Elizabeth Warren

If President Trump wanted to make sure that the SEC would have a hard time in going after his Wall Street friends, it seems to me you would be the perfect SEC Chair.

More potential cases with a deadlock and no enforcement, and that is a problem.

Those banks have repeatedly violated securities laws in the past few years, but if they violate securities laws again, in your first 2 years as SEC Chairman you cannot vote to punish them, and I think that is a problem.

You intend to enforce the law strictly, and I very much agree with that goal.

A big part of the job of the Chairman of the SEC is enforcement, a cop on the beat on Wall Street.

It is important that the retirement savings of working Americans be protected, and certainly there are individuals that may put their personal interests ahead of their clients in many industries where that is potentially unethical and…

If asked, I would recommend to my friend someone who I knew and trusted. I would also advise that in my experience the best advisors in professional fields are transparent about their fees and products, including in regards to compensation…

You think it's important to protect retirees. It's important to protect retirees. We've got a rule here that will protect retirees, documented, to the terms of $17 billion a year.

I have to say, Mr. Acosta, this has really been frustrating. You have dodged every one of my questions.

Will you commit to responding to the questions I asked in that letter about the potential involvement by a Wall Street lobbyist from a leading advocacy organization for the financial services industry?

You can't give us your own sense of whether or not the silica rule is something that ought to be enforced?

I just want to make sure you're not going to delay this rule any further.

Will you promise not to weaken the silica rule in any way, and not to delay future compliance by even a single day?

That's the question I'm trying to ask, about where your values lie, how you see what this retirement rule does, how committed you are to protecting the American investor here, and retirees, so they have a chance to retire with some dignity.

Those conflicts of interest now cost Americans $17 billion every year.

The test is will you stand up for 150 million American workers, and that starts by making sure that workers are safe on their jobs.

Are you going to stand up for the people?

It's time now for an answer. Are you going to appeal it or not?

On behalf of millions of retirees around this country, do you support this rule?

So far, you've said you can't commit to enforcing a rule to protect 2.3 million Americans from exposure to lethal, cancer-causing silica.

I think this is an absolutely critical program, and it's important for us to keep an eye on it.

We're hearing about readiness difficulties with the Air Force.

Has the Air Force done the analysis to demonstrate that purchasing new F-16s instead of servicing the F-15s will provide the same level of capabilities and actually save the taxpayer money?

Is that right? Does the Air Force propose retiring the F-15?

Thank you very much. I recognize we cannot be effective, we cannot be safe if we cannot communicate when we have got people out in the field and the importance of the R&D [Research & Development] on resilience but also the importance of…