it's difficult to maintain, that there are, in fact, other ser areas that we could have conflict and mechanisms of innovation that encourage break through innovation are needed. that's one of the strengths, really, as the possibility of encouraging solvers from everywhere from every corner to come forward and put their ideas on the table. >> okay. we've been here for an hour and a half. and i don't want you keep you any longer than necessary. is there anything that anyone wants to add or raise that we haven't touched upon? yeah, jamie. >> mike, in my written statement on page 5 and page 6, i made some rivers to the cross licensing agreements between the companies that sell aids drugs. on the face of it, you would think you would have a lot of competition in the aids drugs market. there's eight different manufacturers right there that are among the ability of

treating people that have antrovial drugs. while you have a lot of me, too, drugs, that suggests you might have a lot of competition. you have in some classes 8 o 9 products in the same therapeutic class. why is it you don't observe much price competition? part of it is the legal disclosure you observe between companies, merck, pfizer, gsk, abbot and rosche all cross products, their products in various ways in the hiv area or outside of the hiv area. and they're so often in bed with each other, back and forth, in some cases, one country will sell the drug in the united states and others will sell it

in europe. the leading one involves products from both in the united states, bristol meyers, and gillian. so it's hard to know, are they partners or are they competitors? and the prices would suggest they're more like partners than competitors. >> two comments i want to add. i think we're right thinking about this as an experiment, and thinking about how we can develop a better innovation system, not just for aids, but for health and beyond health for research more broadly. and i just wanted to reiterate that in thinking about the innovation system, there are a couple of other parts. the patent system will continue to play some role in, for

instance, idea that's we haven't even thought about. in health, the price system is particularly well suited because we have a more well formulated notion of what we need. and, therefore, if it's particularly effective in that area, the mother areas where climate change, if it can be particularly effective, we know what we need in terms of the more efficient batteries. so there are certain areas where the prices are very well suited, other areas where the patent system may still play a role. and the third and important part is government funded research itself that has been very effective in areas of the health, nih, nsf, and that in thinking about allocation of resources to prizes across innovation, one wouldn't have to balance all three of these components of our innovation

system. and then more particularly in the area of health, one of the points that was referred to earlier was that our system of testing is a very costly one, that drugs that have to be made available have to go through a set of tests. there's a lot of belief that that testing system is inefficient. and it certainly raises problems of conflict of interest because typically the drug company does its own testing. and we know some very dramatic stories of that conflict, playing out in ways that led to probably the death of other people. so i think one thing that went on is thinking through more deeply reform the ways that our system of testing is conducted. and that system of testing is one of the mechanisms by which the drug companies exercise

monopoly power and act as a barrier to injuries to making r&d and the drugs less -- the drug market less competitive. so i think that once -- this is a really important bill. i do hope that we'll pursue that further and -- >> let me just say this in thanking all of you for being here. i am more than aware that there is only one name on the piece of legislation. i am also aware that i am the only senator at this hearing today. but i believe, and i think you will always agree with me, that the time is long joufr due to place that flag down and get

together with the sisters of the world to make it system more cost-effective. nobody here is naive. we know the obstacles that stand before us. there are many who do not want us to proceed. but i think we have a idea as a result of the work you are all doing in their separate areas, it is an idea going around and around the country. and when it comes sooner, it will be of profound information. i know each and every one of you has spent, perhaps, a lifetime working on this issue and issues like that. and we very much appreciate your coming to the senate today and thank you very much for your

contributions. thank you. >> hearing is adjourned.

live coverage continues here on c-span3 this afternoon with a house hearing on chinese activist chen guangcheng. the house subcommittee wants to hear the latest on chen who was imprisoned by the chinese government, and is awaying the completion of paperwork before he comes to the u.s. that hearing begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern. book tv.org. the author is senior ed door. ron paul announced that he's no longer participating. by the way, oregon and nebraska are holing primaries today. mitt romney is 171 short of

securing the republican nominations. oregon has 25 delegates at stake. the 32 delegates to the republican national convention will be determined at the nebraska state convention and that's july 14th. nebraska voters will also select the republican candidates to face democrat bob kerry in that state's u.s. senate race. >> when people are saying to m him, don't take the vice presidency, right now, you are a powerful majority leader. don't take the vice presidency. you won't have any power. johnson says, power is where power goes, meaning i can make power in any situation. his whole life i said, nothing in his life previously makes that seem like he's most -- because that's exactly what he had done all his life. >> sunday night, the conclusion

of our conversation on robert kairo. sunday nice on v spa's q&a. >> this is c-span the with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on american history tv. get schedules and see past programs at our website. join in the conversation on social media site. >> treasury department undersecretary for terrorism david cohen, now in his president fighting terrorism. >> he says the treasury department is hiding an al qaeda sources and helping the organization decline. this is about an hour.

he was calling it the undersecretary of terrorism. undersecretary -- the treasury on intelligence. we can think of no better person here to tell us about the role of the treasury in national security. my colleague, juan zerotti, was basically this job in a former administration. plus or minus -- well, something like that. and then juan, of course, went to the whiteout and was deputy national security adviser for combatting terror. we owe both of these officials a

great debt for their service to this nation. so on behalf of csis, i'd like to welcome you all today and i'll turn it over to juan for this fascinating discussion. >> andrew, thank you very much. thank you to ael of you for coming today and in particular, david, thank you for attending today and agreeing to do this. >> happy to be here. a great honor for us, for me. i will tell you openly and honestly, in those of you who have followed the work that we've done here at csi, i tend to invite government officials and friends. and i found david among one of my friends. this is a great discussion to have because i think as we read the newspapers every day, we see the importance of treasury as a core element of u.s. national security. and not just as a tool of national security, but strategically. it's a key part of how the u.s. government now thinks about the use of financial power and asituation in international security. and david now is leading as the

second undersecretary for financial counterterrorism and intelligence. vanguard is a tool, the vanguard is of those global elements of influence that put treasury at the center of the base. whether we're talking about organized crime, drug trafficking, treasury not only has a seat at the table, but is often the center of the debate for what we're doing with those issues. i'm very happy to have david with us today to get uts frankly into some of the torny issues that the u.s. is dealing with on a national security level. david, welcome and thank you again. >> thank you. >> david, one of the things i find fascinating is the fact that there's a lot of continuity in the evolution of these powers and efforts. you, in fact, were at the treasury department in 1999

through. can you talk to us about how you've seen the evolution of treasury in treasury's role and how it shapes key issues. >> sure. and thank you for that kind intro dukz. it is a great pleasure to be here to talk about the treasury's role in the foreign policy and national security areas of the u.s. i'm very mindful that what we're able to do today is very much dependent on the work of those who game before me, including yourself. so very much appreciate it. i was at the treasury department from '99 to 2001 in the general

council's office. at that time, the treasury department was involved in the national security elicit finance world to some extent, but to a lesser extent than we are today. we were, at the time, the u.s. government's lead on the financial action task force, which i'll come back to, but is an international body for money laundering. we were responsible in the treasury department for regulating the domestic anti-money laundering through the financial crimes and force network and, of course, for implementing -- through the office of foreign assets. and when i came to treasury, i came at a time when larry summers had just become the secretary. he really elevated the

importance of anti-money laundering as a -- not just a domestic issue, but as an international issue. saw the threat of money laundering internationally something as the treasury department should be more involved in. so we pursued those issues for the two years that i was at treasury. and the issue began to gain some greater attention both within our government and internationally. i left, as was noted in july of 2001 as this was developing, but hadn't, i don't think, taken hold. in the meantime, the part of treasury which i now lead was completely transformed. we lost all of our law

enforcement agencies. but gained something enormously important that has sort of fed our growth as an important player in that security. and that is two new offices, a policy office that is specifically dedicated to developing innovative approaches to combatting elicit finance. in the intelligence shock, we have, at the treasury department, our own intelligence unit comprised of analysts whose day in and day out mission is to develop financial intelligence, to help us understand the networks that have involved in a variety of different conduct, transnational organized crime, weapons proliferation. this is analysts help us understand where we should be

targeting our efforts. so adding on top of the pre-existing responsibilities that we have, the policy shops and the intel shops, we now are able to not only be much more effective in combatting finance domestically, but we're able to take it internationally in a way that is i think quite useful in pursuing u.s. foreign policy. we're able to talk to foreign finance ministries, foreign regulators, foreign ministries about the importance of combatting ee will it hissit finance and being able to use that as a way to address our most important foreign policy in that security goal, whether it's terrorism, weapons proliferation, transnational organized crime.

the power that we are able to expand and the foreign government and the foreign institutions and the eu and -- has let to i think a very happy consequence when the most difficult foreign policy problems are being addressed and the most difficult national security issues are being debated. we are looked to increasingly as a tool that can be used to help solve these problems and help promote that. long answer to a short question, we now have the expertise, the tools, the authorities and i think the credibility international international

internationally to be able to be a very effective tool to promote national security. >> that's a great answer. and i think sort of a layman's way of thinking of it, as well, to feed of what you range of financial tools and persuasion which you describe very well. can we dive now into some of the key, thorny issues. this week we had a lot of attention on al qaeda. we had the failed plotter, the disrupted plot out of yemen led by al qaeda arabian peninsula. a lot of discussion about the death of bin laden given the one-year anniversary and release of the documents. let's talk a little bit about al qaeda's financing and treasuries role in terrorist financing, especially as it evolves. seems that al qaeda core is not only beleaguered but is having quite a bit of trouble financing not only itself but the network but you have the rise of affiliates in a balkanizbalkani

kidnapping for ransom, criminal activity, a whole host of other ways the network itself is financing itself. can you talk about some of those trends and what treasury issy inning how to combat this evolution? >> yeah. and, you know, it's -- you know, sort of following on your first question about the evolution of my office. i am the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, although our unit is elicit finance generally, the office is named, office of terrorism and financial intelligence for a reason which is that when it was created in 2004, you know, the principle focus was going after terrorist financing. and so we have been doing that, you know, quite aggressively and relentlessly for, you know, frankly it goes before the creation of the office but certainly since the office was created. as you note, al qaeda today, al

qaeda core, the al qaeda that is holed up in pakistan, is in a much weaker state than it was, certainly, in, you know, from 2001 through 2008, 2009. in part, that has to do with actions that are taken by others. but in part, it's due to the affective use of our sanctions authority that has led to a substantial decrease in the financial support for al qaeda. when we designate individuals who are supporters of al qaeda, who are financial facilitators, who are raising money, moving money for al qaeda, that has the effect of making it much more difficult for those individuals to appropriate. certainly in the united states, where it is a crime to do any business with these people, but one of the things that we have been able to do is to get

international financial institutions, institutions that are not obliged to follow u.s. law to run the list. to screen their transactions so that they are certain they're not facilitating any transactions for individuals that we have designated for being involved in terrorist financing. that has largely prevented al qaeda from using the formal financial network to move money, to raise money, to spend money. that -- and that has had a tremendous impact on al qaeda core's financial situation. but they're not completely destitute. and one of the areas where we are, you know, very much focused today is, as you know, kidnapping for ransom, and the role of these al qaeda

affiliates, whether it's huim, al qaeda islamic magrer, the affiliate in kemmen, al shabaab in somalia, using kidnapping for ransom is way to raise substantial amounts of money. >> we're talking millions of dollars, right? >> talking millions of dollars. i think we have seen aqim in particular since 2008 using tens of millions of dollars through kidnapping for ransom. these are, you know, big hits, big dollar amounts on these individual kidnapping episodes. >> and that's much harder to effect with the class of treasury too manies. right? >> it's more difficult to affect with the tool are designations. although we do have the authority and we have used the authority to try to designate vids who are involved, for instance, in piracy, which is

sort of an analog to this. piracy off the coast of somalia, to the extent we can identify individuals who are the, sort of the money men behind the operations. we can designate them and try and -- and disrupt their ability to get access to their funds in the formal financial secretary but our tools are broader than just defrg nation. designation, and in the kidnapping for ransom whelm, we are embarking on an effort to try and persuade our allies to adopt the policy the u.s. has had for a long time. champion is, that the u.s. government will not pay ransoms and will not, will not give things of value as a concession to kidnappers. it is a difficult policy to implement in the -- in each specific instance, because, you know, there is someone who is

being held hostage that the hostage-takers are saying, you pay us. you can have your loved one back, but it is long-standing u.s. policy, and it is policy that i know the president is himself firmly committed to which is, that the u.s. government will not pay ransom. the effect of this is that we have seen that hostage-takers, kidnappers, whether it'sakim -- aqim or others are less likely to take americans because they recognize there's not a pot of gold at the end of this enterprise. there are others who don't subscribe to this policy. there are countries that pay ransom. there are organizations that pay ransoms. we are very much focused on trying to use our persuasive

ability along with our designation tools to, to get others to adopt a policy that is the same as ours, essentially. so we are using diplomacy. we're using law enforcement. information-sha information-sharing efforts. there are good examples of our use of military force when appropriate to free hostages. >> in the convenient of somalia. >> yeah. exactly. but the -- the initiative that we are undertaking to try and take the money out of kidnapping for ransom, take the incentive out of it, is hugely important, because these are -- this is the sort of the leading edge of terrorist financing today. it is, you know -- i sort of analogize it sow sort of the super pac of terrorist financing, because instead of

the sort of the individual donations being bund maled up a delivered to terrorist groups you have these big chunk of monies coming in. >> interesting. shift gears and talk about iran. treasury, the pressure campaign has become a central component of the engagement with iran. the central hope, frankly, for the change of behavior on the iranian side, with some evidence, very good evidence, that the iranian economy has been hurt badly by the pressure. which i would say i think started in '0 5-06 and carried through and strengthened over time. can you talk to us about, in the first instance, where you see the financial pressure taking us, and i think the fundamental question being whether or not financial pressure, the kind that you've helped fashion, will change the iranian behavior at the negotiating table? especially as we look towards

baghdad? >> yeah. well, you're exactly right. the path that we've been on began as of the '05-o6 time frame, working through the u.n. to get the u.n. security council resolutions adopted, highlighting iran's failure to comply with its international obligations, and also designating people at the u.n. level, and working with foreign partners both in the private sector and in governance to have similar actions taken to isolate and put pressure on iran. the last, you know, it's three years, we have been pursuing what has been known as the dual track strategy. on the one hand, offering the iranians the opportunity for meaningful substantive, sincere engagement, but on the other hand making clear they will face increasing pressure as long as they don't