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

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.

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.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 111, which would repeal protections for our men and women in uniform and other everyday consumers against the use of forced arbitration by…

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

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

The 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed and replaced by an authorization that is tailored to the threats that we currently face.

You cannot make foreign policy flying by the seat of your pants, especially when it comes to our men and women in uniform.

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

The 2001 authorization is too broad. It needs to be put out to pasture and scaled back.

I think they are relatively easily differentiated.

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?

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

Planning a war without planning to secure the peace is a sure path toward future conflict and instability.

the 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed and replaced by an authorization that is tailored to the threats that we currently face, not the threats of almost two decades ago.

We need to do what we should have done years ago and pass a new authorization governing the conflicts we are engaged in today.

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 missile strikes, the shooting down of a Syrian Government plane, and other actions that the Trump administration has taken have seriously ratcheted up American military engagement in Syria without congressional input or authorization.

So don't we have to first have a plan and a strategy from the President that says, here is what we will do to defeat ISIS?

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

I am extremely concerned by the escalation of violence in Syria in recent months and by the extremely broad and, in my view, incorrect interpretation that this administration has taken of its authority to take military action in Syria.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I rise in opposition to the rule and urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can take up the legislation that has just been outlined by Mr. Pascrell. There is no more…

This resolution raises the question of the privilege of the House pursuant to rule IX, clause 1, as it affects, ``the rights of the House collectively, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings,'' insofar as it raises the House's…

I understand, Mr. Speaker. My point is, in order to rule on this, it is important for the Chair to understand that the severity of the questions with respect to the integrity of our proceedings are undermined because of the potential…