Elizabeth Warren

You are supposed to be supervisors.

The test for safety and soundness is not whether or not the activity is legal or illegal.

But you are not looking.

I think you should have been investigating a whole lot earlier.

I often describe our Federal regulators as the cop on the beat.

Illegality is not the test. The test is what threatens the safety and soundness.

Either you need to fix it, Mr. Dudley, or we need to get someone who will.

You want the big financial institutions to hold up a mirror and look at their behavior, because, you say, otherwise, we are not going to get a change.

You backed up when Goldman was unhappy.

I am sorry. Surely, you are not going to take the position, Mr. Dudley, that if most of the time most of what the Fed does is boring or even does its job, that it is OK every now and again to throw in 10 minutes of backing people off their…

The problems originate from the culture of the firms and this culture is largely shaped by the firms' leadership.

I want to thank my friend, Senator Manchin, for our work together on trying to focus on the Fed.

We need bank regulators who work to protect the American people, not the profits of giant banks.

The message that is sent from the President to the Board, to the supervisors, is that financial regulation is secondary.

It is also felt most acutely on Main Street. That is why it is so important that examiners and supervisors and regulators remember that their job is to serve the public, to serve Main Street, not the banks they oversee.

Are they too big to manage? Are they too big to regulate? All important questions.

It is bad enough when banks can capture the agencies that regulate them or the Congress, which is all too often the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Ms. McFerran.

Let's be clear, India is producing 40 percent of our generic drugs, and the FDA's supposedly burdensome oversight team in that entire country consists of 10 full-time employees.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we need a deeper investigation into the price hikes. Frankly, I think we need more support for those FDA inspectors who are trying to keep our drugs safe.

One way that regulatory opponents often track FDA oversight is by looking at the number of warning letters that the agency sends out.

I understand that individual enforcement actions may temporarily affect the price or availability of a particular drug, but data demonstrating decreasing enforcement over manufacturers does not justify a price spike of 40 percent.

Actually, my staff checked with the FDA this week, and it turns out that almost none of those letters went to drug manufacturers.

This looks like a program to me that you do not need to spend another year on. It is a program that needs to be severely cut back.