With great power comes great responsibility, but that responsibility is missing across the drug industry.
Elizabeth Warren
The Public Record
Elizabeth Ann Warren is an American attorney, academic, and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Massachusetts since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, she has been a prominent advocate for consumer protection, economic equality, and corporate regulation. Warren gained national recognition for her work in establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and has focused on issues such as student debt relief and healthcare reform during her tenure in the Senate.
The pharmaceutical market may be producing giant profits for drug companies, but it is not working for the American people.
Lower the price. That will actually make it easier for patients to access the drug.
Well, wait just a minute. There are obviously patients who cannot afford this product, and we know this.
Your work shines a light in many dark areas, and this is the first step for changes in the industry.
Charging patients so much for a drug that they cannot afford it is unethical.
Congress needs to take action on this to make sure that this market functions for patients.
So, if they do not have a demonstrated commitment to the interests of investors and the public, you are a no?
The SEC's approach too often entails making decisions for investors rather than providing them a framework within which to make their own choices.
If a million investors want the SEC to require public companies to disclose corporate political contributions... will you support them?
Advice and consent is about making individualized good faith judgments, and I think your record gives the American people reason to be concerned about your nomination.
Recognizes that too much disclosure can harm the investors for whom it is purportedly designed.
So, my question is, Professor Fairfax, if you are confirmed as an SEC Commissioner, will you oppose the appointment of a PCAOB chairman who does not meet those legal requirements?
This Memo says that if developers are going to damage some of our nation's most precious resources then they should minimize or make up for the damage they do.
Attempts to characterize this Presidential Memorandum as a radical, new, anti-development policy, sounds like to me it is just grasping at straws.
The Memorandum seems to aim for long lasting, meaningful offsets that the American people can be sure are actually happening.
In November the President introduced a Memorandum about how agencies should mitigate the impact on the environment of their actions and the actions that they approve, and the document outlines some pretty common sense steps.
Obviously we need a real solution to fight wildfires, a solution that ensures sufficient funding, that keeps environmental protections in place and that provides certainty for all of the other Forest Service programs.
This is very, very troubling because the pace of climate change is now accelerating.
Fire season now lasts about two and a half months longer than it did in 1970.
In recent years the Forest Service budget has been dominated by one thing, the cost of fighting wildfires.
This business about market structure is just powerfully important. That makes this hearing very important.





