David Cicilline

All these actions undermine the credibility of the Office of the President, and the credibility of the U.S. Government.

The President's behavior surrounding this crisis is making the situation even more challenging.

May I inquire how much time I have? The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 3 minutes remaining.

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 245, strike line 7 and all that follows through ``Executive Order 13547.''. The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant…

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Page 176, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''. The…

Do you think we ought to consider as well enactment of a prohibition, a statutory prohibition of pay-for-delay, like completely prohibit that activity as a matter of law?

I do think that congressional action is needed to try to prevent settlements that are--that go beyond mere exchanges of litigation costs.

These skyrocketing costs are causing deaths and harming patients on a daily basis.

A quarter of Americans cannot afford their prescription medicines.

These soaring prices are life threatening.

The cost of prescription drugs has increased by over 200 percent over the past decade.

Every year hardworking Americans pay too much for prescription drugs.

I would ask unanimous consent to make a part of the record this article, 'Drug Wars: A New Generation of Generic Pharmaceutical Delay,' by Robin Feldman and Evan Frondorf, as a part of the record.

Nobody has ever called our legislation elegant, so we like that.

I'd like to begin, if I may, with you, Professor Lietzan. I wonder if you're familiar with the Harvard Law--Harvard Journal on Legislation written by Robin Feldman that spoke specifically about this pay-for-delay problem.

It is really baffling to me that we would leave vacant the position of Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.

I think it shows that even within their own Caucus, there are some concerns about this.

The 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed and replaced by an authorization that is tailored to the threats that we currently face.

But if in fact Congress has the ability to limit who and where and maybe something else, doesn't it make sense that the President of the United States should share with Members of Congress what that plan is, what that strategy is?

The Constitution requires him to seek congressional approval for military actions.

But I think most of us understand the American people are very concerned about authorizing a President to take us into another war like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed and replaced by an authorization that is tailored to the threats that we currently face, not the threats of almost two decades ago.

Not doing a new AUMF is an abdication of our responsibility and our duties

I think they are relatively easily differentiated.

It is up to Congress to reassert our role and consider a new authorization for the use of military force.