would you indulge me mr. chairman, to just do what the rest of the commissioners say? >> thank you, senator, for the opportunity to comment your you're right, disclosure and transparency are good in many, many content. as the chairman pointed out about a year ago, we had a vote, it was when three of at the time at the commission. i'm concerned about collusion. so we want to encourage transparency. the same time we need a balance that against what is the right forum it should that be the federal election commission or the federal communications commission? should broadcasters and having the enforcers of political campaigns and these other groups that are formed quickly put the burden only on them. i think there are a lot of equities here as well. there's a lot of groups that get informed in this context of elections and public issues and. so where did all the burden go? the money flows to new media,

close to old media, to a lot of different places in old media not just broadcast licensees. so need to be careful to balance. >> there's no balance here. it says requires on air identification of the sponsors of advertisement. so does that mean you are a no? >> there are already both fcc rules and fcc rules regarding these sorts of things. so all the mouse print and the quick fast talk at the end of ads cover all of that. >> we just came to more than a billion dollars, probably two to $3 billion of outside ads from these undisclosed sources. so this is not a matter of, it's not an issue in front of the public. it's here. it's right now. what about you, ms. clyburn? >> i will look forward to working with you if there is

anything that we have or have not done, or that you identified as deficient. we moved a long way in moving information that stations were previously keeping on premises to the airwaves. it may be opportunity for investigative work and the like of more clear. again, if there is anything we left out, if there's any ice not daughter i look forward to further engagement with you. >> so that's a maybe. how about you, commissioner rosenworcel? >> i will make it easy. yes, i agree with you. sunlight is the best disinfectant and we should look at our rules, make sure they're updated under section 317, and make sure that the findings that we receive are as transparent as they need to be. >> commissioner pai? >> i share my colleagues value of openness and transparency in all phases of our work. one of issues i think that we

are confronting is the section 317, requires the disclosure of persons, committees, corporation or other entities that are sponsoring the advertisements of is the question and accruals whether that requires the disclosure of all the sponsors who are underlying the actual sponsor. so there's also some practical considerations. a report studied this issue in some depth and pointed out regardless of what congress says with respect to the law and what we do with respect to our will, it wouldn't hurt forced update some of our guidance to broadcasters be some that guidance has been updated since 1963 and is still talks about the fact that the expensive kinescope print that used to produce a film might want sponsorship identification t. i think there's things we could

do internally to provide greater clarity for industry. >> that sounds like a maybe-yes. in which case need one more vote. [laughter] >> need three votes. now, this is a great consequence to the political sphere of how it was influenced by undisclosed, unlimited money. thank you, mr. chairman spent will the senator yield to a question? >> to my chairman, of course. >> it's a fascinating question, and it goes to the very root of the integrity of democracy. and there were two fairly, one fairly clear, one fairly clear yes, and then it was sort of a yes maybe and then, there's no complexity to the question. there's no way, cerebrally, to

avoid answering his question. to say that the fcc or someone could do. that's not what he's asking. do you have the power to do, and he's asking will he do it. i don't think it's unfair for him to insist that you have my permission, santa cruz doesn't kill me and senator cantwell, senator begich will kill me nation i think he should press his point. spinning i'd be happy to answer that. we took a major step last year in increasing transparency around political ads and the making the information available to consumers. >> you migh might've done that,i commend you for that. but it didn't affect the outcome. here's the outcome. it's disclosure. once all those entities have to put their mouths where their

money is, it's too embarrassing for some of them. now, some of them of course it was obvious. they made no bones about it. but when you hide behind that committee of the flag, mother and country, and in the name of that entity, all of the contributions are made, you are violating the statute and the rule that you'll implemented to flesh out the statute. >> thank you, senator nelson. senator begich. >> that was very interesting debate, and it would be interesting at some point to further the discussion. but let me come as many of you know, i always start coming for someone to say thank you for all the work you've done in regards

to some of the just mentioned in an award given in regards to alaska, but always been parochial and always caring about my state, i want to live data points and had a couple questions, country if i can direct them your way another they want to respond. a new study came out i think called session could respective group found that 6%, 60% of alaska has wholly inadequate telecommunications. 16,000 census blocks in alaska no wireline broadband service or no wireless service whatsoever. another 4300 census blocks have no wireless service at all. to get to 3g, forget for gee, just to get to 3g in alaska is a quarter of a billion dollars of investment. so we have significant investment needs. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask a couple of questions in regards to resource for and i just finished i think he was order six and with the issues that are the issues that a think as a

order six they came out and let me just kind of stated here. you've got some positive impacts, again for alaska, but it's clear and it appears there's an error in the analysis that first i the consumer is the designation of tribal lands. the fcc itself and previous dockets considered lifeline and linkup services recognize alaska as designated 100% tribal land. we're not like any other state. we don't have reservations. and so in 2012, july, the wireline bureau conceded that mounting alaska is 100% tribal land was an error and should be corrected. to date that direction has not happened. what's more disturbing is the most recent arbitrary designations, i mean, 23% tribal. where to come up with a data to back that up? being born and raised, i'm going to kill you, i know, they will

be anxious to talk about what a tribal land is and will come to you because you some commentary which i appreciated. i d don't how you come up with these designations. i'm anxious, one, how you came up with it, and i want to see the data. because someone to tell you, i would be surprised if the fcc understand, no disrespect to all of you and your staff, what tribal lands are. 23% of the north slope bureau, that's one simple, it's not tribal and. the whole areas tribal land. odyssey to be referring am a little agitated because it has offended many of my constituents in alaska how an agency can determine what tribal lands is. when you already have, when bureau is saying they made an error to be 100%. the mr. chairman, how do you respond to the? i want to get the data, it comes from somewhere. where ever that summer is. >> thank you for the positive remarks on our overall reform efforts begin i spent much time

talking about this in alaska although not in the north slope. and certainly i recognize, we'll recognize, the staff recognizes the other elements of alaska that are unique and we have to take into account in our rule, and that the tribal issues in alaska are complex and very important. on the specific question asking him if it meant i like to follow up with you on that because the north slope tribal issues not something -- >> that's just one. it's throughout alaska. i just want to know what the data came to determine the speed was applied that and work with you. >> senator, first of our, thank you for raising this issue. as you know, if it weren't for senator ted stevens, i would not be here, and i'm eternally grateful for that. spin i'm just here to help you remind you of that fact.

>> it's been a priority of mine since my very first trip as a commissioner was to alaska in august 2006. i've been to the north slope in winter when it was a balmy 55 degrees below zero. someone to work with you on this issue to correct it. >> very good. >> and senator, as you know, i came to alaska in the dead of summer last night and i'm unapologetic for that. but i want to assure you, we talked several times that we run a data driven process, and all data and message in terms of analysis and many of the analysis that we come up with, are open to you. so again i invite you to come down to the office or we can come to you. might be easier for you to come down to the office for some of

us. and if there are any remaining questions, which -- >> will make it happen to my time is about run out. spend i've been to alaska. i've been up there with you and i think our to post think our to post it personal when you have a regression model it is only as good as the data you put into it. the second point is alaska is big and fast, it's possible that does not fit into the model that we use in the lower 48 states. >> very good. mr. chairman, if i could take two seconds to kind of go through one other one was a letter that was sent to alaska delegation david august 2012, mr. chairman, adopted a variable that specifically account for provision services in alaska. that variable adopted commission for construction in alaska is a negative coefficient of the work, the data says, doesn't make -- trying to hold myself here for a second -- 46% lower to construct in alaska than the

lower 48. that is impossible based on my experience. as you said, data going in, create something that doesn't work. one gets a 679% higher cost to construct in alaska. we have less than four months. san juan may be warmer come 12 months. how do explain that? can you give me the data that explains this, or fix this problem but it doesn't make sense. >> i think there may be a misunderstanding. our staff recognizes the cost and expense of building out in alaska. so we will pursue that with you and your staff, and i look forward to that. >> let me just in and say, commissioner pai, thank you come again in the data i showed him some of your commentary, i did not read the nine page speech but i got good comments -- commentary on a. but as you, you agree that it makes no sense or that they

should be clear review of additional reduction? the u.s. have fun, special in alaska based on this data that i just laid out on the 60% accessibility issue? >> first i want to think he -- >> i'm tagging you because you had a little different view on the last order. >> i wanted to express my appreciation for productive changes both in public and private that i know it's important to you and to support to me and my colleagues as well. i think one of the issues that we are confronting and you encapsulated in your question which had used the words negative coefficient and things like that, an elegant model, even one in abstract is mathematically sound can often run aground on the shores of alaska. there are a number of unique challenges that the state faces that are not adequately captured in the model. there are two solutions. one is to stay with things the way the ivory the others to make the necessary changes to the model either by tweeting triples are putting in better day.

as you know i've expressed it before, i stand with you in terms of my willingness to get it right. make sure that we do what we can to provide predictability and adapt to the condition of alaska spent look forward to seeing you in june. >> june, july, august. we will look forward to that. >> thank you. thank you, thank you spent thank you, senator begich. the most patience, senator chris. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to begin by thanking the chairman, thing each of the commissioners for your service, for being here, for your extended testimony today. i appreciate your being here. i like to ask a couple of questions about the spectrum policy. i would like to begin with just a word of caution. about the recent exchange with senator nelson. the fcc has a long tradition of being nonpartisan. and as each of you know, to

disclose act as a subject of deep, deep division within the united states congress. and many are concerned the disclose act, if passed, would have a proud -- profoundly partisan impact and would raise grave first amendment issues. so the word of caution i would raise is, where the commission to endeavor through rulemaking to end run congress and adopt a rule that would be perceived as overtly partisan, i would caution that doing so could well undermine the integrity of the commission and imperil the independence of the commission. so i give you that word of caution. you have an important statutory mission. and my council at least would be to leave the political disputes to the members of this body who are elected to decide. and i don't, don't require an answer to that. that is simply a word of

caution. and i want to turn to questions of spectrum now. i've seen estimates that the federal government owns or controls roughly 85% of spectrum that is suitable for wireless broadband. and the question i would ask the chairman, and each of you, is twofold. number one, do those estimates, are this consistent with your understanding? and in your learned judgment come is it appropriate for the federal government to control such an overwhelming majority of the spectrum that is suitable for broadband and for the public, the private sector, to be allocated only 15%? >> so it's an important question, santa cruz, and other members have fasted as a which is a good thing because we do need to take this issue seriously.

i've seen the number 60%, maybe measuring different spectrum, but either way when you compare the usage needs to the amount of spectrum that the federal government has, it doesn't make sense long-term, given the very powerful demand for commercial spectrum. so we are working together on this, it's essential. we need to clear it and reallocate much more federal spectrum. and i believe we also need to look at created sharing ideas and pursue those tracks. >> does anyone disagree with that? >> actually the number could be 6%, it could be 85%, it could be more depend on what to determine the best spectrum and technological innovation is actually expanding that. there was junk spectrum years ago which is now prime spectrum. but the federal government can't and must do more to relinquish spectrum for auction for exclusive use licenses. >> let me ask of any follow-up question. are any of you aware of any

reliable assessments of the value of all of the spectrum that is controlled by the government? and if not, can you imagine any sensible process for valuing its and assessing just how significant of an asset is this spectrum that is in control of the federal government speak with the idea of an audit of federal spectrum has, earlier in the hearing. it is important and i grieve my colleagues that it should be done. that should not hold up steps we can take in the near-term to free up spectrum of we know there's inefficient use and we can get on the market. >> the value could be, i'm told them if you look a 400 megahertz, maybe three gigahertz, and that's of the 85% data points are looking at, based on the $2.70 per megahertz pop auction, if all that could be used in an unencumbered way at maximum valley, i can't get

enough. that's a lot of zeros but that's in tens if not hundreds of billions. >> yes, the value of federal spectrum holding is really, really big. too many zeros to count. but i think what we need -- >> this is the body that would generate a lot of zeros. far too many. >> i know. will need to do right now though is we need to find ways to give incentives to the federal government be more efficient with its spectrum. we need to make sure that when we knock on the federal government's door and ask for more spectrum for commercial broadband use, they don't just see loss from relegation if they see the possibility of gain and i think valuing it is the first step in identifying have to do that. >> if i may as with the chairman's intelligence one final follow-up question, which is in your judgment, what is the

appropriate level of control by the federal government and the value of that and what is the appropriate level of control and/or ownership by the private sector? >> very briefly i do think that audit would be the best process as pointed out. we can value spectrum on a megahertz pop basis i would encourage that path. >> the audit plus borrowing a concept from zero-based budgeting, which is the federal, should justify use of its spectrum in a transparent way, as transparent as the federal government can be. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator. senator campbell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. i know it's been a long afternoon already but i appreciate the opportunity to address the commission. i think alaska -- the last time we were taught about media ownership rules, and i more or less know what car, looking at a

steady at this point in time to give you more feedback on the proposed rules. and so it seems as if you're going to pursue what your republican predecessor did with urging more media consolidation, obviously something i don't support your proposed rule. so not going to spend a lot of time on that today, other than just to say we will certainly pursue a resolution of disapproval if that's where you end up. i just want to point that out. not that i don't want to ask a lot of questions about it, i just now you are at the stage where you're getting more input from a steady. and i want ask about unlicensed spectrum, and i guess first i want to start with a basic concept or question to you, the chair, but against anybody else who wants to jump into. the you agree or disagree that

the spectrum crunch that we hear about also applies to the unlicensed spectrum? we spent a lot of time on the licensed spectrum i want to make sure everybody gets the demand on the unlicensed. do people think that's really should? >> i completely agree. we feel that when we are at conferences or airport and we are using unlicensed spectrum which is what wi-fi is built on, and we see and feel the congestion. this is more likely to get worse than better as more and more video and high bandwidth use traveled over wi-fi. i agree with you we need to free up more spectrum for wi-fi. we propose another 200 megahertz recently. and i also think we need to pursue a new generation of unlicensed which we can do as part of the incentive auction process. >> do you agree or disagree there's different characteristics of these different -- so like 600 megahertz or 900 or 2.4, 3.5 gigahertz, five, there are different, enabled and precludes

others spent agree. >> okay, good. and that obviously it's very important for innovators to have access to unlicensed spectrum at different frequencies, including below one gigahertz? >> i agree. and is both frequencies and it's also the power at which they are permitted to transmit. there is some wi-fi frequency available at lower frequencies, but it it's power limited and so the next generation of unlicensed them which can be both lower frequencies but also higher power levels can make a big difference and create new innovation market. >> and so how do you see us resolving these issues? how do we get the attention to these issues so we can have this clarity? >> this is in front of the commission but it was in front of congress, and there was a direction given to the

commission with respect to guard bands and looking to unlicensed and those guard bands but i think it's a good outlook from congress and that's under active consideration at the commission. >> yes, good speed and i've been a longtime provider of unlicensed use of tv spaces which is concept of at least 11 years old. we do need to move forward and incentive auction proceed by want to make sure we do not reserve a large blockers nationwide for unlicensed use. i think that would undermine funds for the public safety initiative that senator rockefeller was talking about. but we can still have robust unlicensed use below one gigahertz. we're looking about five gigahertz. but we need to be very careful to not artificially create something that lends itself better to auctioning for license purposes than unlicensed purposes. >> kind of brings up the progeny waiver. is that something the full commission is going to look at?

>> i presume so although that somehow like to get at you on but i presume it is a commission issued. >> why would it not be? >> if it fits into the category of not presenting any significant commission policy decisions, but i presume it would be. >> go ahead. >> i would hope it would be. i would hope it would be something all five of us can consider. >> i guess that's my point, is to shed some of these things that are already causing challenges in this space. i would hope that we were going to have a broader discussion about it instead of, you know, having some of these waivers given and then having occlusions basically, or conflicts like on the e-911 when you have a broad discussion of how we're going to have this unlicensed spectrum, really be a very robust space for all these applicants.

so thank you, mr. chairman spent thank you, senator cantwell. i should just point out that as it turns out, on next tuesday, at 2:30 p.m., we're going to have a classified briefing for commerce committee members on the you suspected it and then those is being spent on 10 -- is being sent. i could go on to violence, but, you know, what i would say and i know what you answer. i would just hope that you could take what you did in 2007, and also in 2009, and kind of moving forward. we have to do the heavy lifting to give you capacity. i've never quite understood that, and it has sort of a bad reaction on this committee, which i've never quite understood either. but be that as it may, you do

your work and i will try to do my. i want to thank you, particularly mr. chairman, for and convincing yourself. this is not, according to your schedule, and judging make a change. the rest of us did not, i don't think. and, therefore, i think you very much for that. these hearings are interesting, and that they won a bid from time to time, can come up with interest and importance of the. i thought senator nelson with a very important i've no idea of what you all had written about that. but people are interested. they do know the world is changing and they do want to know the right things. we have some ideological differences, not necessarily with me but with some of the day but i think in the gulf company think we can do work but in any event, thank you all for what you do.

it's complex beyond definition. and the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> the house budget committee will work on a republican plan for the 20 '14 budget. the committee a mark of the legislation and vote on amendments offered by committee members. live coverage get started at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> and now to london for prime

minister's question time live from the british house of commons. every wednesday while parliament is in session, prime minister david cameron takes question from members of the house of commons. prior to question time, the house is wrapping up other business. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> i'm very grateful for that question. we welcome the successful labour negotiation of the guidelines on land tenure. the uk is now pushing for their national innovation including -- so we'd offer best practice and include -- improved land governance. [inaudible]

>> she will know this is an issue on particularly concerned about. i think it's vital we don't lose the gains that have been made in women's rights in afghanistan as we see through draw dedicate one of the reasons why i've made the issue of women and girls a country strategic priority for our work in afghanistan going forward. >> mr. speaker, with the government put the use of food for fuel on the agenda of the g8 summit this june? >> well, we have a range of things will being discussed at the g8 but i can assure them that in our food and nutrition work that we are carrying out alongside the g8 efforts, no doubt that will be on the topic of discussions. >> order. questions to the prime minister.

>> number one, mr. speaker,. >> the prime minister. >> and whether this morning i had meeting with minister colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house i shall have server, further such meetings later today. >> we'll know the prime minister believes there is an alternative to his debt and is loss of the aaa credit rating. but is he aware that his backbenchers and some of his cabinet believe there is an alternative? to him. [shouting] >> what this government is delivering is 1 million private sector jobs, fastest rate of new business creation in this country's history. we are paying down the deficit by 25%. we've got immigration by a third. we have a long hard road to travel but we're going in the right direction. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the prime minister will wish to add his condolences to the family and friends of

christine atkins who was murdered on a bus in my constituency last thursday morning. the government is right to introduce minimum custodial sentences for people convicted of threatening someone with a knife. but with the prime minister agree with me that it is time to introduce a legal assumption that people carrying a knife can potentially use it and should attract a prison sentence so that we can redouble our efforts to rid our communities of the scourge of guides? >> i think my honorable friend speaks for the whole house and a beautiful country for his absolute repulsion at the truly horrific crime big a whole house i know will wish to join in sending our sincere condolences to christine atkins hi family. we do take knife crime extremely just a. that is why we change the laws of any adult who commits a crime with a knife can be expected be sent to prison. and for a series should expect a

very long since. i will happily look at what you suggest and into my right honorable friend is currently reviewing the powers available to the courts to do with a knife possession and you'll bring forth proposals in due course. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, in the light of his new view on alcohol pricing can the prime minister tell us is there anything he could organize in a paris? [laughter] -- in a brewery? >> i -- i have -- [shouting] i would like to organize in the brewery in my constituency a party to which he would be very welcomed to celebrate the shadow chancellor should stay for a very long time on the front bench. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> he obviously couldn't tell us about his policy on alcohol,

minimum unit pricing, mr. speaker, but i think the reality is he has just been overruled by the home secretary on this one. [laughter] let's turn to another thing the prime minister said we can't trust it in his speech last thursday he said and i quote, the independent office of budget reform are clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible for low growth. this is not what they say and will be acknowledge that today? >> first point just returned to his or her question, the interesting thing -- i will answer his question to the interesting thing about british politics right now is i've got the top team i wanted and he's got the top team that i want, too. and long may they continue. now, on the issue, on the office for budget responsibility, the point of the obr is that is independent and everyone should accept everything that it says. and i do. but should look at what he says

about why growth has turned out to be lower than it forecast it and it said this, we concluded from an examination of the data that the impact of external financial shocks the key reading export markets, and financial sector and eurozone difficulties were the more likely explanations. that is what disappear into be fair, to be fair to the shadow chancellor, in his own press release he said that the obr is and i quote, yet to be persuaded by the case that he makes. and after telling, his plans are more spending, more borrowing and more debt, the country will never be persuaded. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the prime minister is clearly living in a fantasyland. he wants us to believe, he wants us to believe that the head of the office for budget reform wrote him an open letter the day after his speech because he enjoyed it so much. because he agreed with him so much. actually we believe fiscal

consolidation measures can reduce economic growth over the past couple of years. and yesterday, mr. speaker, we learned that industrial production is at the lowest level for 20 years. that set alarm bells ringing for everyone else in this country. why doesn't it for the prime minister? >> the first point is that manufacturing decline is a share of our gdp faster under the government that he was a member than at anytime since the industrial revolution. that is what happened. the decimation of manufacturing industry under 10 years of a labour government. that is what happened. he quotes from the office for budget responsibility and i accept everything that they say. but let me quote from the introduce of fiscal studies institute of fiscal studies that says that borrowing under labour would be 200 billion higher because he accept that forecast? >> ed miliband. >> it is good to see of this second week when he's getting in -- he had nothing to say can has

nothing to say about industrial production. has nothing to say about what's happening and usher production by his own business sector, a guy who's supposed to be in charge of these issues is going around telling anyone who will listen to the plan isn't working. this is what he says. we are now in a position where the economy is not growing in the way it had been expected. and he goes on, we don't want to be japan with a decade of no growth. mr. speaker, when his own business secretary calls for them to change course, is he speaking for the government? >> let me tell him what is happening in the industrial production. we are now producing more motorcars in this country than we have at any time in our history. exports to all the key markets in terms of goods like india, china, russia, brazil are all increasing very rapidly. none of things things happen on a labour government in the trash our economy, racked up the debt and nearly bankrupted the courage. when it comes to capital spending i think we should spend

more money on capital and that's why we're spending 10 billion more than the plans of the government of which he is a member. i think we should be using the strength of the government balance sheets to encourage private-sector capital, and that's why for the first time in its history the treasure is providing those guarantees. the fact is he read the economy. he put in place plans for capital cuts and we are investing in the country's infrastructure. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, nevermind more car production. and look, and i think, things are so bad they sent out bareness over the weekend to say and i quote, she has full confidence in the prime minister. [laughter] and that he has and i quote, support from large parts of his party. [laughter] mr. speaker, mr. speaker, -- [shouting] may be he's even got a support

from a large part of its cabinet. and just a week from the budget, the home secretary goes out making speeches about the economy. i think the part-time chancellor should talk to him about the budget. and then she gets told off by the children secretary who is hiding down there for jockeying for position. isn't the truth it's not just the country that has lost confidence in the chancellor and his economic plan, it's the whole cabinet? >> the weakness in his argument is that my party has yet in the support for his leadership. as long as he keeps, as long as he keeps the shadow chancellor. but i have to say -- >> order. it is courteous for members to -- let's hear his answer. >> we are again is the argo welfare? he's got no argument on welfare. where is he argued at the deficit? he has nothing to say about the deficit. we are his plans for getting the economy moving? he's got nothing to say.

that is what is happening under his leadership. out to be nothing apart from debt, debt, and more debt. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, is absolutely hopeless and today's exchange is showing. a week out from the budget ago and economic policies than, a prime minister that makes about as he goes alone. a government that is falling apart and all the time it's a country that is paying the price. [shouting] >> six questions, not a single positive suggestion for how to get on top of the deficit that he left. not a single suggestion for how to deal with a massive welfare bill that was left. noticing suggestion for how to improve standards in our schools. but mr. speaker, i do know what he has been doing. over these last months. i do know what he has been doing, because i didn't -- >> order. this answer must be heard. the prime minister spin and it is a particular one because i

have here a copy of this diary, and i know what he has been up to. these are the tennessee is held to raise money for the trade unions in the last few weeks. we have had the gmb, the tsf a, 2.7 million pounds, dinosaur after dinosaur, dinner after dinner. they pay the money, they get the policies but the country would end up paying the price. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. it's national apprenticeship week. over 1500 businesses are now offering apprentices and will be coming and apprentices of people the prime minister join in -- taking on apprentices carefully, offering the vocational trade, training and praising all the great young people that are going to see a positive future

for our great nation? >> i will surely join audible for an invoice is about national apprenticeship week, and it is an important moment for our country because over the last two and a half years we've seen 1 million people start apprenticeships. the run rate is that over half a million a year. i think this is very important for our country. what i want to see is a new norm where we recognize that people who leave school should either be going to university or taking part in an apprenticeship. that is the agenda and ambition we should suffer young people as that for our country. >> dianna thompson. >> isn't it the case the couple who separate could still at the nursing home without begging tax rule of wine? given this glaring loophole discouraging marriage, shouldn't his -- [inaudible]? spent first of all let me just say once again, it is only the labour party that could call welfare reform a tax. a tax is when you are money and the government takes away some of your money.

what this is is a basic issue of fairness. there is not a spare room subsidy for people in private rented accommodation in receipt of housing benefit. so we should ask why is there a subsidy for people living in council houses getting housing benefit. it is a basic issue of fairness and this government is putting it right. >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible]. tomorrow, open their brand-new state-of-the-art bussing plant. does my right honorable friend agree with me that a significant investments show that this government is making britain well-equipped to win the global race? >> and i think honorable friend is right. we do see investment taking place by large multinational companies like natalie recommend that one of the most competitive tax systems anywhere in the

world. kpmg recent report that in just two years we've gone from having one of the least competitive corporate tax systems in the world to have one of the most competitive corporate tax systems at work of what is change is the right of this chancellor and discovered that has put ride the mess made by the arty opposite. >> order. question five. closed question. >> question five spent i'm glad to be leaving -- leading on what should be the goals when expire in 2015. in my view we should put the strongest possible emphasis on attempting to banish extreme poverty from the world and is the focus on extreme poverty that should come first and foremost. i also hope in replacing and enhancing the millennium development goals we can for the first time look at what i called the golden thread of things that help people and countries out of poverty which includes good government, lack of corruption, the presence of law and order, justice and the rule of law.

these things can make a real difference. >> mr. speaker, india proceeding so far i didn't expect to hear myself saying this, but can i commend the prime minister on the work that he is doing on the panel and seeking to hold to the international development budget, at a moment when we're asking people this weekend to give generously through comic relief? can identify there's one group of people who were not included in the millennium development goals who are often excluded from society as well as education, and that is those very disabled young people who face grinding poverty, the face ill health and the disadvantage of those disabilities? will give priority to them in the development in terms of the next two years? >> he makes it a good point about helping disabled people across the world and we should make sure that the framework we look at properly includes the people he says. on the wider issue of our aid budget i know it is contingent i know it is difficult but i believe we shouldn't break a promise we made to the poorest

people in our world. and i would also say to those who have their doubts, then, of course, there is a strong moral case for our aid budget but there's also a nation security case. it is remarkable that the broken countries, countries affected by conflict, they have not met one single millennium development goals between them. by helping and in these countries offer this feature to work as well as aid work, we can help the poorest in our world. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in 1997 the window excess deaths in the mortality data. but as early as 2002, there were 120 excess deaths. that figure only rosier upon your and yet labour health secretary after labour health secretary did nothing apart from all the -- in total, 1119 excess deaths occurred, some of those arwere patients who died in ther own feces. does the trick for not putting

that the scandal underlying the fact that labour supposed place to be part of the nhs is the greatest lie -- [shouting] >> order, order. members major the first of all the question was too long mr. canseco asked the treasury to bear in mind what is his was built and what is it with a very brief onto and then we can move on. prime minister spitting my response but is to respond quickly and i commend for what he did. but it's important to remember that it is this government has set up a proper independent inquiry into the disgrace is that happened at and instead that everyone has to learn their lesson, including minister in the government opposite from what went wrong. but i think we should listen when he says we should not seek scapegoats. but what we do need to do right across politics, right across thiacrossthe south, right acrosr country is in any culture of complacency. they do some fantastic said -- many to many parts we do see as he said very that figures and we need to deal with them.

>> naomi long. >> annie duke we will be -- since the signing of the good friday agreement. there are significant challeng challenges. [inaudible] does the prime minister a greater must be renewed urgency? can be explained in light of this positive engagement, there are -- both governments as joint custodians of the agreement and moving the source because it is again too long. the prime minister spent thank the honorable lady for question at harvard constructive work in northern ireland under the whole house wants to wish her well with the difficult that she and her office have faced in awaits. >> here spent i think there's responsibility for the british partnership to work together and we had a very good set pieces we. i think the greatest possible responsibility lies with the

institutions and it's great they are working and the agreement has been together but i would appeal to first minutes of the data minister, all of those involved in the assembly is put away the conflicts of the past, work on a shared vision for the people of northern ireland, start to take down the segregation from the peaceful, the things that take people apart in northern ireland. i'm the savings from those things invest in a better future for everyone in northern irela ireland. >> question eight. >> [inaudible] >> sorry, i look for to visiting soon. [laughter] i did very much enjoy my recent visit when i went to the toyota factory in which many of her constituents work. and i'm sure i will be back there, soon. >> i know my right honorable friend is quite rightly taking a

proactive role in leading trade mission to india and other countries. does he agree with me that the small manufacturing companies like those based should also be given the chance to play their start in driving britain's exports to emerging markets like india, china, and the rest of? >> my honorable friend is right, we have improved our performance in terms of exports and goods as i said earlier to these key emerging markets, but the real challenge is to get smes exporting to if we could increase i think the figure is from one in five to one in four would wipe out our trade deficit, which create many jobs and a lot of investment at the same time. i've led trade missions every single g20 country apart from argentina and other forward to doing more in the future. i will certainly include smes and perhaps some from her constituency. >> and the slaughter. >> [inaudible]. there'll be replaced by private health clinics. some of those leading to the

closure program have already -- the[inaudible] >> i don't think he's right any part of this question. the first point i would make is the nhs in northwest london is going to be getting 3.6 billion pounds this year. that is 100 million pounds more than a year before under this government we are increasing the investment. the changes that he talks about, if you refer to the health secretary, he would of course consider whether the changes are in the best interest of patients. that is the right process to follow. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister will i am should be aware of the strong contributions the british economy be made by the inbound tourism industry in this country. does he therefore share my concern as expressed by the torrents alliance changes to the does are likely to this press the number of visitors coming

particularly from brazil? what we did to ensure the border agency does not become a gross suppressant to the uk? >> i'm happy to say to my friend of the national security council met recently to consider some of these border issues. and has decided not to put the pieces onto brazilian national. we want to welcome the brazilians to make sure we enhance border security. but actually in defense of the home office, the time spent in terms of processing visas has been great improvement there, and we're looking at a number of steps to make sure we attract tourists from the fastest-growing markets, including china and elsewhere. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister except that families face a triple whammy in childcare, costs are going up, the average family has lost over 1500 pounds a year in support? therefore does he also except that he may he made announce next week to help with the cost

of childcare will be small remedy to a crises of his own making? >> i don't except with the audible that he says. it was this, that extended the number of hours to three and four-year-olds that if introduced for the first time childcare payments for under two years old. we've lived too many people out the tax altogether. someone on a minimum-wage working full-time have seen their income tax bill cut in half. i know that she wants to try and put people off to a very major step forward where we'll be helping people who work hard, want to do the right thing, the want of child care for the children but that is what will be announcing and i think it will be welcomed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. britain is in the global race not just with our traditional competitor economy but with countries like brazil, russia and india and china. ahead of the budget next week and my right honorable friend of the house what assessment he has made of where we are likely to finish in the race? if we abandon our deficit reduction program over but on some magical faraway money, as

the party opposite recommends? >> my friend makes a very important point. one of the most important reasons for continuing to get our deficit down is it is essential to have those low interest rates that are essential for homeowners and essential for businesses. and if we abandon those plans, if we listen to the party opposite would have more spending, more borrowing, more dead comics at the things that got us into this mess in the first place. >> mr. nigel dodds. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the rising price of petrol and diesel at the pumps which is set to rise to near record levels in the very near future is causing real problems for our constituents in terms of the cost of living. that, we know what the primers and the government of already done. but can he reassure that tells -- the house today about further action to cut the toxic tax and bring petrol and diesel prices down to help hard-pressed

motorists, families and industry? >> of course i will listen carefully to what the right honorable gentleman says. what i would say is that petrol and diesel prices are 10 p. a liter lower than they wouldn't be had we stuck to the absolutely toxic plan that were put in place by the party opposite. so we have taken action and we doing everything we can to help people with the cost of living. that is why we're listening to get people onto the lowest gas or electricity tariff, why we've taken 2 million people out of text of my we are frozen the council tax in the hope that we can do more to help people. >> the prime minister is right. britain does have a good record. but the rising price of fuel is causing real problem. i hope there will be good years in the budget. fuel duty increase inherited from labour will be canceled. spent i'm very grateful for what my honorable friend says about

what the government has already done on fuel duty to he did admit to say that also we took the step to help ireland committees like some of those that he represents with special conditions to try and help with what is a very major aspect, people live in his constituency don't have a choice in many cases but to use a car. we have to respect that. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister benefit personally from the millionaire's tax cut? [shouting] >> let me say to the honorable gentleman, i will pay all of the taxes that i am into. but let me just point out one small point. let me point out one small point. i had a letter this week -- [shouting] i had a letter this week, i thought people might enjoy. it's from ed who lives in camden and it says this, i am a millionaire. i live in a house where two main pounds woody guthrie combination of inheritance and property speculation. i am worried that if i sell my

house and i buy another one, i will have to pay the 7% stamp duty that the wicked tories have introduced. under labour, what we are talking of them is we never made the rich pay more. what should a champagne socialist like me do? [shouting] [laughter] >> i know that the prime minister recently visited the center in oxford, and i'm sure he shares my view that they did fantastic job of helping disabled people people committee more effectively. what guarantees can the prime minister give that communication aids will be able to more young people that is currently the case to everyone who could benefit to do so? >> i'm really grateful to my

honorable friend for raising this issue, because the center which has been now in my constituency briefly in oxford has done incredible work for people with disabilities over many years. they are making the most of extraordinaire changes in technology. when i visited them recently we look at hold draft of ways which we to make sure the nhs is making these things available to more people and a very committed to working with him and the center to make sure that happens. >> russell brown. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. prime minister conjugated promise to protect and defend budget in its entirety. that you didn't. the defence secretary who promised to balance the budget at the national audit office said he failed. prime minister, will you now guaranteed that there will be -- >> order, order. the honorable gentleman has been here 16 years. he shouldn't use the word you injury. sorry buddy makes the rules. quickly, finish the question.

>> will a commitment be given that defense budget would be protected for the in this parliament? >> the commitment i can give him is that the 38 billion black hole that we inherited has been got rid of and freeze the budget across this part at 33 billion pounds gives us the fourth largest defense budget in the world. but we're determined to use that money to make sure we equip our forces with what they need for the future and that is a massive contrast to the record of the government which he supported.

you can't be a good nurse without the things. i think we need to return to the sorts of values. jim? >> thank you. prime minister i don't expect you to know the full detail. we must get out of the bad habit of members using the word refer together chair. >> mr. speaker, i don't expect the prime minister to know the full detail on the responsible but against the background of all of those together. 1% increase in the over 5%. it's a matter for the -- it's not a matter for me. the point i would make is that public sector pay -- we have frozen at 1%. we do think that is fair.

i think the extraordinary thing about the position of the party opposite. they support the 1% increase for public to workers. they think the people on welfare should be getting more than 1%. that seems to be an extraordinary set of priorities. >> more people die. i know, the prime minister wants to reduce avoidable early mortality and cut violent crimes. will he meet with me and urge him and understand the evidence based behind minimum policy and it will critically undermine the future of effort of doing something with this. >> i would be happy to. we have had many addition discussions over the issue. there's a problem with deeply discounted alcohol with supermarkets in other stores. i'm determined we'll deal with this. we published proposals and looking at the consultation of

the results we have to deal with the problem of having 20 cans of lagger available in supermarkets. it has got to change. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the prime minister is aware of the tension -- today we are meeting with them outside 12:30 and we would like to invite the prime minister to join the party group who will be meeting them on the important date, the fourth anniversary. >> yeah. when i look at the honorable lady says, i have a meeting almost straight after with the leader of the party to propose the proposal. it may not be possible to arrange my diary. but i my say we must support people in old age. [inaudible conversations] would with the prime minister

agree with me that the results of labor failed to gain anything? at all? the leader of the opposition -- are completely and utterly have completely utterly without any support in the country as whole. [cheers] >> and i welcome the honorable gentleman, welcome the honorable gentleman. i think you'll get along just fine. [laughter] >> order. i think we come now to the . >> here on c-span2 we'll leave the british house of commons as they move to other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired life wednesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can see this week's question time again at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. and more information go to

c-span.org. and click on c-span series for prime minister questions and links to international news media and legislature around the world. you can watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. coming up, the new york law school forum hold a review on the writes of dr. seuss. the senate comes in an hour and continue working on a budget measure to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal career. live senate coverage on c-span2 at 9:30 eastern. now panel discussions on civil society and the write of dr. seuss. business consultants and law professors debate the book "the lorax" and how it can apply to business dealings. holding the panel earlier this

month. >> in "the lorax" and i guess when let me first start introduce the panelists. [inaudible] and let me introduce them in the order they'll present. i'm give you a brief synopsis of the book, and the theme, and in so doing a presentation, we are going do do a more interactive q & a and open up to audience questions. miguel, is a project manager of the aspen institute business and society program. ats. aspen he manages a port portfolio. the intersection of business, capital market, and the public good. and very interesting set of pomght -- project which include

a set of dialogue on corporate purpose, and faculty networking, and several initiative for the corporate value strategy term. we're going to talk more about the corporate values. brian walsh, he oversees a corporate engagement for liquid net. i first met bryan maybe a year ago, i was like i have to get to know the guy. he has to become my friend. the reason why i have a feeling, he spoke about fillen philanthropy ecosystem. i have to get to know him. brian is executive directer and the mandate to leverage the breadth of -- in the role he

manages enbasement gaugement, comp hepsive partnership with the youth village for orphans in rwanda, and a foundation to upgrade the information infrastructure of the social sector. and then alice korngold is sitting here. she provides strategy company services to 4100 companies, universities, health care institutions, and the board of directors of global and national and regional non-profit, for praft and non-profit proip, sustainability, strategic philanthropy, and non-profit revenue model. finally, "the lorax," he's -- we

think he works on nto. we're not sure. we think he works on nto, for now let's say he's a protecter of the trees. he speaks for the trees. [inaudible] it tells a story of the mossy bossy creature who tries to stop them from stopping down truffula trees and destroying the business. the onceler has a business, he's sympathetic to the lorax's pleas. he decides that business is business, and business must grow. and so he chops down off the truffula trees to make the things called they are seemingly pointless. but to the onceler they something that everyone needs. chops down the truffula trees inside the lorax's environment

is destroyed. and we have -- the no useless factory and the polluted environment. and the story is told through between a young boy passing through the town, and a reclusive person, this businessman, the onceler. and the one leer reveals he's ponded over a message left behind by "the lorax" on the stone. it's word unless. in talking to the boy, the once leer seems to realize that "the lorax" meant unless someone cares about the situation, things will not improve. to the onceler gives the boy the last truffula seed. he literally you see it dropping. he said, catch, here is the last truffula. treat it with care. and the lorax and all of his

friends may come back. i love the word may. "the lorax" and his friends may come back. "the lorax" is often thought of being a tale about the environment. today we're going to use it to frame a discussion of business and society, and of business in society. and in the story of the lorax, i see linking several aspect of the gait about the rule of corporation and the rule of business. a lot of questions about what are corporations? what should they be about? should the corporation be for private profit or does it serve a social purpose? if we think corporations are and more than profit generating machines? how can we balance the need for profit and shareholder with the broads needs of society? we see a lot of terms today that seek to link the two. to link the need for business to

make profit and the needs of society. terms like john mac key ceo of whole foods. capitalism, terms like sustainable capitalism, terms like corporate social responsibility, terms like created shared value and long-term value creation. we're going take a stab at exploring all of this through "the lorax." let me begin with miguel, and what is the role of business? >> it seems pretty clear in the books, the onceler's view is bigger the business and grow. that's what business does. and businesses must grow according to the onceler. i noticed as a quick historical fact that "the lorax" was published in 1971. i don't think it's a consequences that the view of the onceler reflects milton

fremont deliberately. he published his "new york times" sunday magazine article called "social responsibility of business is to increase the profit "in 1970. it seems to me that, and i may be making too much of an assumption of this. it seems that perhaps dr. seuss was responding to milton fremont and setting up the onceler in that historical moment. i should also say that the onceler's view of business was actually pretty radical at the time as was milton's. maybe if not radical but certainly contentious. throughout the 1970st theres there was a lot of -- among ceo and including ceo of ge at the time. he headed up the business round table, and as late as 1981, the business round table still

formally adopted to shareholders returns must be balanced against other considerations including employees and customers. so, you know, the onceler's view in 1981 in "the lorax" is published in 1971 was not necessarily the commonly or universally held view. i think that's worth noting. you know, like jones and others at the time as a role as a ceo. as the statesman and did see the role almost as a quasi political, in term of the role in society and that's become -- that's been detached over time, which i think is notable. >> so that's extremely interesting. how did this convention, if you will, come about? i know it seems like the dominant view here to ask the average person on the street, what is business and what does business do?

they probably tell you something about profit or making profit, or maximizing profit. >> sure. i think that's absolutely accurate and especially if you walk down the street in the united states. [laughter] i'd say and other parts of the world, it's not necessarily true. without a doubt, the dominant view of the corporation in the u.s. is that corporations exist to maximize profits for shareholders. you know, it's an attractive view on the surface for a lot of reasons, particularly here, i think to our ideology around property and ownership and things like that. so, you know, one of the fallacies that underpins the notion that corporations are actually required to maximize profit for shareholders. is the notion that shareholders own the corporation. that the -- it's a false -- it's demonstrably false. shareholders do not own corporations. what makes a corporation is how

the assets and control and various things are separated. so the corporation owns its own assets with it's its own being. that's actually makes a corporation unique. it separates it from a partnership. while i think maybe one of the strongest corner stone for the ideology of shareholder wealth maximization. i think something that taps to something unique is the notion of shareholder democracy. it's our natural skepticism around ceos, corporate leadership, and concentrated power. so, you know, there's a great appeal in the notion that shareholders can be this democratic bo against corporate creed, power, and management. it makes more sense to us

instinctively probably everyone in the room is probably some way invested in the stock market. we think the shareholders and the shareholders that are -- that you think of as we wanting to control the corporations. we all, most of us, invest through intermediary. we give our money to someone to may give it to somebody else to invest for it us. thing practice, what the whole notion of share hold primacy has democracyized corporation at all. it made them more pollute karattic. it concentrated the power in other large powerful institutions. institutional investors and investment firms. rather than spreading out our voice across the shareholder. it's actually concentrated them to very few large investment firms. and so, you know, in practice,

the idea of shareholder private sei starts to look less attractive. >> so you have the norm the shareholder wealth maximization norm which is sometimes referred to the shareholder private sei -- it doesn't need to be dangerous. i think in practice it evolved that way. i think there's enough evidence for us to be worried about. i see at least two levels of danger. i should say in my position at the aspen institute and generally we're not usually on the podium speaking. we are listening to experts, and so these ideas i may have

adopted them. they're not necessarily my own. the idea of maximizing return for shareholders. i get it. we're in the united. we love our spriltive. the idea of maximizing returns is dangerous. the minute you accept the notion that the ceo and board of directors must maximize share price you are levering little room to consider the means to that end. and the means are very important. so, you know, if their job is to maximize share price, that's what we celebrate when they do that we celebrate and it creates incentive that start to become, again, distorted. so it can also very easily translate to the notion of maximum extraction of value. it we don't care about the means to the end, maybe you don't need to create new value as a person.

maybe you do your best to commandeer value out there and claim for your own and turn it to a profit for your own or shareholders. that really starts to become cannibalistic. it can really lead to short term decision making, certainly leading town sustainable business practices, and it can also, you know, being the kind of flawed beings that we are, our natural tendency to overly discount the future and value the present too much. and so, you know, this is why we see, i suspect this is why we see company others the last thirty years cuts back on r&d and labor costs as much as possible. and externalizing more and more costs because of the kind of shorter term mentality. the other danger, i think, is related to shareholders themselves, and i think this is one that we're starting to do a

lot of work on. and it's a little troubling to me. this is realization that shareholders among the corporate constituents, shareholders benefit and prefer risk the most. shareholders are protected by limited liability, legally protected by limited liability. and limited liability is designed to encourage a certain level of risk taking. we want some risk, that's how innovation happens. when you start to make shareholders in the risk preferring constituent, tell elevates them to the top. you start getting riskier and riskier behavior. i think that can be dangerous as well. >> so one thing you citied me during the -- said to me during the discussion about the panel. one of the things interesting to me about "the lorax" is i don't think the onceler was a bad person. you immediately said -- i said this because throughout the book you have the onceler throwing em

pa think toward barb barb lucy. i felt sad to see them grow and it's a business and business must gross. he acknowledges the destruction that is going on. he still continues with the business practices. i don't he's a bad person. you immediately said no. to me the book is about is he had a bad business model. which i found powerful. can you just talk about that? >> sure. he had the wrong aspiration. and, you know, to grow and grow and grow without thinking about the possibility that you can grow yourself out of business. if you destroy all of the commodity and resources you need to run your business, that's a really stupid business plan.

i think it was blinded by the ideology so, you know, if we think of maximizing wealth then it was successful for a period. in the seases sense -- sense that enron was successful. the share peaked four months before they went out of business. and so he wrong business model. >> how do we help people like the onceler? we catch him at the end of the book where he has remorse. he's telling a tale. what if we caught him somewhere in the middle and able to get him to listen. i guess the question is how, like, what would a more sustainable business model have looked like? what are companies beginning to do? what are you beginning to see?

>> the thick about "the lorax," i was able to point it out around dr. seuss books. there are no outside influences on the onceler. as we're thinking about civil society. you think about the feedback mechanism that make it durable and resilient. there's none of that in the lorax. he's existing in the alternative universe where there's no government, there are the ngo, the consumers don't seem to live anywhere nearby either. and he doesn't seem to exist in any community. so, you know, in some ways, it's just giving him -- if there were more mechanisms to provide whim feedback and a check. i'm sure alice will talk about boards in this reregard. she has written books on boards. we shouldn't be viewing businesses as just single models

of productivity. they are part of the system. and to the extend that we separate them from the system and business leaders separate themselves from the systems they are really doing everybody disservice including themselves. i think providing more feedback to the onceler would been really useful and "the lorax," if he was able to rally either consumers or some other groups whether it's government, other source of constituencies to actually apply pressure and give feedback. it might have at least delayed what happened and given time for other potential competitors to come in and do something for efficiently and better to, again, for the health of the entire society. >> thank you. brian, so one thing -- one question that you hear a lot of when you going talk about

business, society, business being responsible is why do we want business doing this? like, the power of business is to generate wealth and generate money, and people become part of a business for investment reason. why business? what is so powerful about business to tackle social issues? >> well, i think that corporations are, perhaps the most consequential entities we have in society. they have enormous resources, they have enormous capabilities, enormous assets out at their disposal they can put to use. as you said, their primary purpose has been to generate football returns. it's also about creating jobs and creating goods and services for people. if we expand the less than --

lens with which we look at this. as a society we have chosen to have the organizational form which has been wildly successful at accomplishing financial value creation, innovative product and services, and wealth generation and employment generation. it's been wildly successful. it we can take the organizational form and expand what it's capable of doing and what kind of issues it can take on, i think we can see transformative change across society. the problems we have as a society are too great to be dealt with by any one sector alone. we need for a thriving society we need a leave thriving public and social sector. we need a -- i'm sorry we need a thriving social sector, -- the resources capability in the

private sector. instead of demonizing corporations, i think we can inspire and encourage corporations to recognize the capabilities and capacity they have to have enormous potential and impact. i think that it's not a matter of saying corporations do a lot of wrong, let's, you know, penalize them. i think it's instead saying, corporations have enormous potential to do good, solet help them get there and create the right alignment of incentive to help them get there. >> do you tap to one of the teems i see in the book, which is "the lorax" actually didn't attempt to inspire the onceler. he constantly berate him. i think that's part of the reason why the onceler was not motivated to change the business model, but how can you inspire a business like this business? what do do you?

>> well, i think it's a matter of encouraging and celebrating those companies that are making an impact, and we need leadership, we need a vision, and we need some really good best practices and case study that demonstrate how corporations really look at what their capabilities are and apply them to pressing social challenges. what i call corporate impact to distinguish it from philanthropy or social responsibility. corporate impact is really just about not making grants and writing checks and dealing with the philanthropy of the company but getting at the engine of the company. the engine of the corporation, and applying that engine that solve social challenges. it's really about not looking at how do we, you know, get companies to write a few more checks or give to a f