization that has said, there's a right way to do it, we've looked at agencies of the
7:41 pm
federal government who have done it right, and like you, we normally look at the agencies that fail. we look at the program on a right path that failed and lost us $1 billion. we're looking at a failure that cost the american people millions of their hours, frustrated trying to get online to check on whether or not health care's going to be more affordable for them. so i look forward to all of you being part of the process of best practices in your job going forward. but i look also with all of you realizing that without legislative change, we will be back here again with everybody saying, i didn't fail to do my job, even when a product failed to launch. and with that, you're dismissed. we'll set up the next panel for after the vote. a live look at the u.s. capitol now, where earlier today the house passed a measure to allow insurers to sell individual health policies in 2014, that were in effect as of january 1st, 2013.
7:42 pm
even if they don't meet the minimum requirements set by the president's health care law. the vote was 267-157. the associated press writing about today's house action saying that, republicans renewed an assault on president barack obama's health care overhaul, and his own credibility on friday, as they pushed toward house passage of a measure to let insurers keep offering health coverage that fall short of the law's standards. a.p. continues a day earlier. the president changed course in the face of a public uproar and said he would take administrative action, which does not need congressional approval, to let companies continue selling such plans for at least another year. unlike the house gop bill, he would permit such sales to insurers existing customers only, not to new ones. the white house said late thursday the president plans to veto the gop legislation. that, again, from the associated press. you can see today's debate in
7:43 pm
the house in our video library at policymakers, business leaders, and journalists gathered in washington this week to discuss a range of domestic and national security issues. the washington ideas forum is hosted pi the museum, the aspen institute and the atlantic. up next, the discussion on the future of museums. thanks very much. i'm here with a man whose work i deeply admire, a man who's taken some brave and difficult and controversial stances on some of the most difficult issues that face art museums in the country today. so, let's launch into the first question. and the first big story that's out there, everybody's talking about it. it's the case of a trove of art
7:44 pm
that's been found in an apartment in munich. apparently it's been sitting there for decades, likely acquired during the nazi era, maybe under some very unfortunate conditions in which people may have been required to sell art under duress or simply had it for fitted. given your position, do you have any knowledge, privy in this fascinating story? >> no, i only know what i've read and probably everybody's read in the newspaper. it's a little confusing because we don't know very much. there's interesting questions about it, i think. one of the -- as you all know, this is the son of a man who was one of the four art dealers of the nazis identified as able to sell these so-called works of art that they wanted to remove from germany. and the nazis removed such art from individuals as well as from state museums. they're works of art that came from museums germany's never claimed back. that was an act of a government action. it's from private individuals. so we don't know, first, among
7:45 pm
these so many works of art, maybe 1,200 works of art, how many were taken from private individuals, how many from state collections. we don't even know what comprises these objects, because we've never seen them. they've -- only a number of people working on them within germany has seen them. we don't know if they're authentic, whether they're good condition. there are said to be some 200 some odd paintings, and somebody said they were worth $1.3 million. no one we know has been able to put a dollar to it. it's confusing at this time. the big question is, why did we learn about it this way. and why wasn't -- because this is something that the german government has been working on for at least a year, so far as we know. but they didn't do it in a transparent way. it's gotten very confusing. >> we live in an age in which we can crowd source information very efficiently. but the german government's been sitting on this, and released
7:46 pm
only 10 or 20 images of paintings. why keep that information so close to the vest? >> well, i don't know, the german's government been very good about this matter. they set up research centers. you know, with digitized information. in promoting the geddy research institute, it's working with two different libraries in germany. has also developed an online search data base of 250,000 records. and so we're in contact with them on this matter. but why they did it. the only answer one can come up with is that this is very deliberate, slow, painstaking work, and they thought it would be a good idea to get that done first before answering all these claims that are now going to come. it probably was a good way in a certain way, and then it turned out to be a bad idea because it looked like they were hiding something. there's nothing the germans have indicated that they would ever hide something.
7:47 pm
>> given the people that may legitimately laughhave a claim this art, is the rate at which this is unfolding, is that a reasonable process? >> that's a good question. it's a real sense of urgency. this is the generation, this is the last decade or two of that generation. this is the time in which to restore a relationship with these individuals, and with the people they are associated with. but it has to be a deliberate process. it has to get to the right people. it's not a very easy thing to resolve. to rush it is likely to make some mistakes, and one might pay for it later. sadly, it is a painful process. but gratefully, it's coming at this time. and there is a sense of urgency, but it needs to be done very carefully. >> let me move on to another question, set of questions that involve returning art, or changing the ownership of art. and those are the questions that surround antiquities that may be
7:48 pm
claimed by foreign governments, antiquities sitting in american museums, for instance, at the geddy. the "times" ran a story earlier this year, that said the great give-back. are we at a crisis point now where we're going to see the floodgates open and a lot of material that's been held in american museums for decades being returned to countries such as turkey and italy and china and cambodia? >> this is the kind of question about which my views are sometimes held to be controversial. i recognize that they're held to be controversial only by people who disagree with me. but people who agree with me don't find them controversial at all. so i don't quite understand the term. but there's a steady stream of claims made on european and north american museums by countries that one calls source countries. countries that have a long history of having antiquities on their -- within the jurisdiction
7:49 pm
of the modern states, whether it be turkey, greece, or egypt, or jordan, or syria even, or italy or sicily. and it tends to come up, you know, when new information is found. that's when it should come up. because these are generally good faith acquisitions, purchases by museums, and who do research on the objects before they buy them. of course, the risk is taken when buying something. a financial risk, financial risk, legal risk. you don't do this easily and simply. you do it after a great deal of labor with all the known information. but sometimes new information comes up. that's what happened in the getty some years ago. it was, as you'll remember, a discovery by the italian authorities when they raided a warehouse in switzerland that they found all this information. and in that information was convincing information that the -- some of the things that the getty has, some of the things that the metropolitan, boston museum, princeton, other museums in this country had.
7:50 pm
they were removed from italy illegally or inappropriately, so they were returned. the evidence convinced everyone that these museums that they identified didn't hold clear ti. so that's when you do return such things. you don't return them because someone claims them without evidence. sometimes, and i think this is very tricky and it interests me a great deal. i'm interested in settling some -- answering some questions in terms of the world in which we now live. we live in a very globalized, multiethnic world where people are moving across borders very regularly. we are spreading throughout the world from every corner of the world a material culture whether it's movies, music, literature, it's when it's material culture, things that one can see and hold that are unique that there seems to be a problem of their
7:51 pm
mobility. when many of the things were made as mobile objects, they were made by artists who came across similarly other strange and wonderful things and they were inspired to make new things because of that. and i think it's extremely important for us -- i should stop. it's important for us living in the world we live, binding ourselves in this country or southeast asia, east asia, we're going to be finding ourselves living next to people who are strange to us, who don't share the same immediate history that we have. and getting to know the cultures in which they historically identify is a way of getting to know them. it's important for us in the interest of the world that we share cultures. now that could be either by loan or by purchase, but it's about access to wonderful things. the history of which we have a common stake in which we have a
7:52 pm
common stake. however, governments in some cases want to retain within their jurisdictions because of a national ideology associated with them. the claims made on these objects that they share a soul with the people of the region. i think the question of whether an object, a work of art, a sculpture, has a soul is a question less better answered by philosophers than politicians. but it gets to that level of passion and it's usually by the government's in power speaking on behalf of all of the citizens or all of the subjects of that authority even when they discriminate against classes of those subjects or those social securitys whether it's the curds kurds in turkey or in china,
7:53 pm
national identity and ethnic ethnicities don't map neatly in the modern era. >> let me play devil's advocate for a moment in the role of somebody who might be thinking of your views as controversial. the argument is about the illegal trade and antiquities of sites and things that museums can and can't do to try and curve that trade. the argument is that if you've got an artist displaying and holding objects that are not pronounced before the '70s or earlier, then you're ating and abetting that. even more than that, you're encourage i encouraging people to go and lute archaeological sites to find this material and get it it
7:54 pm
into the trade. what do you feel about the museum role? >>. usually it's on objects that have been in museums collections for a long time for 20, 30, 40, 50 years. so the relationship between the acquisition of that only and any recent luting is very distant. it doesn't seem the repateuation claim. however, the acquisition of recently discovered works of art is very kpcomplicated by that. one wants to be certain, first of all, that something has been removed legally if one can't determine that there's some evident ri basis. one. s to know that it doesn't incentivize someone to lute and want to be in a chain that close to luting. what i would say is luting is a very complicated thing. and not acquiring antiquities is not going to prevent luting. they don't wake up one day and decide between a lawyer and a lu luter.
7:55 pm
these are people many failed states and are willing to risk their lives because they could lose their lives if they are found guilty. so to prevent looting is going to require a much larger set of activities that's going to have to restore a stable economy, stop warfare, stop sectarian violence, stop acquiring and incentivizing looters. no museum in north america or europe is acquiring things that haven't been outside of the country prior to 1970 because we have made a decision not to do so. so if looting is going on on the scale that it is said is going on, it's going on and other people are buying it. where they are buying it and where it's going, i don't know. it's a very serious problem. once something has been taken from the ground, it's not going back in the ground. the record has been destroyed. we have lost knowledge. >> let me bring us o washington for a moment. the smithsonian is looking for a new secretary. this is one of the most powerful
7:56 pm
and influential positions in this country, even internationally. a lot of conversation about what the skill set for that job should be, the balance between fundraising, maybe even between whether this person comes from the sciences or humanities. what would your ideal secretary look like? and you can name names. >> i think like any institution of great consequence, the leader would need to have -- would need to consider three areas of qualities. one is quality of self. what is character of this person? does this person have integrity, good judgment, and does this person have the energy, the compatibility, the decisiveness, all those qualities. and experience. what kind of experience does this person have. it's going to lend him or her likely of success in leading an
7:57 pm
institution of that complexity. that person is likely to be someone who comes from a university or has had long standing experience in university. because the university president or anyone who is familiar with being an administrator in a high position of the university knows that it is its own bottom. everyone is fighting over everything and the director has very little direct influence. the director has to articulate a vision and persuade people to follow him or her. has to make tough personnel decisi decisions, but is going to have to be able to lead by example. someone has to be able to articulate. that comes to the vision, the third category of the person. what kind of vision do they have so that people are going to want to follow. what story are they going to tell that are going to convince, in this case, the smithsonian, people that are needed to give money. so the person is going to have to have a story. a story about curiosity of the
7:58 pm
world. that's true whether the sciences or arts or history. in that sense, they are quite similar. they are about research, education, access. and access in this day in age by digital means is a lot. this person is going to have to be knowledgeable of or encouraging of the digital access as well as digitized resources for research and education that comes associated with it. so it's a complicated job, but the current secretary has done a terrific job. i'm sure there are people out there who will be able to follow his good footsteps. >> let me ask you about your career. you were in chicago. now you're on the left coast incidentally a wonderful show at the national museum right now but is culture different out there? >> is culture different out there? that's a tough question.
7:59 pm
i think basically it's not different, however, it's accessed differently. which is to say los angeles isn't a 19th century city. it's a mid-20th century city. it's a city that's strung out. it's not a city that's like chicago is from the park. where you have rings of avenues accessing it it. so people don't have ta clear identification with a single institution. people have identifications with multiple institutions. they don't have the benefit that they are being multigenerational with it. so it's going to sound terrible, but it maybe it's a bit more retail in los angeles. i don't mean exchange of money. it's much more about visits. it's not about integrating that institution yet into one's own narrative and life and family life. >> you get a sense of that by the exhibition where there's a lot of w


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on