 8, 9, 10, testing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. He's happy with that. Hi, everybody. Thank you for being here. I just want to report on something. Last week, I sent a letter to President Trump's administration warning them of the disastrous effect that policies they have enacted, pursued and cheered, would have on the work that we're doing here in Pennsylvania to combat the heroin epidemic. Let's not mince words here. President Trump's agenda thus far on healthcare and the opioid crisis is dangerous and would undo much of what we've accomplished here in Pennsylvania. It is gravely concerning that the federal government does not seem to understand the impacts that their policies and proposals will have on the people and families of Pennsylvania, none of whom are immune from the effects of this public health crisis. As we all know, the opioid and heroin abuse crisis has hit Pennsylvania hard, and this crisis doesn't discriminate again on the basis of color, creed, region. It hits every age group, every color, every income level all across the state. And it has been incredibly damaging to Pennsylvania's families. In 2014, in Pennsylvania, we lost 2,500 people. In 2014, in 2015, we lost 3,500 people. And that's how many we know of. 2016, I don't have the exact numbers yet, but it looks like it's going to be way above that, maybe 4,500 people. So this has become the leading cause of death. Someone said today that we've lost more people. We lose more people every year in Pennsylvania to drug overdoses. Then we do a combination of traffic accidents and gun violence. At the state level, we're taking concrete and proactive steps to fight back against this public health crisis. These include things like more treatment for those suffering from substance use disorders, more resources for law enforcement, more restrictions on the prescription prescribing of opioids, and more resources and education for health professionals. Because no longer can we allow families and communities to be torn apart by the death of someone suffering from a disease, substance use disorder, a family member, a friend suffering from a disease that we can do something about. So I have been troubled by a number of steps that the federal government is taking, most striking of which is the Trump administration's enthusiastic embrace of the congressional Republicans repeal and somewhat replace policy toward the Affordable Care Act, which includes deep cuts to Medicaid, the end of the Medicaid expansion, and putting essential health benefits, including substance use and mental health treatment on the chopping block because of pre-existing conditions. When working with people with substance use disorders to help them overcome this disease, we need more evidence-based treatment options so that doctors and not politicians are making healthcare decisions. In Pennsylvania, thanks to my administration's decision to expand Medicaid right from the start, we've helped over 700,000 people to get health insurance who didn't have it before, and included in that number are 125, almost 126,000 Pennsylvanians who can now get treatment for substance use disorder. Medicaid pays for substance use disorder treatments. This so-called health plan that is coming out of Washington that has passed the House would tell basically those 125, 126,000 people in Pennsylvania, again, these are our friends, our neighbors, our family members, that no longer will they have access to treatment. Once again, they should deal with this disease on their own. These are people who cannot afford treatment and so would be left to suffer, not treat their disease on their own, and battle addiction without help, erasing the progress that they've made. In addition, the current proposal would allow states to opt out of the essential health benefits and pre-existing conditions that really protect people with this disease. So should this bill pass, substance use disorders will now be considered a pre-existing condition and insurance companies would once again be able to deny anyone who has this would deny them treatment. So we've already lost thousands of Pennsylvanians, our kids, our neighbors, our friends. This proposal will make the problem worse and we need our federal governments help to solve the heroin and opioid abuse crisis which is affecting people everywhere. We need them to help not hinder this process. So this is not a healthcare plan, this is wrong, and I would ask the Trump administration and the Republicans in the Congress to reverse course and look for solutions that can help their partners in the states rather than proposing plans that would not only hinder what we're doing here, but set the clock back. I think you all have a copy of the letter that I sent to Jared Kushner who I think is the point person for the Trump administration on this. I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, thank you very much. Charles. Before you close the curtain. Are you satisfied with, do you feel like you've been making any headway with Pennsylvania's delegation in Congress? I guess the House has already voted, but the Senate is still out there. I mean, we know pretty much where cases stand on this. How about Patentate making any headway in Congress? I'm actually having a long conversation with him tomorrow because he's one of the key people in the Senate on this. I've been down to Washington, made phone calls, written letters, and I made some progress with some and maybe less with others. I think you saw the roll call vote in the House. There were a number of Pennsylvania's who, I think, Republicans who made, I think, courageous decision to go against the majority of their party, and I applaud them for doing them because I think they were looking out for the interests of their constituents here in Pennsylvania. I also have had a number of conversations with Republican and Democratic governors, and they tend to take a more pragmatic approach to this. There are a number of Republican governors who are in the same situation I am. I have hundreds of thousands of people who now have health insurance because of the expanded Medicaid. And they're looking at this not as an ideological issue, but as just a practical issue that really affects people's lives. And I think that's the way we have to look at this. So I think the Republican governors, my approach, and I think the members of the House who voted against this looked at this issue in that pragmatic vein and said, you know, whatever the ideology here, we're actually talking about something that directly affects people's lives. It directly affects Republicans and Democrats, poor and rich, rural, urban, male, female, and we need to look at it as that, not as something that we can play around with because of some abstract attachment to an ideology. So here in Harrisburg, you'll be heading into high season for budget negotiations after the primary election here. And I'm just curious, I mean, with that issue on the docket before Congress, have you begun to consider any kind of plan B for how to handle people with substance abuse disorders here, that 126,000 that you referenced, if something did happen to the Affordable Care Act that you don't think is really a 17, 18 fiscal year issue? I just don't know. So I'm always thinking about what I might do from a contingent point of view, and there are a lot of different options, but at this point we simply don't know what is going to come out of Washington. The Senate is going to take, I think, a fairly, a very different view on this than the House, but we don't know. And I look forward to the debates that happen there. As I say, there are a lot of people in the country, governors especially, Republicans and Democrats who have a much more practical view of this, and they're looking at this as something that affects their constituents. Don't forget, we had a national health care policy before we had the Affordable Care Act. It was called the Emergency Room. And I know when I was in the private sector, it was never clear on how much of the insurance premiums that I was paying was going to pay for the uncompensated care that took place in hospitals, like in the emergency rooms. Sometimes we thought it was 10, 15, maybe even 20%. And that's the national health insurance plan we had before. It was unfair. It forced a lot of people to take advantage of our healthcare system at its most expensive part, the emergency room, and it cost those of us who were paying more than we should have been paying because we were paying not just for my employees but for people who were getting uncompensated care. That's what this program will take us back to. We need to, I think, move forward from where we are and not move back. Anything else? All right. Oh, yes. Can you relate with your concern? I'm forgetting you said something about this earlier on. Can you relate here about what's going on in Washington to the close consolidation of your Pennsylvania concerns and expressed by people about that? Yeah, I think there's a big difference. Here in Pennsylvania, we are having a very robust conversation about the best way to address the opioid crisis. We're not retreating from dealing with it. So here we've actually put Republicans and Democrats, we've worked across the aisle to, I think, become one of the leading states in the country in terms of addressing the opioid epidemic. And the debates you're seeing here, and the passion is just a reflection, I think, of how seriously we take this in Pennsylvania as opposed to, I think, as ignoring the problem in Washington. So I think there's a big difference. Any other questions? Yes. Any developments on the DNC's surpluses? And I don't know if that's in the order of general standards. Yes, it is. I don't have anything to add to what I've already said. I didn't know if you had heard anything out of Philly from the people from the DNC those committees. I didn't know. Okay, thank you very much.