Bill Cassidy

I am really interested in exploring the increased incidence of suicide among veterans.

I want to give a shout-out. We have had a bill sponsored with Dr. Yoho from the House side, the WINGMAN Act.

So let me just ask, if you fundamentally agree, why is there a hesitation in doing something about the finished product?

Listen, if tariffs are on steel, but not on the finished products, it greatly disadvantages our fabricators.

There was a statistically significant difference.

Frankly, we are not allowing veterans to stay close to home and have a higher-quality, more-likely-to-live experience.

VA patients have a longer wait time, with a lower rate of referral.

The higher the volume the more likely someone survives.

There are problems, though.

If you get transplanted you have a higher quality-of-life, you are more likely to live longer, and it costs the taxpayer less money.

I am strongly supportive of that which you are attempting to do.

If we're replacing high sulfur, highly viscous Venezuelan crude as an energy source with, I would prefer natural gas from Louisiana, but you would probably prefer Texas, but U.S. natural gas.

This bill, just to put a plug in for it, benefits American workers, the American economy, American geopolitics and lowers global greenhouse gas emissions.

Last week this Committee advanced the Small Scale LNG Access Act of 2017 which gives Caribbean and Central American countries greater access to liquified natural gas.

If you focus upon the patient, this is driving up the cost.

It supports the criticism that the 340B Program is converted from one that serves vulnerable patient populations to one that enriches hospitals and their affiliated clinics.

We need to think as Senator Smith did, what does it mean to a patient paying $16,000 a year?

Your good work is presented as typical of all 340B's. Clinics, safety net hospitals, this is the face of 340B, when there is a whole stack of evidence that non-340B hospitals may provide more charity care than many 340B hospitals.

I think I did ten studies: NYU, Harvard, Memorial Sloan-Kettering, the University of Chicago, OIG, GAO, and each of these are deeply flawed?

There should be no change in the 340B?

So in the one sense you could have increased revenue if you have more production to offset the lower royalty rates.

We in Louisiana have recognized that you cannot be pro-environmental unless you are pro-business and you cannot be pro-business unless you are pro-environmental because the one sustains the other.

I am told that under--when George W. Bush put in such a tariff, that another effect was that dockworkers around the Nation, in the Port of New Orleans, by tonnage, a major product shipped is steel.

I have a friend back home in Morgan City, Louisiana, who has a fabrication shop, and he is competing against Koreans who have lower labor costs.

I think it behooves us to take a whole-of-government approach, both from a criminal perspective and a civil perspective.