In October of this year if you would submit a generic drug application, you could expect to get an answer back in 10 months.

But the law is clear. The FDA cannot bring a generic drug to market while the brand name drug is still protected by any form of exclusivity or patents.

The market for prescription drugs has little transparency, it has broken price elasticity, and it has very long legal monopolies.

Making those tweaks will not solve the drug pricing problem.

we have a problem--money. Six years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court made the problem worse, a lot worse. Thanks to the Supreme Court, our system of elections is riddled with corruption. Money floods our political system--money that lets…

Neither the idea nor the number is based on any concrete research. I think this is just trying to roll back part of the EPA rules without having to tell the American people about it.

If they do not want to do that then they should face the American people and explain how they want softer pollution standards and then let's see what the American people have to say.

You know, there are two ways to repeal a rule. You can repeal it outright to strike it from the books or you can paper over the rule with enough exceptions and alternatives that the rule becomes fairly meaningless.

Now the auto industry complains about ambitious fuel economy standards because it costs money to make cars more efficient and to reduce their pollution.

But the bill says that if any auto maker installs three technologies from the list, they will be eligible for a credit equal to at least three grams of carbon dioxide per mile toward their greenhouse gas emissions requirements.

In 2014 more than 32,000 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes, as you rightly pointed out. That is 32,000 reasons right there to encourage the adoption of promising safety technologies like automatic emergency braking.

Today, for most insurance plans, mental health parity is the law, but it sure doesn't feel that way for people who need help.