stiglitz. >> yes. first, let me highlight the seriousness of this issue. we have bilateral trade agreements with some countries. one of the developing countries that we had a -- had proposed an agreement with was a president was a doctor. he had signed the hippocratic oath to do no harm. and it explained to him that it was inconsistent with that for him to sign the bilateral trade agreement with the united states because by doing that, it would deny access to life saving medicine to his people. the reason these provisionaries are included are obviously clear. the united states -- these are not free treatment agreements that we have. they're managed trade agreements. if they were free trade agreements, they would be a couple pages long, would get rid of all of our trade barriers, you get rid of your trade barriers. all our subsidies, their subsidies. these go on, as you know, for hundreds of pages because they are really special interest pieces of legislation. and a special interest that has played a very important role in shaping trade negotiations are int

. >> the same applies to libya -- lydia stiglitz. we would only call her as a rebuttal witness, possibly. >> she would waive the privilege to testify? you are with drawing her as an affirmative witness, right? she could provide testimony as to lopez on a relevant date. >> i think we should allow it for the same reasons we are allowing de leon. >> i agree with that. anny dissenting views? callie williams? there was an objection to her providing any testimony. has that view changed? >> in light of the conversations and everything else that evening, that has not changed. >> ok. >> you do not intend to call calllie williams? >> no. >> andrea wright? >> that is sheriff mirkarimi's probation officer, and we would only call her as a rebuttal witness. >> thank you, mr. waggoner. just to recap, art agnos, the commission decided we would not need the declaration. same with phil bronstein. jan dempsey, we expect the parties to reach a stipulation on. john keene, withdrawn. evelyn nyevez withdrawn. lydia stiglitz withdrawn. andrea wright withdra

stiglitz, you are a doctor, right? why don't you -- >> not a real doctor. >> it will do for this committee. >> the fundamental problem is that the incentives do not direct attention to the areas that are the most socially productive. that's a fundamental problem. so if the returns are highest for a drug that doesn't add any real value or very little value, that's what they're going to do. it's been proven successful. it provides somebody's profit by half and we know we can do it because it's been proven. >> you need to be an economist to know that? that is my question. >> and the result is they aren't going to be a profit extender. but we are all affected by that because we're a global -- because they don't carry passports and know about visas to go across boundaries so that we can all be exposed to diseases that originate. at one time, the disease are the poor and they become the more diseases in the advanced industrial countries. the broader point which jamie has emphasized is if you look at the difference between wh

stiglitz. our next panelist is lawrence lessig who is the royal professor of law at law school and center for ethics at harvard university. he founded claetive commons and the foundation for internet society in stanford law school and was previously on the faculty of chicago law school. professor lessig serves on the boards of creative commons, maplelight, brave new film foundation, the american academy berlin, axa research fund and on the advisory board of the sunlight foundation. he's a member of the american academy of arts and sciences and has received numerous awards including the freedom award, fast cast 50 award and being named one of scientific american's top visionaries. >> thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. as you know, since the beginning of this republic, there has been a fierce debate about how best to create incentives for scientists and innovators to discover and to bring to market advances in science that address important public needs. on one side of that debat

stiglitz mentioned that other companies can make more money by making me, too, products rather than investing in the health crises facing americans all over the world. dr. love, do you want to say a word on that or anybody else? >> i'm not a doctor, so i'll just set the record straight on that. but, i mean, the good news is that there's been about 25 different new chemical entities that have come on the market in the past 25 years. that's a positive thing. i think patients need a complicated mixture of products. they need a minimum of three in highly active treatment. a lot of them use four products and some people use more than that. the feasible combinations are complicated in people that develop resistance. it's a positive thing that there's been a pipeline of drugs. i think everyone that works on issues at a very minimum wants to protect the fact that there's continuous innovation products with serious side effects. the reality is 1 of the 15 largest products are based on drugs that are at least 9 years old. so given the fact that we're spending $8 billion a year to support the monopoly s

testifying this morning nobel laureate economist joseph stiglitz, harvard law professor lawrence less ig and a number of public health figures. vermont senator bernie sanders is chairing this hearing. he's in the room. this is about to get under way. [ gavel ] >> 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 in the next few months. for the united states congress, this is a fairly radical piece of legislation. 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

stiglitz, you are a doctor, right?why don't you -- >> not a real doctor. >> it'll do for this committee. [laughter] >> the fundamental problem is that the incentives provided by our intellectual property system do not direct attention to the areas that are the most socially productive. that's the fundamental problem. so if the returns are highest for a me-too drug that doesn't add value, that's what they're going to do. it's dividing somebody else's profits by half, and we know we can do it because it's been proven. so the incentives for the direction of research do not accord in any way with social returns. it's particularly true if we look at this from a global point of view because many of the diseases are diseases of poor people, and one of the attribute of poor people is they don't have money. and when you don't have money -- >> you need to be an economist to know that. that's my question. [laughter] >> and the result of that is they aren't going to be a profit center for -- but we are all affected by that because

before we get to that i want to point out that joe stiglitz, a prize winning economist, said the stimulusenough. he said, we will see in the next two year it is real cost of there not being a second round of stimulus. we will see the economy slow down at a very high economic cost. rob, as a republican will you acknowledge at least there is a debate to be had about whether or not government spending is wise? >> no. i will not. i will admit there is a debate going on, but i don't think we should be having this debay. i agree with governor romney. he did a great job laying out the plan and the problems we have. >> is this an issue that democrats can win on or do they have to just agree the spending is too much and has to be spent down? >> well, first of all, let's put this in context. most of the debt occurred under george bush's watch. two unpaid-for wars. policies that put us in economic collapse that further grew into this debt. the spending thing is interesting because frankly now you see two parties in two different areas. republicans say let's not do anything to stimulate the economy a

you've got joe stiglitz, who, of course, called the crisis earlier than anyone. and at the center of it all, you've got all 6'8" of him, paul volcker. >> narrator: they had been advising him for months-- warning, really. >> obama at that moment gets a real glimpse of the future: disaster is coming. >> narrator: and in those first weeks after the election, his entire economic team was stunned by the bad news. >> we we all worri abo what we were seeing. we knew that the credit system was pretty quickly headed towards something that looked a lot like seizure. >> narrator: unemployment was nearly 7% and climbing, the stock market was down more than 6,000 points. >> there was a growing sense of calamity. this could be the most climactic economic cris in all of american history, that we were that close to a complete meltdown. >> at the end of the conversation, there's basically no bright spots. and i say to the then-president- elect, "wow, that had to have been the worst economic briefing a new president's had in, you know, almost a century." and the president says, "t

europe is demanding that the three little pigs and miss piggy, winnie the pooh stiglitz, and other traditionaland piglets be removed from the innocent folks of children. they have probably not read enough to know that the empress of landings and the earl of emsworth are infinitely renewable delight in the splendid pages. but there will be trouble when they get that far. an old statue of a wild boar in a region in middle england has already been threatened with mindless islamic vandalism. in microcosm, this apparently trivial fetish shows how religion and faith and superstition distort our whole picture of the world. [applause] [applause] >> my name is olivia wilde. the last e-mail that christopher romey said that he had a few significant things in life. one of the most significant was be my babysitter. he was a wonderful babysitter. he later entrusted me with the beautiful antonia. i'm going to read a piece from the boston review about a subject close to my heart, haiti. even though he is a semi- colony of united states and via a client military, the object of u.s. military intervention, there

witnesses include nobel prize winner and economics and former britain administration official joseph stiglitz. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> the issue we are discussing today is of monumental importance. it may be controversial first within the halls of the united states congress but the american people understand this concept of the more support there will be. i think it is fair for me to tell you i do not expect the legislation we will be discussing today to be passed tomorrow or in the next few months. the united states congress, this is a fairly radical piece of legislation. many billions of dollars of opposition will be out there from drug companies and other sources. 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 is what we are doing today. the ideas people may be hearing on c-span may sound fairly radical but they're not because what we are talking about is common sense and in the best interests of the people of our country and throughout the world. i want to thank all of you for being here not ju