quorum call:

mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: mr. president, now that the senate has passed a comprehensive addiction and recovery act, i'd like to take a few moments to reflect on what i believe is going to be additional steps needed to really put an end to the horrible opioid epidemic. this is a horrible, horrible health scourge that has carve add path of destruction -- carved a path of destruction throughout communities in oregon and across our country. now, over the last several

weeks, i have traveled around oregon to spend time listening to experts. we heard powerful testimony in the finance committee, and i've spoken with colleagues here in the senate about the urgency and the importance, the scale of this national crisis. the message has been very clear: our country is paying for a distorted set of priorities. our citizens get hooked on opioids. there's not enough treatment and enforcement falls short. my view is, that's a trifecta of misplaced priorities. what it says to me is our country needs a fresh approach where prevention, better treatment, and tougher enforcement work in tandem. you've got to have all three working together to really get on top of this horrible,

horrible health scourge. the congress ought to be working over-tomb on policies -- overtime on policies that start moving our nation towards this tandem approach that i've described. now, my view is the bill that was passed by the senate takes the first step towards updating the country's out-of-date approach to substance abuse. more needs to be done, and that's what i and other colleagues have pushed hard to do. i very much hope that more can be done in this congress. now, as the ranking member of the finance committee, we're required to pay for medicare and medicaid. and i'd like to spend a few minutes talking about the fundamental role that that's going to play in stemming the tide of opioid abuse. these are bedrock health programs, and they're expected

to account for over a third of substance abuse-related spending in the upcoming years. we're talking, mr. president, about billions and billions of dollars. medicare and medicaid have an important role when it comes to preventing addiction at its source. and talking about prevention has to include how these drugs are prescribed in the first place. as i visited with citizens around oregon, i was struck, mr. president -- and i know of the president's expertise in health care, as a practitioner -- i was struck by what i have come to call the prescription pendulum. doctors were once criticized for not treating pain aggressively enough. and today they are criticized for prescribing too many opioids to manage pain. so in the days ahead, our country is going to have to look

for solutions that get the balance right. during the debate on this bill, the senate considered an amendment i wrote that would have doubled the penalties for opioid manufacturers who give kickbacks to prescribers and put profits over patients. it's been well-documented in recent years that companies are pushing the unapproved use of some drugs at the expense of patient safety. it's high time for real accountability when the manufacturers go too far. my amendment would also have made significant progress to connect those struggling with addiction to appropriate treatment. some parts of the bill the senate passed crack down on those on medicare who are suspected of abusing opioids. it's an enforcement-only approach, and my view is,

mr. president, the story cannot stop there. without treatment, those addicted to opioids might try to get their pills on the street or turn to heroin. my amendment would have ensured that those who are at risk for opioid abuse are connected to meaningful treatment choices so they could better manage their pain and limit excessive prescriptions. i also proposed an amendment that would have helped some of the most vulnerable americans: pregnant women on medicaid who struggle with addiction. the costs of inaction here add up every single day for moms and their babies. a recent reuters investigation found that, on average, an opioid-dependent baby is born every 19 minutes. these are high-risk pregnancies that can have lifelong consequences for mothers and

their children. some of these babies, trag ukely, aren't going -- some of these barks tragically, aren't going to make it. many of them are going to be placed in foster care if their mothers cannot break their addictions. so it is critical that these women have and retain full access to pre- and postnatal care as well addiction treatment. yet today, if a pregnant woman on medicaid receives treatment for drug or alcohol dependency, in certain inpatient facilities, that woman loses her health coverage for the duration of their stay. mr. president, that just defies common sense. now, the good news here is the country has a pretty good idea of a straightforward solution. there's no reason someone who's pregnant should lose access to their health insurance. this amendment simply states

that no pregnant woman would lose her medicaid while she receives treatment for addiction. to be clear, this amendment doesn't instruct medicaid to pay for these treatment services. that charge requires a broader debate. i do believe, thoab, in the meantime, access to services like prenatal care should not be restricted for pregnant women who want to receive care for their addiction. i think it's unfortunate that these amendments didn't make it into the senate legislation today, but i've seen a number of times, mr. president, and i look forward to working with my colleague who's new in the senate, that sometimes you don't win on day one, and you've got to come back again and again and again. a few weeks ago a bill that i authored well over a decade ago, the internet tax freedom act,

finally got passed permanently into law. so sometimes when something's important, you've just got to stay at it. and i want my colleagues to know that i think the cara bill is a good start. it focuses on prevention. but unless you get that -- excuse me. it focuses on enforcement. unless you get the prevention and treatment part of this in addition to enforcement, you're not going to get the job done properly. the congress obviously has some tough choices to make. the prevention and treatment aren't addressed up front, costs are going to be even high higher. pregnant mothers giving birth to opioid dependent babies. e.m.t.'s dealing with overdose calls every night. county jails taking place of needed treatment. able-bodied adults in the streets instead of working at a family-wage job. american tax dollars need to be

spent more wisely, and it's my view that the senate has got to come back to this issue, has got to come back to this issue and really get the job done right. i indicated earlier that i'm very much aware of the president of the senate's expertise in health care and involvement as a practitioner and i look back, as i said, to how the prescription pendulum has moved. it wasn't very long ago when i was of the view that there really wasn't enough done to manage pain. so you saw as patients began to insist on those kinds of drugs and therapies that would help them with their pain, that they were able to get relief. the pendulum may have swung the other way now, and there's too much prescribing. i don't pretend to be the authority on how to get the

prescription pendulum right. but i do know from listening to practitioners in the field to citizens to grieving parents that you've got to have more than enforcement. that's what the senate has done with the bill that was passed today. the story must not end there. the senate can do better in the days ahead. the senate can fill in the rest of the story and ensure that in addition to enforcement there will be prevention, there will be treatment and a sensible policy that ensures that these three priorities work in tandem is what the senate pursues on a bipartisan basis in the days ahead. mr. president, i want to turn briefly to another issue, and i would ask unanimous consent that my remarks here be printed separately in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i want to spend just a few minutes to discuss women's health care. because i believe women's health care in america is in trouble, very deep trouble. and it's in trouble in the congress, it's in trouble in the courts, and it's in trouble in our statehouses. and in these bodies, i think that there really is a serious risk to women's access to affordable high-quality health care. there's an assault, an assault on women's right to choose their own physicians and their own providers. and that assault is wrong. drip by drip, state by state, the assault goes on. the latest example is in florida

where lawmakers seem to be heading down the same road that texas and louisiana have traveled, restricting the choices of women. this all began with a texas law, hb-2 that's been challenged all the way to the united states supreme court. arguments were heard just last week. hb-2's backers have argued that the laws about protecting women patients. my view is that's pretty much fiction. hb-2 has very little to do with pem's health. it's -- with women's health. it's really a thinly veiled scheme to block women's health choices with unjustifiable requirements for abortion clinics. the a.m.a. and the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, people who obviously have expertise on this issue, have said very clearly in a legal brief, an amicus brief

that the restrictions are -- and i quote here -- "contrary to accepted medical practice and are not based on scientific evidence." despite the advice of the american medical association, the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists, texas went ahead with the law anyway. as it stands the number of clinics that provide abortion care will drop by more than three-quarters. hb-2's backers say it's about preventing complications from abortions. yet, they ignore other procedures, colonoscopies, for example, that have much higher rates of complications. hb-2's backers say women who live where these clinics have shuttered can go to other states. but the fact is that we're hearing that that really isn't an option for so many women. now, louisiana just passed its

own version of the hb-2. just yesterday the news came down that legislators in florida have passed a similar measure. the florida bill goes one dangerous step further by going after funding for planned parenthood. attacks on planned parenthood aren't anything new, not in statehouses like tallahasee or here in the congress. when you threaten planned parenthood in this way, you're going far beyond restricting access to abortion. here's the list of vital women's health care services which have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. and these services, these services which have nothing to do with abortion are under threat. pregnancy tests, birth control, prenatal services, h.i.v. tests,

cancer screenings, vaccinations, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, basic physical exams, treatment for chronic conditions, pediatric care, hospital and specialist referrals, adoption referrals, nutrition programs. the fact is this assault on women's health care is going to hit disadvantaged, struggling women hard across our country. there are countless women across america enrolled in medicaid who rely on planned parenthood and similar programs for their basic, essential medical care. it's really their first line of defense for basic health services, particularly in rural communities, in rural oregon the women know and trust their doctors at those clinics. and without those clinics, they

aren't going to have anywhere to turn for their care. if you're working an hourly job, you've got kids to care for on your own, pretty clear you're not going to find an easy way to take a day off work or travel far away for medical care. yet, these are the kind of laws that are being passed in states across america. these antiwomen laws are unfair, they're dangerous. mr. president, this won't be the last time that i come to the floor to discuss this. my view is access to health care for women in this country is in trouble, and a number of the services that i've talked about are essentially part of what is a constitutional right, a constitutional right. it doesn't just mean it's a

constitutional right if you're well off. it's a constitutional right because the united states supreme court has said it. and i intend to defend that constitutional right. i intend to do everything i can to build bipartisan support so that instead of women's health services being in deep trouble as i've described today, women can know that those essential services are available for them across our country. mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. heitkamp: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. heitkamp: mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about one of our most cherished rights as united states citizens. that is the free speech, and why allowing our children and young people to exercise this right at a young age is critical to learning and understanding complex and tough issues and ideas. the ability to effectively teach and learn journalism and for other students to be challenged to engage in a public discourse on tough issues was severely hindered by the united states

supreme court ruling in 1988 in a ruling called hazelwood school district versus colemeyer. the case legitimatized a school's decision to remove material about divorce and teen pregnancy from the pages of a student newspaper on the grounds that that material was overall mature for a high school audience. justice william brennan, one of the first amendment's greatest judicial champions, dissented from that ruling in words that resonate with us here today. he said -- "instead of teaching children to respect the diversity of ideas that is fundamental to the american system and our constitution, our constitution is a living reality, not parchment preserved under glass. the court today teaches youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." end quote. history has vindicated justice

brennan's dire warning. students report regularly that they have been prevented from discussing matters of public importance in the pages of student media or perhaps worse, they have restrained themselves from even attempting to address an issue of social or political concern in fear of adverse consequences. that is not an environment that values and empowers student voices, and it's not a climate conducive to effective and learning civic participation. we can and must do better. on the 25th anniversary of the hazelwood decision in 2013, every major journalism education organization in the nation enacted a resolution calling on schools and colleges to abandon reliance on the hazelwood level of institutional control. the sentiment was perhaps best expressed by the association for

education and journalism and mass communication. the country's largest organization of college journalism instructors, which said -- "no legitimate purpose is served by censorship of student journalism, even if it reflects unflatterly on school policies and programs, candidly discusses sensitive social and political issues or voices opinions challenging to majority views on a matter of public concern." nine states since then have statutes protecting the independence of student journalists to report on issues of public concern without fear, and two have comparable protections by way of the state board of education rules. the combined experiences of these 11 states spans well over 160 years, demonstrating that young people are fully capable of exercising a measure of legally protected press freedom,

responsibly and without incident. or harm. i am proud to say that my own home state, north dakota, established a position of national leadership by enacting the john wall new voices of north dakota app in 2015. the statute was named in memory of a truly amazing educator, john wall, who lived his own civics lesson by running for the north dakota house of representatives where he served with great distinction for ten years after retiring from a 35-year career in public -- as a public schoolteacher. the new voices act passed the north dakota state legislature with bipartisan sponsorship and without a single negative vote. that is truly an amazing -- an amazing, i think, fact.

and so as we think about the importance of student journalism and the importance of voicing opinions and the importance of learning the value of participation through first amendment or through speech, i am often reminded of a personal incident that i had in my family. my daughter was not on the school newspaper when she was in high school, but she frequently wrote a column. one column that she wrote generated a lot of controversy in a very small town at a time when it was much more controversial, and it was an article that promoted marriage equality. and she ended up getting a lot of grief, a lot of negative attention as a result of writing that article. my daughter is pretty opinionated, so it didn't bother her too much, but many years later, i got a letter from a mother, and that letter from a mother talked about how she was

at a same-sex relationship and had been most of her life and most of her daughter's life, and how once my daughter had published this article in the "mandan" school newspaper, it changed the outcome, it changed the way her daughter went to school every day because she knew she wasn't alone, she knew someone was there at her school that understood her challenges and supported her family. and so where it may not move big issues and it may not be a big, moving example like hazelwood, it can, in fact, change outcomes and the ability to express yourself, the ability to be part of a community where we have open ideas is absolutely instrumental and critical to the future of our country. and when you look at the -- the

restrictions that still today are put on student press and student newspapers, we know we have to do better. and so i applaud the new voices of north dakota organization and its founder, professor steve lip sopad of valley state university, and those teachers, professors and students around the country who engage in similar efforts, for helping shine the nation's attention on the urgent need to protect meaningful and candid journalism so that young people have an opportunity to participate and drive the civic dialogue about the world in which they live and where they will eventually lead. the skills learned and developed by student journalists and the roles that they can play in driving public conversation among their peers speak to the indispensable role that journalism can play if adequately supported by our schools and educating the next

generation for the careers of the future and for preparing our children to discuss, debate and lead on important and controversial issues. i think that as we are moving forward and taking a look at what can be done, i think it's important that we all appreciate that the first amendment is not something that you should just learn in school books. it is something that you must exercise, and the sooner you exercise that first amendment right to speech, the sooner we recognize that young voices in this country are as critical as older voices, and no student should be restricted or prevented from expressing an opinion, the stronger we will grow in our democracy. and so i look forward to continuing to work on this issue. i look forward to taking on the difficult task of talking about what we can do nationally to

advance this, but i mainly came here to applaud the great state of north dakota for recognizing the importance of students first amendment rights and encourage all the members in this chamber to examine what happens at home with students first amendment rights to provide leadership, to promote those rights in their state and to potentially look at how we can reverse the hazelwood decision so that we can grow a more confident, a more educated and a more diverse population for our future. with that, mr. chairman -- or, mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk shall call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session for the en bloc consideration of calendar number 474 and 475, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. that no further motions be in order, that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it

adjourn until 3:00 p.m., monday, march 14, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be conserved for use later in the day. further following leader remarks the senate be in morning business until 4:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sasse: if there is no further business to come before the senate i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday.

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds]

[background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

[background sounds]

[background sounds] [background sounds]

>> first lady nancy reagan's funeral service is being held tomorrow afternoon. eulogies will be given by mrs. reagan's two children ron reagan junior and patty davis. among the dignitaries attending former president jimmy carter, first lady michelle obama former nbc news anchor tom broke off and former canadian prime minister brian mulroney who will read a love letter that president reagan wrote to mrs. reagan. our coverage of nancy reagan's funeral live on c-span starting tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. eastern time. this ear studentcam documentary competition was our

largest yet nearly 6000 middle and high school students took part of on or in teams of up to three. all we received every 2900 entries from four to 39 schools across the country and even from schools as far away as taiwan and the united arab emirates. and now it's time to award $100,000 prize money to our winners. for this year's contest is rest to produce documentaries using our road to the white house themes. specifically to document what issue they were most one of the candidates to discuss during the 2016 presidential campaign. through their entry students told us the economy, equality, education and immigration were all top issues. our judges finalized their decisions for one grand prizewinner winner and four first-place winners in 150 prices in all and there is one band favor selected by you. now we are happy to announce our top prizewinners prizewinner is olivia hurd attended greater from john's high school in jenks oklahoma big olivia is

documented titled up to our next addresses the federal debt. >> the united states is $18.15 trillion in debt. how exactly do we merit being up to our next and at? every year budget is formed doling out large sums of federal money. the first of these is discretionary spending which in 2015 is $1.1 trillion. the second section is mandatory spending which is $2.45 trillion in the year 2015. lastly the interest on the federal debt with which is $229 billion. >> is a grand prizewinner later heard $15,000 per documentary and c-span bus will travel to her school so we can present her with a check for the grand prize. our first prizewinners for middle school or sisters mia and ava lazar.

mia is an eighth-grader and ava a sixth-grader at blacksburg middle school in blacksburg virginia. their winning documentaries titled what should be done about money in politics? >> easy flyers in your mailbox and see a presence on tv the radio and internet. this is the way politicians try to get elected. politicians spend millions of dollars in the campaigns. as soon as one election and the fund-raising are or the next one begins. everyday congress is in session there are fund-raisers all of the country. in 2000 other presidential election cost about $2.6 billion that you can't help but wonder where does all this money come from? >> the first prizewinners of our high school central category are twelfth-graders griffin all left michael fraser -- they all attend troy high school and try michigan. the documentaries titled the 1% and it addresses the scarcity of fresh water. >> today americans are drowning in overly debated issues such as immigration medicare terrorism leaked e-mails.

although these are important topics issues that affect the most americans are the issue of the. >> 1%. 1%. >> now no, not that one present. this one present, the shining blue jewel of the united states, the great lakes. >> truly one of the unique resources of the world's freshwater resources. there's nothing like it. >> are studentcam first prize prizewinner from our high school west category are tough grader daniella and tenth-grader sophia to attend metropolitan art institute in phoenix. their documentaries titled rethinking reform, prisons in america. >> the prison systems are around the united states have changed radically in the last 20 to 30 years.

let me address arizona. 20 years ago our prison population was about 20,000 people. now our state reasons system is over 40. the composition of the prison population has also dramatically changed. >> finally our fan favorite was selected to your on line voting and we are happy to announce that the winners who are receiving an additional $500 per first prizewinners for high school east category. tenth-graders at miller william at her and charles grider. from montgomery blair high school in silver spring maryland. their documentary is titled driving forward in the tackles highway and bridge funding. >> america's love moving around. we love fast cars and trucks and 70-mile per hour speed limits. we drive further and have more cars than any country in the world but for all our love of what we drive we tend to take what we drive on for granted.

america's 2 million miles of roads and 600,000 bridges are aging congested and often dangerous. >> thanks to all the students and teachers are competed this year and congratulations to all of our winners. the top 21 winning entries will air on c-span starting in april and all the winning entries are available for viewing on line at studentcam.org. as a senate subcommittee examines the health care laws co-op program that established nonprofit member controlled health insurance plans. half of the original 23 plans have become insolvent. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senators will vote 11:30 and this may make it difficult for us to get to the questions unless we get started now. i want to thank senator sachs for being here and i i think at least four of our colleagues are going to join us today so we we will be seeing senators coming in and out during a busy day. but let's bring the hearing to order. i want to thank by noting that senator mccaskill will not be with us today. as some of you know she is home

in missouri attending two very important health issues. we wish her well. we know she will be back with us then, i hope as soon as next week and i will say i suggested to her we postpone the hearing until she got back in her answer was no, there's lots of work for the subcommittee to do and we should allow the senate's business to go on which is the way she is and i appreciate your attitude. she will submit questions for the record and i want to on behalf of the subcommittee thinkers staff for their hard work in preparing for this hearing. we are here today to discuss the administration's unfortunate adventure in the health care startup business. it's kind of how i look at this. the affordable care. something like -- called the consumer co-op plan that was a gesture to those who favored a public option and were successful in advocating for that. under the co-op program

department funding services awarded $2.4 billion in taxpayer money to 23 nonprofit health insurance co-ops. as of today of those 23, 12 have failed. these 12 collectively received $1.2 billion in taxpayer money. that is almost certainly lost when you talk about that later in the q&a. their collapse by the way also caused 740,000 people in 14 states to lose their health insurance provider and had to scramble to find new coverage, most with little or no time. over the last nine months are subcommittee is carefully investigated these failures. we wanted to know whether to play the role of investor made good or bad decisions with taxpayer money. unfortunately what we found out is that a lot of that decisions were made to the majority staff

report released today we detailed those findings. this report is here and you all should have it. we detailed findings that hhs was aware of serious problems concerning the failed co-ops and pricing financial forecast and management. before the department ever proved the initial loans. with the co-ops got going in 2014 things went south in a hurry in terms of financial losses and a roman figures the wildly deviated from the cost of protections. the failed co-ops ultimately lacks $376 million in losses in 2014 and more than eight to in dollars in losses in 2015. despite getting regular reports to co-ops for hemorrhaging cash hhs took no corrective action for over a year. worse the department approved additional loan awards to three of a failed co-ops. this was despite clear warnings that these co-ops did not have

reliable plans for turning these around. the majority staff report explains these findings in great detail and without objection the report will be made part of the record. let me give you a few highlights. but hhs approves start of blind for the failed co-ops that asked consulting to die with the co-ops proposed loan applications and business plans. we have reviewed the analysis as part of our investigation usually found. you'll probably hear from our witnesses delay gave the co-ops they quote passing score but it was based on a grading scale set by hhs and deloitte gave hhs concerns with the failed co-ops. that foreshadows the problems we'll talk about today in the problems that were to come. they said among other things many the failed co-ops did not identify their senior leadership team. seven of the 12th of serious deficiencies in their roman strategy which later turned out to be the chief reason for the qalqilya. many submitted budgets that were incomplete and reasonable not cost-effective or didn't align with the co-ops financial

projections. those financial projections were so hot either. delay warned that several co-ops relied on an reasonable projections their growth. as one example delayed noted to opportunity the co-op for iowa and nebraska but i imagine senator sachs will be talking about later have a target profit quote much lower than the industry benchmark end quote of 4.8%. that was an understatement. co-op dated target profit margin was 0%. nevertheless hhs approved all loan applications to the tune of $1.2 billion. after they entered the marketplace in 2014 the co-ops financial health deteriorated rapidly and a.j. just knew it to the department received key financial information for the co-ops including monthly reports and audits of poorly financial statements. these these reports of starting almost immediately the failed co-ops experienced severe when angela said that exceeded even the worst-case scenarios.

ginobili by the end of 2014 the failed co-ops exceeded their projection case scenario losses by at least 263 million dollars which is four times above the projection. the custom roman numbers were no less problematic according to the 2014 monthly reports a minute to hhs. five of the failed co-ops dramatically under formed -- underperformed enrollment. both errors cause serious financial losses. enrollment means sufficient income for expenses but excessively high enrollment was a greater threat to insolvency when the premiums are underpriced. as many of the co-op premiums were. despite having the information hhs did not step in. the department loan agreements with the co-ops entitled them to a number of accountability tools from borrowers who are missing the mark here hhs chose to take a pass inexplicably for over year the agency took no corrective action.

nortup at any co-op unenhanced oversight. five of the 12 failed co-ops were never subject to oversight. five of the 12 co-ops were never subject to corrective action by hhs and hhs waited until september 2015 to put five others on corrective action. two months later all 12 co-ops have failed. hhs had the power to stop the funds it did cost financial viability. instead over the course of 2014 and 2015 hhs dispersed eight and a $48 million in federal loan dollars to the failed co-ops even as the facilities lost more than $1.4 billion. that's about 1.65 in losses, $1.65 for losses and every dollar that hhs gave them. think about that. more believable maybe in the 2014 hhs approved additional solvency laundry. the failed co-ops in danger of

being shut down by regulators are having insufficient capital despite new warning signs at those co-ops could not turn things around. here again hhs asked away to solvency loans and their plans improve the finances going forward to according to deloitte hhs truncated its review of these applications. delay did not evaluate for example quote the likelihood each co-op would achieve sustainable operations under the advise business plan. which i would have thought was the whole point. even the limited analysis of hhs allowed delay to conduct their warning signs that cooperated in the new york co-op and kentucky co-opted not have a sound plan to regain footing. nevertheless these pre-co-ops alone received 350 and $55 million in additional solvency loans on the taxpayers. all have failed by the way. kentucky co-opted less after suffering losses of over $50 million and another $150 million in 2015.

at the time of the cooperated closer the company was operating losses $163 million and most are are going to ball after hhs gave the new york co-op $90 million to prolong his financial liability that co-op will one on two lose another $544 million in 2015. the financial aftermath of all of this is dire to the subcommittee obtained a failed cost of the recent financial statements in a statement show that none of the failed co-ops never paid a single dollar. not a single single dollar principle learned is that the $1.2 billion in federal loans they received. in my view it's unlikely they will pay any significant fraction back. ..

the failed co-ops have more than 700 million in unpaid medical claims to doctors and hospitals. i'm played -- unpaid medical plans. by the policy of other insurance companies other insurance's have to pay increased premiums going back to our constituents. in other states doctors to hospitals, individual patients stand to suffer large out-of-pocket losses. we will talk about this more. real people that hurt by including more than 700,000 americans have lost their health plans. today i plan to ask hhs whether they accept responsibility.