Well, if your purpose was to demonstrate to Congress that your technology is not working well, you have succeeded.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and I thank him for his gracious words.

I think the documentation has not been provided. The rationale has not been provided. The communication has not been provided.

If we are going to follow the logic that when you get a low score we're going to blow you apart and redistribute your parts, then why not get rid of the Pentagon and we'll divvy it up to Ben Carson and Betsy DeVos?

And when we know that industry is paying for a paper posing as an academic research paper directly to influence your rulemaking on their self-interest, that taints and corrupts the process.

I would suggest respectfully that is a little misleading because you had just raised the price six months earlier, and you raised it again six months later.

My friend from Ohio, the ranking member, has attempted to discredit the purpose of this hearing.

I'd throw that paper out. I don't care what data they've got. It's so tainted and it's so corrupt.

Most of us absolutely subscribe to the thought that a drug company has to recover profits because it recovers cost and legitimate R&D that can produce more lifesaving drugs.

I am here for my friend Rick. I am here to make sure no American has to go through what Rick went through.

It sends a message to the agencies best poised to grapple with these challenges that they are not a priority.

I hope today's hearing is something that will give you thought and is something that maybe you will take back to the corporate boardroom to reevaluate the pricing of a drug that so many people need access to.

I signed on a letter that was authored by my colleague, Mr. Castro, regarding this problem.

We will not rest until there is true accountability.

What message does it send when the United States refuses to stand up for democracy, and the United States refuses to call out this sort of corruption?

I urge the Administration to keep working with other diplomatic partners to encourage and incentivize an immediate transition to a civilian-led government in Sudan.

When something comes to us that tainted, we put it aside. We don't allow it to corrupt the rest of the process.

But the question in front of us is how much is enough? How high do you go to the point where it becomes a barrier to access?

We've got to make sure we're doing what we can to reassure the public that the process is an open, objective, fair one.

Sure looks like a strategy to me.

we oppose the military offense by Khalifa Haftar's forces and urge the immediate halt of these military operations against the Libyan capital.

you know, the policy in the U.S. was to support that government. Suddenly, we are reversing it. It is a huge policy confusion.

What in the world would account for such an enormous pivot in U.S. policy with respect to Haftar in the space of 8 days?

No good can be served if we have this kind of vacillation, profound vacillation, at the highest levels of the U.S. Government.

This is very troubling, because we have the government saying that only four of the parts, in fact, would be defined as commercial.