and although i accept mr. f farley's memory of the observer, it's going to be better than mine, they were sort of readdressing that climate then and how different it is now. >> the committee in 2003 concluded that there was widespread evidence of despicable practices across the media, including payments to the police. i appreciate the legal sensitivities in this question but i will put it to you, anyway. in your evidence in 2003, you were asked if you paid the police, and you said, we have paid the police in the past. if i may suggest to you the manner in which you said that. you said it almost as though we have paid the police in the past, the implication being as do all tabloid newspapers. i'm not asking to you make specific allegations. in your general knowledge, were payments to the police widespread across fleet street,

or were they confined to international newspapers. >> actually, i was going on to explain my comment, and as you know, mr. bryant was asking me to explain my comment and the actual session ended. in 2003 comments about paying police was, in fact, clarified. i think the chairman of the 2007 inquiry clarified it again, and i clarified it recently to the home affairs committee at the end of march, i think. now, i can say that i have never paid a policeman myself, i've never sanctioned or knowingly sanctioned a payment to a police officer. i was referring -- if you saw at the time of the home affairs select committee recently, you would have various people from

fleet street expressing that in the past payments have been made to police offices. i was referring to that wideheld belief, not widespread practice. in my neighborhood, the newspaper comes free of charge. >> in reference to the parliament committee yesterday, he stated that to his knowledge the daily mail has never published a story based on hacking or blacking. this from a group that they identified made 1,387 transactions across its titles. do you think it's credible that all those 1300-plus transactions were illicitly obtained, or is there this wider culture of hacking and blacking of which your paper was a part.

>> i didn't see it as evidence. i think that you have seen all the media groups in this country. international has been the one to welcomely open the prime minister's public inquiry which i think all these street practices are. we haven't gotten the permits yet. the fact is i'm not in a position to comment on other newspaper groups. like i said at the beginning, things went badly wrong at "news of the world" and we are doing our best now to sort it out. and except for not the speed this committee would have wished, mistakes have been made and we're trying to make it right. there was a select committee inquiry into it and it is right that the code of ethics of journal lisists and the ethics journalism are constantly in

review. if not, the freedom of the press enjoys, if there is not constant review of conduct in ethics, then they are at risk. >> one final question. your correspondence with the committee did place great emphasis when you were refusing to attend in previous letters on you being willing to attend or if you had identified an operation, otherwise you put emphasis on whatever happened to "news of the world," it was part of this wider culture. if you seem to know or imply that these practices were going on elsewhere, how could you not be aware that they were going on end endemically at "news of the world", and do you not regret that you yourself did not undertake some kind of investigation into "news of the world" rather than letting these things drip out? >> i think just going back to 2002, 2003, when all the changes

to the data protection act. the fact is there was a branch change as a result of the select committee inquires, and i was then editor of "the sun," and i can say absolutely that "the sun" is a very clean ship, a great newsroom, and in particular, the operation referred to "news of the world." >> thank you. in a few moments, a hearing on the cost of aids/hiv drugs. in a little more than an hour and a half, the senate aging committee looks at ways to help unemployed older workers. after that a pentagon briefing that includes an update on the oxygen system and the f-22

stealth fighter. saturdays this month. cspan radio is airing more from the nixon tapes, secretly recorded phone conversations from 1971 to 1973. this saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, hear conversations between president nixon and white house special counsel and key adviser chuck coulson who passed away last month as they talk about the democratic nominee, george mcgovern. >> he doesn't have what it takes. >> you don't think so? >> no. >> he's on the verge. >> listen to 93.1 fm. we are on channel 119 and streaming at cspanradio.org. next a hearing on the cost of aids/hiv drugs. the senate-held subcommittee focused on the chair man's bill

designed to bring incentives to hiv research and lower the cost of drugs. this is a little more than an hour and a half. we're going to begin the hearing, and i want to thank all of you very, very much for being here. in my view, the issue that we are discussing today is of monumental importance, and while it may be controversial within the halls of the united states congress, i have the feeling that the more the american people understand this concept, the more support that there will be. and i think it's fair for me to tell you that i do not expect the legislation that we'll be discussing today to be passed tomorrow or the next few months. for the united states congress, this is a fairly radical piece of legislation. we have many billions of dollars of opposition that will be out

there from drug companies and other sources. but i believe from the bottom of my heart that this issue is so important that discussion has got to begin as soon as possible, and that's what we're doing today. so the ideas that people may be hearing on c-span today may seem fairly radical. in a few years they're not. i think what we're talking about is fairly sense cal and they're best for our country and people throughout the world. i want to thank all of you for being here, not just for being here today but for the work many of you have done for many, many years on this subject. i start my approach to health care from a very basic premise. that's something that i have believed throughout my entire life, that health care is a right, not a privilege, and that poverty, the inability to pay for medicine or health care in general should not be a death sentence neither in the united

states of america or anyplace else. and yet to a significant degree, that is the case. today some 45,000 americans die each year because they don't get to a doctor when they should, and many, many others are suffering. now, to me, one of the great moral issues of our day is that there are people in our country suffering, and in some cases, dying because they are not able to afford a medicine that can be purchased for pennies for treatment. in other words, it is one thing -- and i think we could all understand this -- if somebody has an illness that is unable to be treated, we don't know how to treat it, that death is a tragedy. but it is a different type of tragedy. it is a needless tragedy when somebody dies because they can't pay a few pennies for a drug that is out there that can cure

them and is their suffering. that's what we're talking about today. the analogy would be if somebody were in the middle of a swimming pool and drowning and somebody turned their backs and said, i'm not going to jump in the pool and save that child. the united states has today, as i think most americans know or should know, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. according to the canadian department of medicine's prices review board of annual survey, the average price for drugs in the united states for 2009 were 80% higher in the u.s. than in canada and approximately 150% higher than france, sweden and switzerland. price differences on certain drugs are far greater, some of which i'll be talking about in a minute. the simple fact is that the prices of patented medicines are a significant barrier to access the health for millions of uninsured and underinsured

americans, let alone people in the developing world, and people die because of that. now, this is an enormously important issue, and it's an issue that says that our health care system is a system which allows significant numbers of people to die and suffer because they can't afford medicine. according to the kaiser family foundation and the harvard school of public health, 40% of americans reported at least one of three cost-related concerns in their family, 16% say it is a serious problem to pay for prescription drugs, 29% say they have not filled a prescription in the past two years because of the cost, and 23% say they have cut pills in half or skipped doses in order to make a medication last longer. i remember talking to a physician in northern vermont,

primary care physician in a working class town in my state, and she says, yeah, i write out the prescriptions but 40% of the people don't bother to fill them. what sense does that make? what sense does that make when people are unable to fill and pay for a prescription? it makes no sense. people then get sicker, they end up in the hospital at great cost to the entire system, not to mention all of the suffering that is involved. stop and think for a moment what these numbers really mean. while we now take it for granted, one of the great advances of the 20th century was the advent of modern medicine's capability of treating a wide range of debilitating and fatal meds. but all that doesn't mean a thing if someone can't afford to purchase that drug. the subject we are discussing

today is relevant to all illnesses. we have reviewed demonstration for all kind of illnesses, but today the illness we are discussing deals specifically with hiv/aids medicine. let me tell you why i have introduced separate legislation just to deal with hiv/aids. and the reason is that it simply blew me away, and i think would blow anyone's minds away, to understand that one drug, atripla, costs over $25,000 per person per year for a course of treatment, but that a generic fda-approved version of the very same drug is being purchased from a competitive supplier by a u.s. government program, and that program is, of course, the president's emergency plan for aids relief, pepfar, for under

$200 per aids patient for distribution in developing countries. let me repeat that again in case someone in the c-span world didn't get it. that is, the same exact drug, which in a local pharmacy here in washington, d.c. will cost a patient $25,000 is being purchased by the united states government for distribution in the developing world for $200. $25,0 $25,000, $200. now, according to the cdc, approximately 1.2 million people are living with hiv in the united states. each year approximately 50,000 americans are infected with hiv, and approximately 17,000 people with aids died in the united

states in 2009. globally, of course, the numbers are staggering. according to the world health organization, there are more than 34 million persons living with hiv, it's worldwide, and 207 more are infected each year. 90% of hiv-positive persons live in developing countries. over 30 million persons, yet only approximately 7 million of them are receiving treatment. so in the developing world, the vast majority of the people who are struggling with hiv are not getting the therapy that they need. although medicines can slow or even halt the advance of hiv, many americans -- we're back in the united states of america -- diagnosed as hiv positive are not taking the medicines they need because they simply cannot afford to buy them. the increased demand has overwhelmed federal financial

support for the aids drug, assistance program admin steist by the states. in fiscal year 2010, they served a record 229,000 people reflecting a need of 24,000 people in fiscal year 2009 and a 40% increase since fiscal year '07. however, during that same period, federal funding only grew by 9%. so here's where we are in the united states of america. i'm not talking about south africa, we're not talking about the developing world. funding shortages caused adap waiting lists that had been whittled to 300 nationwide in 2010 to grow to a high of 92,000 people in 2011. they are still at 2700 people as of may 10, 2012. that's 2,759 americans last week

who need to be on treatment who are not. and that, frankly, is only part of the story because many more are simply being kept off or thrown off the waiting lists due to stiffer eligibility requirements. for example, if your income is just a little too high or your state has a cap on the number of people who can enroll, you may not even get on a waiting list. so to summarize, all over the world, millions of people are suffering from hiv, not getting the treatment they need in the united states of america. people are suffering with hiv not getting the treatment we need although the treatment is extremely inexpensive. that's the challenge that we are going to address today. how do we deal with that? the approach that we are offering today, and i'm so happy that our very distinguished panel is here to discuss it with

us, is that in the case of aids, people can get the drugs that they need, should be able to get the drugs that they need at prices that they can afford. that's the radical concept that we have. people should not be dying because they can't afford a rather small cost for drugs. and the solution that we are offering is a prize fund proposal targeted to hiv/aids medicine, s-1138, and that's the legislation we're discussing today. under this bill, innovation would be rewarded annually from a $3 billion prize fund from hiv/aids. the prize fund would make awards to developments of medicine based primarily on the added therapeutic value, a new treatment office and the number of people it benefits. products would have generic competition immediately after fda approval.

that is -- and here is the key point. the bill would eliminate today's high-priced marketing monopolies where a company says we own the patent, nobody else can have it. we can charge however much we want for the medicine. in the case of atripla, $25,00 a year per patient. some of the witnesses will receive a prize today for bringing a new drug to market. they do receive a prize, but it's called a monopoly. that's the prize that they receive. under the legislation we are discussing today, instead of making their money by charging their patients outrageously high pric prices, in the case of atripla 25,000 per year, innovative companies would be making their money by receiving prize fund

payments for producing medicines that eased suffering and saved lives. once that medicine is approved for sale, that company can receive prize payments, but the medicine goes to the market at an affordable price because of generic competition. again, in the case of atripla, instead of $25,000, generic companies are making it for $200. there are many other aspects that we will discuss today, but in essence, the concept is designed to accelerate innovation and expedite access to life-saving medicines at the same time. more new ideas to tackle the serious health problems facing humanity, getting that product out to the market as inexpensively as we possibly can. this legislation would reward true innovation, eliminate the market incentive for copycat drugs and get all hiv/aids treatments to the people who

need them at generic prices, which some have estimated to be under 1% on average compared to brand name prices for hiv medicines. i believe that by breaking the link between drug prices and the rewards for medical research and development, we can provide virtually universal access to medicines as soon as they are available on the market. we can end rationing and restrict the formularies and we can provide a fund that provides significant rewards but only for new medicines that offer new value. bottom line would be better product sooner and generic prices for pharmaceutical products right away and not after ten years of astronomical prizes. how do we pay for it? it pays for itself and then some. while $3 million for this may sound like a lot of money, when you compare to the savings we would realize by paying generic prices for the approximately 9.7

billion imf health estimates, it was used on imf drugs last year before rebates and discounts, it was a bargain. so the original estimate does sa cost money but we save money long term. this bill would require health insurance programs to abide by this and all people covered by private plans. to conclude, the bottom line is our goal for medicines must be to develop drugs as quickly as possible, drugs that are the most effective we can find for the diseases people are facing, and to get them out to every person who needs them as soon as possible. that is what i tried to do with s-1138 for hiv/aids treatment. we should reward innovators for developing these new medicines for those that do not require anyone to wait, suffer, and in

some cases, die. i want to thank the panel that we have with us today. this is not only a distinguished panel, but it is a panel of folks who have been working, in some cases, on this issue and are very familiar with this issue, and i want to thank them, again, not only for being here today but for the work they have done for so many years. let me begin with dr. mohammad aurks chter. dr. achter is the director of the d.c. department of health. dr. achter as executive director of the national american association, and commissioner of pun health for the district of colombia. he has also been professor of the school of medicine and public health at howard. one of his goals sex up and downing hiv services, including making them available on demand. dr. achter, thank you so much

for being with us. >> good morning, chairman sanders. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i want to thank you for holding these hearings, and i'm honored to be here to testify in support of your bill, 1138. we thank you for all the work that you have done in the past. i know for many years that you have been always a tireless advocate for the american people's health, you want to make sure the people have the services available and accessible and affordable to them, and i think this bill is a continuation of your lifelong effort in making sure that people have access to the medication that people so desperately need in order to live and live healthier lives. i want to share with you this morning and members of the committee the successes that we have in our nation's capitol, washington, d.c., in dealing with hiv/aids epidemic.

the district of colombia has emerged as a leader in prevention. we've been doing the hiv testing, educational programs in the schools, we are testing in the clinics and emergency rooms, but we are also testing for hiv in the dmv where people come to get their driver's license or the social services center where people come to get social services so it's widely made available and accessible. last year we tested 122,000 people, which means one out of five citizens in the district of colombia has a chance to come and know their status. but that's not all. we've also been very active in connecting people once they've been tested to the treatment. 75% of the people that tested positive were connected to the treatment within three months. armire, mirror gray, the city has been very supportive of

hiv/aids treatment. they are linked together. you cannot do one without the other. so we have made the treatment available to all who test positive so nobody in the district of colombia is turned away. in fact, we know in other states that there is a waiting list, and sometimes people come to the district and register themselves so they could get the free medication, and that's a shame. because everybody ought to be able to get the medication where they live and where they work. as chairman, also i want to say because of our work in prevention, in treatment, we've been very successful because we had a very close collaboration with the federal government, particularly with the centers for disease control and also with the national institute of health where there has been personal interest in the district to make sure we have the best assistance available to be able to act on it. so because of our work in the

district, along with our community-based partners, since 2009 there has not been a baby born with hiv in the district of colombia, since 2009. the number of cases of people dying from hiv has been reduced by more than 50% in the last five years. number of persons and the number of cases, because of our preventative work, has declined since 2009. they play a big role providing us the drugs we were able to provide our residents. but despite all this success we talk about in the district of colombia, it comes at a very high cost. first, there are a lot more people living with hiv/aids today and every day the numbers

continues to increase. second, more than half our people living in the district of columbia are now in their mid-40s, so they are in need of additional medical care, which is expensive. we've been very fortunate to move some of these patients over to medicaid so they could get the other services that are available. the cost in the district of columbia for one patient per year is right now 9,400 per person. and that cost is going to go up. this is the minimum cost, because we are now starting treatment earlier and earlier right after the diagnosis, and i believe it's going to be a lot higher when everybody who needs the medication needs to be on the treatment. in 2009, there were 755 cases in the district of columbia, new cases. and they added 228 million to the cost. and after all, at the end of the day, the taxpayer ends up paying for these costs, and we all end up paying these very exorbitant

costs. so we are very encouraged by the bill you have introduced, and we look forward to having good discussion on the bill and seeing the whole thing eventually pass so you could not only take the situation at home but also abroad. thank you very much, mr. chairman, for the opportunity. >> thank you, dr. akhter, for all the work that you're doing. our next panelist is frank allman, jr. he is a direct chairman on the association of people with aids. he also serves on the board for the council. he is the commissioner of the public health division on std, hiv/aids and the bureau of hiv program services for the department of health. he launched the face of the aids project in 1999 which spawned two books and a touring pho