I appreciate your service, and I look forward to working with you on this issue.

I think what we need is a creative way to look at the data.

I appreciate your willingness to serve and appreciate you being here today.

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.

if we are having turnover, and if we are in a health care system and some of that turnover is negatively impacting patients, that is negative for the patient and negative for the taxpayer.

I suspect my colleagues would like to know this information, as well.

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.

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.

There are problems, though.

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

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

The higher the volume the more likely someone survives.

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

There was a statistically significant difference.

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 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.

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?

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?

There should be no change in the 340B?