Again, Mr. Chairman, I think we would all be remiss in our duties if we stand by and allow one more cancer patient not to be able to make travel, select not to get treatment or their costs go up so prohibitively they can't continue…

That is a significant cost increase for the patient, is it not?

I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) to respond.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my friend and colleague.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Although in a market economy, if the hospitals pay more for exactly the same services, it is pretty hard to argue that that isn't a significant factor.

Reimbursement should be equal for the same service provided to a cancer patient regardless of whether the service is delivered in the hospital outpatient department or a physician's office.

as mentioned by Representative Rogers, this results in increased travel and hassle for patients undergoing cancer treatment.

Representative Rogers has a bill that would equalize reimbursements for oncology services received by patients in a hospital outpatient department with those by patients in freestanding oncology clinics.

And I have heard examples and I am sure you have heard examples of people who are choosing not to continue care or treatment because of the distance to travel.

I think it unlikely that we will have a big-box strategy.

This subcommittee hearing will come to order.

In fact, to the contrary, they have said flatly they have no interest in doing anything beyond New START.

I think anybody--a reasonable person would agree that before we agree to negotiate further reductions, the party should be in compliance with existing treaties.

I would urge the Congress to support the B-61 Life Extension Program.

I sincerely hope that the final report and recommendations of this panel are not left on a shelf and ignored, as so many previous reports on this topic.

The panel believes lasting improvements are possible, but they will demand strong and sustained leadership and proactive support from Congress, the White House, and engaged Departmental Secretaries.

I thank the gentleman, and I understand his concern, and I hope he is wrong.

Is the mission of the nuclear security enterprise likely to succeed in the long-term under the current governance structure?

conferrees believe changes at the margins are not a solution.

There is a widespread recognition that the current system for governance, management, and oversight of the nuclear security enterprise is broken.

The status quo is not working and must not be continued.

Do you believe the letter and spirit of the NNSA Act has actually been implemented?

The Rudman Report said that DOE was 'a dysfunctional bureaucracy incapable of reforming itself.'

I am not sure Secretary Moniz has that. And my question is if we were--could we go back to Mr. Thornberry's comment about could we legislate.