mr. matkoksky i sense your desire to do the right thing. we're all focused on the same issue. i know the questioning at times appears, you know, potentially confrontational. that's because we have a responsibility here on the o and i subcommittee to make sure that we're asking the right questions. we don't always get the answers that we want but i certainly sense the sincerity in what you're trying to do and i appreciate that. i want to say thanks to the panel, and you are also now excused. the v.a.'s sweeping definition for prosthetics opens the door for confusion. i think we've heard that today. such an inclusive definition means small policy changes can have impacts on areas that would not otherwise be impacted under a traditional definition of prosthetic. however, it is also clear that actions by the v.a.'s purchasing agents have greatly reduced the chances for getting the best value in prosthetics acquisition. while some guidance and regulations existed that would have helped ensure that best value, even those were ignored time and time again. as i mentioned earlier the c