and fantastic, so thank you. i've been trying to get out of my dour mood for 6-8 weeks now, and i think a lot of my talk today reflects that. my sense is that what we are seeing in the united states is not a country or a population in that enthralled with the creative destructive process because too many people feel they are being left behind, and their communities are part of what is being destroyed. not to start off on a downer, but i think a lot of that is -- as i was listening, i realized i remarks are moving in slightly -- in quite a different direction. there is one statistic that i have come to time and time again since the election that is sticking with me. i think a lot of us should be thinking about this. which is that hillary clinton

won in the communities, i don't remember what the unit of analysis was, but in places where the economy was growing. donald trump won in places where it was not. when we think about the economy in what we are supposed to be doing as economist in terms of economic policy, and the most important thing to most people out there in the united states is that the economy provides them with a good job, and that job allows them to have a formal housing, health care, and excess to opportunities for self betterment. this is a part of the american dream and the idea that your children will do better than you do. all of this hinges on that good job. but for too many people in the united states, even though we have fairly strong growth, even though we have fairly low unemployment, for too many people we are failing to meet those objectives. even for those who are not poor, because i know there has been a lot of talk since the election, that a lot of folks voted for

trump were poor, but there is a sense that part of what is happening in terms of our economy and why we need inclusive growth is that we are not doing as well as we think we should. i want to lay out a few comments and hopefully dialogue with what we have already heard and hopefully we can have an interesting conversation. a few bit feel like they can dump up the energy in the room if i say something to dour. i have two findings i want to start my remarks with. from rossote a lot chatty, they've been looking at absolute income mobility. the probability that your child does better than you or you do better than your parents. what they have found, looking back to children born in 1940, there is a sharp decline in economic mobility. it has been a downward sloping

united states in the postwar era. of children born in 1940's, 92% more than their parents adjusted for inflation. in 1980, only 50% did. that is a remarkable decline in what most of us think is a fundamental tenet of america, that we will do better generation after generation. it is not true. the people for whom this is been more not true for our the middle class. men are the ones who have experienced the largest declines and the likelihood of their children earning more than their parents. that seems like an important thing we need to be thinking about as we are thinking about how we are going to have an inclusive economy. what is behind this mobility? ross and his co-authors estimate in the analysis, they find that what is behind the lower mobility is higher inequality and the unequal distribution of

economic growth. they find that higher growth alone is not going to solve the problem. in fact, the bigger issue is actually today cozy high -- today's high inequality. even if some of those high wages the people are earning is because they are extremely talented and innovative, there is something pernicious going on in terms of the level of inequality in the united states, at least in terms of affecting overall mobility. so this connection between how of the economy delivers for families and economic growth i think is at the core and heart of economics or should be. it is one that is been reverberating through politics. for a long time, economists and policymakers that we advise have believed that at the economy grows, gates will be -- gaines will be distributed across society and we know now that has not happened. it was postulated that as the economy grew, there would be a

period as you had higher inequality but it would dissipate. after reaching a certain level of development, then things would become more equal and we did not want to worry about equality. perhaps inequality is because of a good cause, and so we also don't need to worry about it. that is one of the things that take from your lecture in some ways. yet, we know, and i think the data causes us to bring into question, we need to rethink the dynamic between inequality and growth. this leads me to the second finding i want to elevate. also from new research from a week ago. their combined data from a variety of sources. surveys and administrative data to build a new theory on the distribution of national income. picture gdp growth data that comes out every quarter. we know what is going on with the economy. what they have done has matched

that information about information happening across families, so you can account for all of the income. their data shows that the bottom half of the income distribution in the united states has been completely shut out from economic growth. it is striking. from 1980 until 2014, the average income per adult grew by 61%, yet the average pretax income of the bottom 50% after we adjusted for inflation grew by 1%. in contrast, income skyrocketed at the top, increasing 120%. it was a lot of numbers there so i get you to remember that. incomes rising very much at the top. other groups are doing similar analysis, and this new way of looking at growth is one thing i hope policymakers will start considering in future years.

adding this to our national economic statistics. i'm concerned we will be moving in the opposite direction. you talked about the bls data in your remarks, and one thing president-elect trump has talked about on twitter is his disdain for the bls and the work it does. i have a lot of concern about the measurement we will be having about these issues. if we move in a different direction adding information on , income distribution to our nation's income data would be a good place for us to start. these two new findings i think require we focused new attention on what we know about the optimal growth path. and thinking about -- looking at the role of inequality and our economy and our society. a key question we have to answer is do we need inequality for an economy to grow? you have heard an argument for why -- whether there might be some good things about making sure that folks in the top, that

in this is due to innovation. there are a lot of mechanisms we can 10 point to show the story is not that simple. the kind of skyrocketing inequality we have today is curtailing the ability of have their children do better than they do and it is curtailing our ability to have strong economic growth. thinking about the mechanisms to which inequality could affect the economy and our society, there are some big buckets. debt and consumption, human capital, entrepreneurship and its effect on our institution. which i will pause on at the end. let me walk you briefly through the first three, starting with the macro view. you have to pardon me, i'm getting over a cold. let's start with the macro view. many economists believe the united states is experiencing stagnation. the new research finds that the

increases in inequality plays a role in this matter. depressing aggregate growth in the short term and potentially the wrong run. in the short run inequality lowest consumption and economic output, in the long run it can lead to stagnation. there is another story in terms of the distribution of debt. one of the books that are important from the past few years is one that showed the rapid increase in debt and the rise of to the financial crisis that the distribution of , household debt across families amplified the collapse of consumption from the blowing of the housing bubble. that both exacerbated in extended the recession and slowed the recovery. inequality and wealth, inequality to access to the kinds of credit families had access to, had direct effect on economic stability.

shifting to a couple of microeconomic factors along the lines of how increasing income and wealth inequality contribute to economic growth, i point to the work of a sociologist that showed the gap between children of the rich and showed an of the -- children of the rich and children of the middle class has exploded over the last 30 years. economic and educational differences matter. how much your parents make matters as much as what you learned at school, that's a something about the effect of inequality on our society. that affects the potential for people to grow up and become entrepreneurs. one of the things we know about the united states is that traditionally our entrepreneurs come from the middle class. they have not been very poor nor very rich. if you're in the middle class you have economic stability and a family with a house or you can

start a business in the garage or you have health insurance. yet the economic ability to do something that you had a little bit desire to make something of yourself. you are not handed everything on a platter. one of the things you know is that alongside rising inequality, the potential for young people to grow up and be entrepreneurs has been declining. they did some really interesting research showing -- they traced schoolchildren, look at their test scores when the little kids in the probability of getting patents later in life. the children with high test scores from lower income families, i may say this slightly wrong, it was not so much the test scores that predicted whether or not they got patents, it was also the income of their parents. smart kids from poor families, not growing up to be those kind of innovators because they don't have the same opportunity. that is an enormous loss of wealth and talent in our society.

let me move on. finally, and most important for a conversation today and what we need to be thinking about in terms of inclusive growth going forward is the effect of inequality on our institutions. i think as economist too often we tend to forget about the importance of institution and norms and thick about the messy -- think about the messy reality of them. we've been looking a lot at the political science literature and political scientists were looking at the applications of inequality a political decision-making and democratic accountability. for example, work that found that in the united states, the likelihood that legislation becomes law is highly correlated with the wealthy support of that legislation. if a policy preference is in lines with the rest of society is a mutual benefit, but if it does not in their findings, it , does not happen. that is a problem.

it means that -- it poses enormous challenges for our democracy and the ideas are bubbling up to the top. the conversations here at brookings and her influence. the effects of inequality on our institutions go far beyond this kind of retail politics. we need to think about how, one of the things we've seen over the past few months is we have known for decades that americans have had a decreasing trusting -- trust in government. we've seen how this played out over the election cycle and i have a lot of questions about what trusting government is going to look like moving forward with the next administration. scholars are concerned about the high levels of inequality and how they erode social bonds and norms. these challenges to which inequality affects economic growth and stability means not only is the growth we are seeing now not equally distributed, but it could impact working-class lives even further.

what you do? what might be possible in the current political climate? let me lay out a few ideas. i think that on the whole, we have tended to think about post-market gap, addressing -- using the tax and transfer system for redistribution rather than thinking about what we do before we get to those market outcomes. but it want to give you ideas that focus on what we could call pre-distribution, focusing on these pre-market outcomes. i want to focus on three areas. thinking about how we look at inequality and growth, not just at the bottom or top, but looking at all three. what are things begin do at the bottom, middle and top. in each of them, i'll will make a few comments about what i think about the politics. first, i think it is important that we start by talking about talking about raising the bargaining power of labor to

increase access to collective bargaining. that is something we lost in this country and it is something phil ebay -- philipe has been talked about in written about. increasing worker representation would help to ensure people have a voice at the table. i am under no delusion that this congress and administration are huge fans of labor rights, but i do think putting that at the forefront of our thinking, especially in picking about the implications of this for labor enforcement and what it means for people to earn a decent wage is an important thing to keep on our mind. for families at the bottom, we need to be very focused on anything we can do to boost wages. the federal minimum wage has not been increased in a number of years and purchasing power has declined. but even in the 2016 election we saw four states, arizona, colorado, maine and washington, pass ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. this is not the first election

in recent years we saw at the federal ticket level, the election going to republicans but by ballot initiatives, the people of the state voting to raise the minimum wage. there is an important message there for how people in those communities are thinking about what is good for their economy. we also need to think about how we can make sure that their policies that help people get to work and stay at work. we need policies that help caregivers manage the responsibilities. things like family leave, paid sick days. during the presidential campaign, donald trump's daughter encouraged her father to focus on paid maternity leave, which was quite exciting for those who have been thinking about this for quite some time. i heard through the grapevine she wants to make this one of the president-elect's 100 days priorities. i am not sure that will happen i , don't how much power shall have or if we will see that, but given what we know about family economic stability, ensuring that dad and those that need to

care for a sick or aging loved ones are included in that should be a top priority. to groundbe important that in the evidence of what we know from the four states that have these policies and what we can learn from the evidence. moving to the top, we need to talk about a tax policy in the united states that encourages investment and discourages rent seeking. conventional logic is that higher taxes on the wealthy will discourage them from investing, however researchers have been finding something very different. they find that a large share of the high pay of those in the top is not productivity enhancing, meaning low taxes for the very rich is discouraging growth and encouraging people to engage in tax avoidance like parking their money overseas, or paying ,awyers which is not creative

it is a growth destructive thing. or they are using high earnings to pay themselves more. i am under no delusion that this current congress and administration are moving in that direction. in fact, they said one of their number one priority's is to not only not raise taxes but to further lower taxes anonymously -- enormously for those at the top of the income spectrum and do things like illuminate the estate and gift tax. but if they actually care about the economy, i strongly encourage people on both sides of the aisle to take a look at this research and try to understand what it is that low taxes at the very top are actually doing to our economy, to investments and to our society. i want to close with a couple of more remarks and then i will stop. so as economists, i think we are

, heavily invested in models of how the economy works. that is what we do for a living. the messiness of the real world and how economic outcomes shaped and reshaped the institutions that set the rules for how our market works, that is how government works, how institutions within the community work, that is not really what we, that is not what our discipline does and does not necessarily top of mind. it is exciting to see people starting to think about that. i will point to white nations fail.- why nations i think in many of the economic trends i've highlighted, and in this recent election, should push us as economists to better understand the role of institutions and trust in institutions and how this affects -- how inequality affects them and how that in turn affects economic growth and stability. one thing is that while our models predict we can compensate losers in the economy we can say

, that if we have a trade deal that is good overall for the economy and promotes growth and on net it will be good for the united states, but some communities are devastated by it, we think as economists, you can compensate those folks, you can give them money or be -- maybe give them some training. the hard part is that that hasn't happened in the real world. those families are not compensated to the extent of what they have lost. i was at an event in north carolina a number of years ago where this nice man stood up and talked about how his job had been lost in his community to some sort of trade something or other, and he got some retraining and he was excited about that, but whatever he'd been retrained for, that was also leaving his community. what he was worried about was not just himself, because he could move, but he was worried about the community he lived in and all of the other people there. i think we haven't spent nearly enough time understanding the

massive dislocation that millions of people in america feel from the kind of economic growth we've seen. it is one thing to say we can give people a couple thousand dollars in trade adjustments, give them some unemployment insurance, but that does not rebuild their community and does not create economic vitality. the only alternative i think for us is to say, just move, and that is what a lot of the best and brightest and youngest do in those communities and at least people without talent and youth and vitality and super frustrated. i think we have to take more seriously what does inclusive growth mean. what does inequality mean, and how we actually in the real world not in the model, how are , we actually going to deal with the consequences of some benefiting -- communities benefiting from economic growth and others not? [applause]

>> i think we've learned a number of things. first of all, it is apparently possible to get an aerobic exercise while doing an economic lecture. there is a lot of talk about how academics and thing take people -- think tank people are getting obese academics are getting obese because they don't get enough exercise, so i want to commend you, you have been a role model for all of us. the second thing i am reminded that you can always boil be things down to simple observations. one of them is that we in america want all of the good parts of the european economy in -- and not the bad parts and europeans similarly won the good parts of the american economy and not the bad parts. neither has figured out how to do that. the third thing is, you have to be in awe of the work raj chetti

has done. phelipe, we're going to have a short discussion and i will leave time for a few questions at the end. i want to start with something heather said. basically she argued that the amount of inequality we have in the united states is now an impediment to the kind of innovation and growth you would like to see. do you agree? >> absolutely. i think the problem -- i think france, for example, and the u.s. do not have the same starting point. you should probably raise minimum wage, probably you should raise bargaining power and collective negotiations and , probably you should raise the maximum marginal tax rates. in france, we have a different situation because capital is overtaxed in france. some people have 144% rates on

their income. together it can be extremely high. that has prevented growth did not give us more social mobility. we have less social mobility in france than neighboring countries. the minimum wage is another thing you mentioned. i'm sure you need to raise it here. in france, the problem is the minimum wage has gone up faster than productivity. the problem is that, if you were to draw a curve were you have on the horizontal axis minimum wage and on the vertical axis social mobility beyond a certain level , of minimum wage, you discourage hirings. that reduces social mobility. you need other things. , other than minimum wage. in france, we have the minimum income, you have other instruments to complete the minimum wage when it reaches a

certain level. we could discuss those things, but you see -- i agree. you mention education, of course when compared to sweden and scandinavians, you mentioned how there is interesting work showing that the gap has gone up. havenaffordable tuitions exacerbated the increasing wage inequality in the u.s. of course that problem he don't have in scandinavia where education is free. >> your argument is we have too much inequality and you agree with heather that it is an impediment to growth? >> i agree. it comes to a point where mobility is impaired. phelipe made a compelling case that if we focus too much on reducing inequality we may , have a more equal society but we will lose some of the growth

that will have more goods and services to share. you emphasize very much all the things you thought we should do to reduce inequality. are you at all concerned -- when -- wouldn't we be better off if we had more inclusion and more growth? heather yes, i think would be : great to have both. it is a matter of degrees. you need a little bit of inequality, but too much is a bad thing. i think we here in the united states, we have tipped over the edge where you have less economic mobility and you have very high inequality. it does appear to us in the united states that a lot of very high incomes are more about rent seeking and innovation. >> wouldn't we be better off with a faster growth rate even

didn't have less inequality? heather i take seriously the new : data just released. i do not think it is acceptable to have the united states growing at this rate. why do we have growth? what is the point? isn't the point of having an economy so that people can -- >> i would like to add one thing. when they talk about any quality i think we need to be clear. there are various measures of inequality. i will reference my colleague. there are several measures of inequality. one is brought inequality. that is one measure. which isr measure

shared income of the top 1%. then you have the more dynamic measure of social mobility. they have a relationship between them. for example, we know that where you have more social mobility, you tend to have less broad inequality. the great gatsby curve. you can find it. what is very surprising is that in areas of u.s. were you have more sociable ability and less broad inequality, you have a higher share of income at the top of the 1%. you compare a place in california to some place in alabama or mississippi, you have more social mobility. but also the share of the top income is higher. it is a more typically innovative place. you talk about inequality, i think we need to be clear, which one am i concerned about? the very rich is not a problem for me.

what is important is if the reform gives me a boost and not read social ability but increase social mobility. i think even if it might increase top income inequality. the only worry i have is that the guy with the top income may use it to prevent future innovation, and then we go into the -- but then you deal with taxation and competition policy. and partly with other things. they decided, the supreme court in the u.s. that companies could , finance with no limit, that was very bad. >> you made a very appealing point in your presentation that we should come up with some tax system that did not penalize new -- steve jobs, or other innovators, but did penalize the

-- how exactly are you going to do that? >> there are various ways. you can have special tax for real estate, for example. that is a way. designt present here to a review on the tax system, which is huge. i would certainly, there are ways that you can, you have r&d tax credits, or you may have ways that you can distinguish. we do a lot of work on tax

innovation, someone who you mentioned. they did a paper that you may know. it came out recently. they showed that the maximum marginal tax rate has an impact on the mobility of inventors. you have to be careful. it is important, but beware. for example when in sweden, they , reduced the maximum amount of tax, which was at 90%. they lowered it to 57%. they put income tax of the flat 30%. innovation boosted it. you see what i mean? you to see that increase in the marginal tax rate, but if you go directly to where you are

for more sweden was in 1990, that would have a big effect there. >> you want to respond to any of the 50 things he just said? [laughter] >> yes. which one? >> pick one. please do not respond to all 50. >> yes, i've seen that study. where we are in the united states, of course, is much lower marginal tax rates at the top. we have to ground this in the reality of where we are now. if you say taxes in france were 100 for -- 140% over capital, that is ridiculous. we do not want to go from where we are to their so quickly. that does not change the fact that you could increase taxes at the top, and you could also be thinking about how you could conceive of attacks that rewarded innovation. there are a lot of tax credits we have that do not reward innovation.

you could start by thinking about property and estate and gift taxes, which are really about social mobility. united states was first in the developed world of putting together those kind of taxes in the early part of the 20th century and that is something , that has completely reversed. there are calls now to eliminate that. that is not a recipe for innovation. that is a recipe for allowing a small number of american families to not only have the wealth that to keep it in perpetuity. >> two questions before i turn it to the audience. it seems to me, asking an economist to talk about policy is somewhere between dangerous and foolish, but you had a phillipe, about inclusive growth. but another way to look at it is is a recipe for more distribution and more innovation and more competition, all of that seems to be very unsettling

to people. creative destruction is not if you are the one who is being destroyed. it does not seem to be politically popular in a democracy to have the kind of reforms that either of you are talking about. no one could be against more innovation and a greater distribution of the prosperity that innovation brings, but how do you respond to the rise of marine le pen, the rise of donald trump, the success of brexit? whether donald trump won the popular vote or not, he turned out to be very popular. the republicans have complete control the congress. what both of you are enunciating do not seem to be sellable to democracies in advanced economies. so now what? >> even though they remain popular, right, if you look at polls, policies like raising taxes on the very wealthiest or

making it harder for companies to ship their jobs overseas through the tax code, these are things that americans want. but yeah, they voted. there was one candidate who had an inclusive growth policy agenda, and then there was donald trump. most people voted for her but donald trump won. apt.question is i don't have a good answer yet. >> i think there are various things. they may say everybody goes to a very good school. in finland, you know there has been interesting work done on the quality of teachers. we know teacher quality is very important. in finland, to be a teacher, you need to go to high school and

then five years in university in and 18 months of training and you are regularly retrained. amountvest an enormous in education. you have very high quality education. then they have a labor market where you are reach reigned. they have a retraining system that works. you have a security system. you have a a sick education -- you have a basic education where you learn how to learn. on top of that, you put a very good system where when you lose your job, you get id percent of -- you get 90% of your salary. you are always in contract with someone. you leave the thing very differently. >> you've had a conservative government and a socialist government -- >> in france?

hollande did not listen to anything we said. they screwed up. [laughter] >> you think that a policy -- >> no they did not do it. where they did it, like as you said and denmark -- ?> you can sell those >> my hope is that we can. >> neither of you mentioned the word immigration once. is immigration a good way to get monopolies?o end is it a good way to spread productivity? is it a good way to reduce inequality or not? >> it all depends on how you do it. i think it can be done. in this country, we have a lot of people who are here who don't have the right to work, which

makes it impossible for them to have good jobs or they are not secure in their rights as workers. labor laws are not necessarily enforced in those cases, so that does pull apart inequality, but we know that when communities have influxes of immigrants, it is growth enhancing. they tend to be entrepreneurs. they bring a lot of new ideas and that could be a really good , thing. there are people with talent all over the world who like to go to different places. it is how you deal with the dislocation and the rules of whether or not someone can actually work. if you are going to let them work, that is the growth announcing thing. if you are not, then -- >> i very much agree. i think a country where you say no immigration you condemn , yourself. aging population, and that makes it less prone to innovate and to change the structure. immigration brings you new blood, new ideas.

in france, for example the big , celebrities of france, many came from other countries. my mother created herself in france. they came with ideas. she was from egypt, ok. many people came from big names in history. one from barcelona. that brings up the whole thing is to manage it. you need to have a policy to manage. say, how many, working immigration, human rights immigration, and you have to have a policy to manage it and make sure you integrate them properly and treat them properly. >> do we have a mic somewhere?

i will take three questions and they better be short. and the answers better be short. this gentleman in the aisle and this gentleman here. tell us who you are. >> i am dr. sam hancock of emerald planet, emerald planet tv. a number of topics we have not talked about, innovation and renewable energy and the whole energy phenomena, and then also green agriculture. that is where many of the jobs are, and that is usually at the middle and lower middle class persons. >> thank you. microphone over to this gentleman. >> i am rick rybak. david asked about how the tax system could be reformed to encourage investment. in this country, we have a property tax, and we think of it as one tax, but it is really two. it is a tax on privately created values and improvements and publicly created value and land.

some communities have, without changing the total revenue, simply reduced the tax rate on privately created building value while increasing the rate on publicly created land revenue. without losing revenue they , create wonderful incentives for job creation, more affordable housing. wondering if either of you thought about this. >> over here. an independent consultant. ex post inclusive growth, how would you evaluate basic minimum incomes versus the dollar for training, which is much harder to calibrate specifically, for the labor market? >> we will say one more, in the back. the guy right there. >> i am at the federal reserve. this question is for philippe. i liked how heather mentioned that book that talked about the

--ative distress should creative destruction process, focusing on the time of a financial crisis and defaulters take on the integrity of the risk in a debt contract. i want to find out your thoughts on an index contingent debt contract and whether that would allow for better quality in a thattter equality and destructive process. andet's start with heather the trade-off between universal basic income and spending money on social programs like training and education. do you have a view? >> i think that it is an interesting conversation. reactions.initial better thanfirms no know what they want us to how to do. i find it a sad statistic that

firms do less training internally, and it is decreasing an amount over time. because community colleges and individuals have an information asymmetry there. i would like to encourage firms to do more training, and that is sort of a different kind of agenda. and then around the basic income i think the most important thing , is that we provide for people now, butt have jobs also keep our eyes on the prize that most people want to work and have jobs, and we don't get too enamored with this. there is so much excitement about this right now, at least i keep reading about it, and i want to make sure we are focusing on making sure every job is a good job. so we are thinking about the earned income tax credit alongside that. >> income contingent? >> i agree with that. i am fond of their work. i fully agree with what they propose.

i cannot do better than what they will do. somebody asked about renewable energy. i have been doing some work on that. this is all, you know -- >> very incestuous. >> we work with each other. [laughter] we did an interesting study where we showed we have clean and dirty patents in the automobile industry. those who have done innovation in the past, keep doing what they used to do, you tend to keep doing -- that is what we call past dependence. you need the state to redirect progress. we did not talk about so far,

state, byole of the the way. you need the state to redirect. externality, and one is the knowledge externality. work, we showed that you should have the combination of a carbon tax and direct subsidy to bring innovation. it is a very important thing because the thing is, when you factor in innovation, even when you debate on the discount rate, the bottom line is that when you factor in innovation, even with to discount rate, you want act now. if you do not act now, not only do you pollute, but you make the

technologies go even more head of the clean technologies, and it will become even more costly to later on redirect use. it is like the dentist. if you wait to go to the dentist, you get a cavity which becomes bigger. you want to deal with it. it is interesting. when you factor in innovation, you need to act now even with a normal discount rate. not only you create bad production externalities, but knowledge bad externality. there is research, but also with innovation, when you do not believe in innovation, you are in a bad world. the only way to reduce innovation is to stop growing. when you have innovation in your world, you say, no, i cannot escape it, but i need to direct innovation towards clean innovation. so you need to have the role of the state beyond role in order

-- beyond law and order. in france, we have a debate. there are those who believe that have only law and order from the state, and we drop everything. but as an example, they need to say, whenever you have externalities to do with the climate, you can go beyond it. bothth that, i think you -- i think you both. [applause] i think of all my colleagues here at brookings, and we are very appreciative of the french government helping to make this possible. when you leave, if there are coffee cups and papers at your feet, you will make our maintenance staff happy and reduce inequality of happiness at brookings. [laughter] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> coming up next, remarks from jerrynd jerry's greenfield on entrepreneurship. then a discussion on cyber security and japan. later, a conversation about education policy in the trump of administration. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, dick cheney and leon panetta talk about the pentagon in a trump up administration. tonight, remarks from the ibm ceo and a discussion on how personal data is used by marketers. all of that starts at 8:00. am reminded of the period .ust before world war i there were a number of flashpoints in the world at that samerelated to some of the challenges we are facing now, terrorism, failed states,

territorial disputes, fragile alliances, all of that, and actually the inability to deal with those challenges. so any one of those things, failure to deal with those created are the result of world war i. we are living in that period. a lot of flashpoints. and a new administration is going to have a look at that kind of world. and obviously, define policy we need in order to deal with that. that then develop the defense policy to confront that kind of world. and the biggest problem right now is that, you know, in line with what dick said, you cannot have a strong defense. you can talk about all of the things you want to do in terms of the defense budget, but the reality is, you cannot do any of that unless congress agrees to a budget and provides some certainty as to where the hell we're going.

>> a short look at tonight's prime time programming starting at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. it is about one month away from an ogg ration day. we are looking live -- it is about one month away from inauguration day to it we are looking live at the national mall. the incoming administration, the inaugural committee announcing additional events beginning thursday, january 19. a wreathlaying at the tomb of the unknown soldier at arlington national cemetery. lincoln memorial, the make america a great celebration, kicking off the events of the presidential inauguration.

>> a reminder, the presidential inauguration, january 20, live coverage starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. in 115th congress gaveling in early january. now we catch up with one of the new members who will be joining the incoming class. representative-elect

lisa blunt rochester, tell us about your background. excitedester: i am so to be representing the state of delaware. i started out as a caseworker in 1988 and worked my way up doing projects and worked for the governor and served as delaware's secretary of labor and also deputy secretary of health and social services and also worked for a nonprofit and lived in different parts of the world. i am excited to be representing our state as our first woman congressional person and also our first person of color to represent the state of delaware. >> why did you decide to run? ms. rochester: you know, it was an interesting time in my life. i had done a lot of different things and had been in public andice for many years really was not thinking about it at the moment, but through a tragic loss of my own -- i lost my husband of the age of 52.

he ruptured his achilles tendon and a blood clot went to his heart and lungs and unexpectedly he passed away. when something like that happens, it makes you question everything. why am i here? what is my purpose? for a whole year i was kind of , depressed and questioning, and i started looking at people and questioning and they had also gone through different types of loss, whether it is loss of a job, loss of a child through gun violence. it was actually being in a supermarket. a father and three kids in front of me, and the father had to put back a bunch of grapes because they were nine dollars. it was like a lightbulb went off for me. that is just not right. i started listening to the national discourse and the negativity i was hearing across the country even. i thought that was not right, either. so i decided, you know what? i'm going to throw in my hat into the ring, even though i had never run for office before.

i felt that i could serve and could help. and i just went up and down the state and talked about jobs and strengthening our economy and bringing people together and it , resonated. -way primary and a general, and i really owe it to the people of delaware. >> how did you get help? ms. rochester: who did i get help from? emily's list is one of them. people might know about the organization. it helps women across the state. it is an organization of women and men who help. i have a team who helps. a lot of people up and down my state. the first woman who gave worked , she worked for a nonprofit, and she gave five dollars.

it was routinely five dollars or everything from organizations to $10. prayed up people who and down the state. and people who were just wise and gave me their wisdom, like congresswoman karen bass. she was in delaware for an event, and she took a couple minutes to talk to me about just being here and doing the good work and sometimes is not covered. that was inspirational, as well. so a lot of donors, supporters, family, friends, preachers, you name it. everybody helped. >> what do you think your husband would say? ms. rochester: oh, wow. i actually received the news that i had win, i started this e.e. cummings poem that says "i carry my heart in your heart." every step of the way, i wear

his ring. i think he would say, and you did it. my cheeks are all burned up in. -- burned up here. but i think he would just be proud of me and my state. of fights do you want to wage on capitol hill? what kind of work do want to do? ms. rochester: i ran on a platform of creating an environment that is important and helpful for businesses to strengthen the economy, and at the same time felt his on everything, from job training to investing in our infrastructure to making sure that we have equal pay for equal work. you know, some of those issues we talked about on the campaign trail -- again, it started with jobs and the economy, but it is connected to everything, connected to our criminal justice system, our ability to purchase a home, connected to our school system. for me, it is really focusing on jobs and the economy and all of its many different facets.

>> what are you hearing from your leadership here in the house about how to serve? any advice they are giving you? : it has been interesting. out of the two weeks of orientation, one of the things i have taken to heart is that no matter what committee you receive, no matter what office you receive, you are blessed to be here. so someone said, put a bow on it. so you find a way. for me, jobs are important. no matter what committee i am on, i have to find a way to do that. that is probably one of the biggest lessons i have learned. the other thing that i love is that in these discussions, a lot of people are kind of concerned and worried. for me, these discussions about where we go as a party and where we go as a country, this is the time to have those discussions and be open to new possibilities.

that is the other message i am hearing, that we have to talk andlisten and hear understand what happened in our past election and where we are going. >> a little bit more about your background. where deed -- where did you grow up? ms. rochester: i was born in washington, but i grew up in delaware since 1969. 54-years-old. almost the double nickel. in a couple years -- soon, i will be i have two kids. 55. my son is 30 years old and lives in maryland with his new wife and my daughter melissa lives , with me in delaware and has her masters in social work. both of them are good people, conscientious. they still have student loans. debt is important to me, as well. you know, just grow up in delaware and international relations undergrad and urban affairs and public policy for my

masters and this is just a great , opportunity to tie all of those together. and i had an opportunity to live overseas in places like shanghai about four tod five years, and i wrote a book about women who reinvented themselves and that is a theme for this campaign, too. about reinvention. who are we now, and where do we want to go as a country? >> will your children and mother be there when you are sworn in? ms. rochester: it is funny. i hope all of them will be there but my father was actually city , council president in delaware wilmington,city of and for him i think he was extra , proud. i think it is maybe the second time in my life that i have seen him cry. he will not acknowledge it, but he cried on my shoulder. it was just a great campaigning with him and enjoying the moment. i think that is what charles, charles was my husband, he taught me to be present, be in

the moment, enjoy it right now. even the hard stuff. it is all for our own good. >> what advice has your dad given you about public service? ms. rochester: you know, we kind of grew up in that kind of background. my grandmother, one was a nurse and the other was a union leader in a plant. they grew up in philadelphia. we come from a lot of educators in my family, and i think this has always been about public service. but running for office has been really different because i am , used to public service, but it is a different thing when you the candidate. my dad, i think he tried to warn me of that, but until you experience it, you really do not know it. you do not know it in your gut. so i think the advice he gave me was to just stay true to who i many times he would give me am. advice but then he would pull

, back and say, but that is how i did it. you know, you do it how you do it. so i was glad he was kind of respectful of my process and how i do things. really, he tried to give me the space but be there when i needed him. particularly, with charles being gone dad stepped in a lot of , times to be my escort or go with me to church visits and i -- church visits. i really blessed. i also have a sister who ran the obama campaign and delaware 2008 senator biden. she was instrumental in the campaign, as well kind of a , sounding board. so it is a family affair. but running for office this is , new for me. i am really proud to represent delaware. >> representative-elect lisa blunt rochester thank you very , much. ms. rochester: thank you. hereis holiday weekend, are some featured programs. saturday, farewell speeches

interviews for outgoing members of congress in the white house. starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern. at 2:00 p.m., tributes and speeches for vice president joe biden. 8:00 p.m., christmas at the white house. joined first lady michelle obama as a she receives the official white house christmas tree. tour the white house and see this year's decorations. make projects with children of military families visiting the white house. finally, the tree lighting ceremony on the national mall. age: 40 p.m., former house speaker john boehner on the trump presidency and his time in congress. p.m., the portrait unveiling of outgoing senate minority leader harry reid, democrat of nevada. speakers include hillary clinton, vice president joe biden, and charles schumer. sunday at 12:30 p.m. eastern, retiring member of congress, representative charles wrangle of new york.

two: 10:00 p.m., from the shakespeare theatre, we take you to the romeo and juliet wrongful death mock trial where justice judge.erves as presiding 6:30 p.m., the career of vice president-elect mike pence and his new role here and watch on c-span and c-span.org, and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> ben and jerry's cofounder talking about the origins of his vermont-based company and its socially responsible mission. he was keynote speaker at the university of michigan conference in september. it is about 45 minutes.

>> it is an absolute pleasure to introduce the next guest. ben and jerry's have helped many of us through rough spots. he is becoming one of the faces of social entrepreneurship and cognitive business. all the way from vermont, please help me welcome jerry greenfield. [cheers and applause] >> swag aplenty. we have t-shirts. welcome. mr. greenfield: wonderful to be here. >> so last night you were , scooping ice cream?

mr. greenfield: i was not. jerry's has a local franchise scoop job. i was doing a jerry appearance. i was jerry for an hour last night. it was very exciting. >> and there is so much in your story, but i think for many who have not heard the origin story of ben and jerry's, i would love it if you share it. mr. greenfield: should i talk with you, talk with a people? >> yes, some combination of those things. [laughter] mr. greenfield: just briefly, ben and i are friends from junior high school. we met in seventh grade gym class running around the track where we were the two slowest, , fattest kids in the class. i went to college and rejected from all the medical schools i applied to. i then went to three or four

-- then he went to three or four colleges, which he had dropped out of. went to colgate and dropped out, nyu and dropped out. he signed up with a progressive program called university without walls. so at university without walls, you don't have to go to class , because the world is your campus, and you do not have to take tests. you get credit for learning. and ben dropped out of there, too. [laughter] mr. greenfield: so there is the entrepreneur we're looking for, the person that drops out and doesn't finish. ben and i were failing at everything we were trying to do, and we just decided to open up a homemade ice cream parlor and thought we would do it for a couple years and then move on to something else.

we learned to make ice cream from a $5 correspondence course. we started with $8,000 and borrowed another $4000. 1978 ind up in burlington, vermont, in an abandoned gas station. essentially, we had no idea what we were doing. >> when you hear those in the same sentence, all right, i am going to go to one of the coldest cities in the country -- ifpe to sell ice cream somebody pitched you on that today, how would you respond? mr. greenfield we would respond : the same way all the banks responded to when we asked them for money. it does not sound like a really good idea. despite that, is still became ben and jerry's/

how did you get past that? mr. greenfield: not only despite that, but in some reason because of that. so ben & jerry's was a real artistic success as a homemade ice cream parlor. however, it is a very short ice cream season in burlington, vermont. and we were not really sustainable. so we ended up packaging ice cream in pint containers and selling it to grocery stores, locally, and eventually found some other markets to go to. and so it was actually the idea that we could not sell enough ice cream in the summer in vermont to stay in business. that forced us to look for other markets. >> from that initial beginning, sales to restaurants and mom and pops and national distribution, there was a point at which you

and ao longer two guys hand crank maker in a small shop. you were becoming a business, and enterprise. how did you manage that? mr. greenfield: we were becoming a business. >> you were becoming a business. [laughter] mr. greenfield: we thought we were going to become ice cream guys. know, it wasyou shocking to us, because, you know, ben and i wanted to have a little ice cream shop, and we wanted to make and scoop ice cream to our customers. when we found ourselves becoming a business, we really didn't like it. you know for you guys who are age, yous here of that may have grandparents who lived

1960's.the you guys have read about the 1960's in history books and peace and love and hippies and all that. you know, that was ben and me and we had negative feelings , about business. and so we were actually going to get out of the business. and ben ran into a friend of his who convinced him that if there were things we didn't like about business, if we thought of businesses as these entities that took advantage of employees or spoiled the environment or exploited communities -- that is the way we saw business, clearly, that is who we were, but it we do not like those things, we could just change it and essentially make our business anything we wanted it to be. so we made a conscious decision to try to have our business evolve to something that supported employees, supported

the community, and did not destroy the environment. when a lot of, especially growing, companies run into those transitions of growth, one of the first things they need is more money. often having that extra level of owners of directors and guiding the path of the business makes it harder to stay on the path they want to stay on. how did you deal with that pressure? mr. greenfield: we were lucky, because we were able to combine these values that we had with our business along with the raising money. and the way we did it, ben discovered this law in vermont that said you could raise money from people in vermont, just within the state of vermont, and so we decided to do that, to

raise money from the local community, and do it in a way that had a very low minimum purchase from people. so in that way -- we had a thatum purchase of $126 so vermonters could buy stock in ben & jerry at the time. so we found a way to get the local community to become owners of the business so that we , didn't have to go to a big financial institution and didn't have to find venture capitalists. we raised $750,000, which was remarkable to us. and at the end of the offering, one out of every 100 families in vermont had bought stock in ben & jerry's, so we were a community-owned company at that point.

>> and the next stage, then you went full public. mr. greenfield: then we decided to have a national public offering about a year later when we needed more money. in conjunction, we decided to jerry'sh the ben & foundation as a charitable arm of the company. because, to us at that time, businesses were essentially machines for making money. so we felt like if we were going to do this business, we needed to give away some money. so we set up the foundation where the foundation would get 7.5% of the company's pre-tax profits, which was the highest percentage of any publicly held company. for you guys out there, in case you are curious, the corporate average for contributions is around 1.5%.

we were essentially at five times that. we wanted to see if we could really make a difference with that much money. and we couldn't. that's what we learned. we set up the foundation. and despite giving this high percentage of money to the foundation, the foundation was overwhelmed, as all the foundations in the country are. and so we wanted to think more about if we wanted to have some social and environmental impact , and we could not do it with just the money we could give away, how could we really do it? and it was at that point that we realized that the real power of the business was in how we did our business, how we did our day-to-day business activities. >> so what does it look like when a company is running a

business for-profit and still taking money into the foundation. but what are the tradeoffs you have to make to stay on that path? mr. greenfield: you know, that is a really good question, stuart, because we had no idea. this is a great thing to know about entrepreneurship or running a business, because there are so many points along the way where you have no idea. you come up to these questions, and you just do not know the answer. so for us what it meant was , trying to figure out the answer, and that usually involves trying some things -- , usually they work they do not work, and then you go back and try again. and so we started off by thinking about the normal day-to-day business activities

that a business does, whether it's sourcing ingredients, selling ice cream, marketing ice cream, doing your finances, that whole range of things. you know, i think there are a lot of businesses now that actually have an advantage in that the core of their business is involved in either producing products or services that have social benefit. you know we didn't have that. , we were making ice cream, which you could make the case that there is a social benefit for ice cream. [laughter] mr. greenfield: little bit of a tough case to make. you see anow, i think lot of entrepreneurs now in businesses who are starting out as social entrepreneurs, who are trying to meet a social or environmental need. for us it meant going back and , re-engineering what we are

were doing. like a couple things happened at the same time. you were able to connect back to your core values, and you are also becoming the face of a not just of your company and your friendshese iconic best from junior high but the face of that social business movement. mr. greenfield: we were one of a handful of pioneering entrepreneurial companies that were pushing the ideas of social responsible business. you know, you're probably familiar with patagonia, which is still doing amazing things. the body shop, at that time. stoney farm yogurt. so there were plenty of companies. jerry's has always been

kind of more visible, probably because we make ice cream. and i think the other thing about ben & jerry's, we tend to be fairly outspoken about what we're doing. you know that brings up another , interesting issue around , say doing socially responsible , business or whatever. because we would sometimes get criticized -- you know you guys , are talking about all these things you are doing, aren't you patting yourselves on the back and trying to take a lot of credit? and ben would always say, you need to be willing to talk about what you're doing so you give consumers a choice to be either supporting this kind of business or supporting a more traditional business. you know, consumers are always

supporting one business or another, whether they like it, know it or not. when you are buying somebody's product you are voting with your , dollars. >> there were also critics who said you were just cynically using this process a approach to drive customers to your business. mr. greenfield: so here's another thing to know. i hate to be getting into lessons. but whenever you do anything which is not the normal mainstream way to do things, you are going to get the sized. -- you are going to get criticized. that is the nature of the beast. and you are either going to do the way everybody else does it and not get criticized or you are going to blaze your own path. the whole mainstream environment

is always pushing you to do things the way everybody else does it. and so for ben & jerry's, we started getting criticized that we were trying to get customers to buy ice cream by talking about doing good things. and we simply said that it's who we are. it is what we do. and that, yes, it is marketing. yes, if you are trying to be community-based and community-helpful, that helps to market who you are. if you are doing bad things, that markets who you are also. if you want to be honest and transparent and genuine, that markets your company. >> talk about the ice cream, too for a minute. ,mr. greenfield: ok.

how about if we stop for a second. are we doing ok? [applause] mr. greenfield: just wanted to check in. >> ice cream, you have loyal, loyal customers. iconic flavors. mr. greenfield heavy users. :>> heavy users. exactly. y's greenfield: ben & jerr defines a heavy user as having one pint a week. >> you have a lot of heavy users. so the flavors how much was the , two of you throwing it in the bowl? mr. greenfield: ben came up with all the flavors. you know, i should tell you guys, ben is the entrepreneurial guy between the two of us, sort of the classic entrepreneur,

, is finetry new things with making mistakes, has always said he would rather fail at something new there and do something that has already been done before. and i like a manageable agenda. i like to be told what to do. put me in the box, tell me to do this i'll do it. , ben did everything at the company that was creative, entrepreneurial, groundbreaking. he established a social mission he was outspoken about social and political stands. he came up with all the flavors. ben came up with the big chunks of cookies and candies. so henot really taste, also came up with the really strongly flavored ice cream. so that's the flavor story.

so ben & jerry's has all these unusual creative flavors that other companies weren't willing to make because they are so much more difficult to make. it is really hard to put big chunks of cookies and candy into ice cream. and for a lot of manufacturers are those guys thinking of manufacturing out there, a lot of manufacturers make what is easy to make as opposed to what customers want to buy. it's a bizarre thing. >> how did the two of you become the team you did? it's one thing to meet in junior high but to spend 40 years in , business is an incredible accomplishment. how did that happen? mr. greenfield: we are good friends. ben and i have a very similar

world view, but we have very different skills. as i said, ben is very creative. i have, in over 40 years, never created one flavor. some murmur out there. [laughter] greenfield: i used to make the ice cream. i would manufacture the ice cream. i would scoop the ice cream. and we have a lot of trust, and i think that helps. ben did all the sales and marketing and all the creative stuff and i worked on , distribution, manufacturing. and, you know, i think i am smart enough to know that when ben came up with good ideas that

were pushing the envelope of what's on the edge, that it was ok to do. i think that has been one hallmark for ben & jerry's over the years, that it has been willing to be on the edge, both of business practices and the issue of social justice and some of those stance. >> one thing that we see a lot now with startups is a goal is often to grow the company large enough that it can be taken public or acquired or some combination. you have gone through of those experiences. you have taken your company public and then was subsequently acquired. that wasn't your goal. mr. greenfield: when we started, our goal was to do an ice cream shop for a couple of years and

make $20,000 a year a piece and then move on to something else. we talked about becoming cross-country truck drivers together. [laughter] mr. greenfield: we were not looking for a career. >> when that moment arrived and you got this giant multinational corporation that wants to buy jerry's, how did you guys respond to that? mr. greenfield: for context of folks, we started in 1978 and ben & jerry's ended up getting acquired in 2000 and 2001. and we first went public in the state of vermont in 1984, and we went public nationally in 1985. so we had been a public company for about 15 years. and we were what i would describe as fiercely

independent. at that time -- about 10 years into the business we crafted a , mission statement that formalized a three-part mission. so there was a product mission, an economic mission, and a social mission. and the social mission explicitly talked about using the power of the business to innovatively address social and environmental issues. so that was part of the mission and we actually started doing social impact reports starting in 1985. so we did those annually. at that point, we were measuring our success on both financial and social impact.

-- in 2000, a5 company came along and wanted to purchase ben & jerry's, and our response we don't want to be owned by anybody because we were , convinced that any acquirer would be committed to the social mission. it was nothing about anybody. we just felt like any big company was going to be concerned about the financial bottom line. so we tried to find ways to stay independent. ultimately our board decided money that was being offered was compelling. we sold the business. i can just tell you that, emotionally, for ben and me, it and it's been up and down ever since.

host: you remained with the company? mr. greenfield: we remained with the company. up until that point we were on the board of directors. in the when the company acquired us, they set up an independent board that was made up essentially of the board that had been the board of directors and ben and i declined to be on that board and ever since and even prior to then, we have been on year-to-year employment agreements with ben and jerry news national that renews annually. want to hear my job description? host: i would love to. mr. greenfield: ben and i work at the company. no responsibility. no authority. that's the deal. [laughter]

for better or: worse. so we essentially do whatever we want. in our employment agreement -- re-unilever.pretty p in our employment agreement, it calls for us to provide similar services at a similar level to what we had been doing before. host: nicely vague. mr. greenfield: good job. host: when you look at the land scape in business today, are you optimistic about the world and the direction it is moving in from a positive business point of view, neutral, negative? mr. greenfield: you know, i think if i had to tell the truth, usually i say optimistic because i think it's a better answer but i'm pretty neutral about it.

realistically, the most powerful force in the world is business. it's more powerful than governments. more powerful than religion. i mean, businesses pretty much control governments and if you look at our country, businesses have huge impact on elections through unlimited campaign contributions. businesses essentially control legislation through lobbying. businesses control all the mainstream media through ownership, and businesses have huge impact on how we are all treated as employees and consumers. and big business essentially has

one goal, who knows what the one goal of big business is? >> money. mr. greenfield: maximize profit, right? and so by and large, oversimplifying, generally speaking what business is trying to do is make more money. it's not that business is good or evil. businesses are just trying to make money. and it uses this power without regard to social impact, without regard to environmental impact, because it doesn't measure those things. it measures one thing, the financial bottom line. and so am i optimistic? i'm optimistic that people who are starting their own businesses or people who are

going to work for other businesses have a larger picture in mind. and that the young people today currently going into business are going to change business. host: going back to that moment when you and then said -- ben said, let's do things differently. and the idea that you get what you measure and it's hard to identify and keep track of those things, a couple of examples to give people a sense of a, the challenge you had. mr. greenfield: so, a few examples, i mentioned ben and jerry's looks at sources of ingredients, we came up with an ice cream flavor that uses brownies from a bakery in new york city that are works with people who are formerly homeless

or people who are formerly in prison or people who have all sorts of issues and the good news is we have that flavor here today, chocolate funneling -- fudge brownie. ben & jerry's sells ice cream. i mentioned some of the ice cream shops. we have some franchised ice cream shops that are owned and operated by nonprofits, social service agencies. so those are some examples of trying to integrate into the product or into the sales these social or environmental concerns. other businesses do a good job of that. i think one area that ben & jerry's has been unusual in and continues to be unusual in is

speaking out about issues. if ben were here, what he would tell you is probably the most powerful thing that business has, is its voice. that when businesses talk, people listen, politicians listen, the media listens, ,ecause business people business people, people like me are well respected and well regarded. we are people that know how to meet payroll. we look at a bottom line. we know what is going on, so businesses are looked at. so ben & jerry's has used its voice to talk about political issues, sometimes controversial issues. ben and jerry's has been publicly supportive of occupy wall street, which is essentially an anticorporate movement. ben & jerry's has been outspoken about marriage equality.

ben & jerry's has been outspoken in campaigning about mandatory labeling of genetically modified ingredients in food. ben & jerry's is outspoken about voting rights and voter suppression. and as you might imagine, not everybody agrees with all these positions, so ben & jerry's is actively speaking out on issues that is losing its customers. amazing. [applause] mr. greenfield: why would a business do that, stewart? [laughter] host: i know there are folks in the audience who i'm sure have questions. i've had the pleasure of monopolizing you for a few minutes. are there some questions?

one at the front. holly? we just have a couple of these because we do have ice cream -- mr. greenfield: can i answer the question first, why would a business do that? host: please. mr. greenfield: it turns out it is not really bad for business. it turns out, has ben says, you are never going to get 100% market share. not everybody is going to buy your product or service. and it is much more powerful to connect with your customers, with your employees, over shared values of trying to make the world more humane, make the world a better place. if you lose some customers in the process, that is ok. what people want is businesses that are genuine, that are honest. you know that have some edge. , that is what everybody is talking about, right? you want to have edge? stand for something.

tell the truth. make it part of your business. host: thank you. question. mr. greenfield: hello. >> hi, thank you so much. this talk took some unexpected turns that i really enjoyed. my question is brief. i'm curious about how when you acquired, how did it shape mission statement that you shared earlier or any conflicts that came up. mr. greenfield: did everybody here the question? reshape the mission? it did not reshape the mission at all, but what that mission is really based on is -- it is based on the people at ben &

jerry's and the people within unilever wanting to carry out the mission. so for the first several years after ben & jerry's was acquired, i think most of the energy went into integrating ben & jerry's into the family and making it more like everything else. the social mission was not really as active, and within the last five years, there has been a real resurgence of the social mission. the ceo of ben & jerry's is committed to the values of the company. the ceo of unilever has a real strong sustainability focus, and so to a certain degree, it matters less what is written on the mission statement and it matters much more about people's commitment to making it happen. host: thank you. great question. another one over here. >> hi. it was really nice hearing you

talk. what is your favorite flavor of ben & jerry's ice cream? [laughter] >> i'm just curious. mr. greenfield: my favorite flavor is americone dream, a vanilla ice cream with caramel swirl, fudge covered pieces of waffle cones. [laughter] for you that are interested, i think within the top five flavors, jerry garcia, half-baked, tonight dough has moved into the top five. i think chunky monkey is close to the top five. [laughter] mr. greenfield: and cookie dough always up there. host: we have a few of those today. mr. greenfield: we do, we have cookie dough chocolate fudge , brownie, jerry garcia. the sooner we stop talking -- [applause] [laughter] host: no pressure, but we are going to make this last question. >> hi. [inaudible]

talk about how different flavors really to different things i'm involved in and my personality. i was wondering if you have a flavor you think embodies you or something you are passionate about, in issue you care about. mr. greenfield: as i mentioned, ben & jerry's currently has a campaign about voter suppression and reauthorizing the voting rights act, which was recently overturned in the supreme court. and so, that flavor is called empowerment, which is a peppermint ice cream with fudge brownies and a chocolate swirl. can i tell one last -- i will tell one story. i talked about ben & jerry's using its voice around a product. it was really part of the transition within ben & jerry's

of becoming this company that was willing to use its voice and take on issues. so this was probably in the early 1990's. ben & jerry's was coming out with a chocolate covered ice cream bar on a stick. you know, chocolate bar. it aen wanted to call peace pop. this was during the height of the cold war. which you have read about in your history books. [laughter] mr. greenfield: there was a big military buildup with united states and the former soviet union. ben wanted to call this the peace pop and on the packaging, instead of talking about what an indulgent product it was, to talk about redirecting money out of the military budget and redirecting it to peace through understanding activities, so that people in the united states and soviet union would get to know each other.

and as they got to know each other, they would realize that they had the same interests -- wanted to take care of their families, they may be more interested in each other and less interested in bombing the crap out of each other. ben brought this to the company and it was a huge internal debate. we are going to call it a peace pop, talking about the military budget on the packaging, we will redirectingbout money -- 1% of the military budget to this nonprofit called 1% for peace, which conveniently was going to be set up by then the board ofs on directors. so people were saying, we're going to be seen as criticizing a government program, unpatriotic, we're going to be

seen as -- people are going to boycott the product. they are -- whatever. and ben as the entrepreneur and founder -- all you guys out there, entrepreneurs and founders, you ready for this -- he shoved it down the company's throat. [laughter] mr. greenfield: he said, we are going to do this. and we did it and nothing bad happened. nobody boycotted the company. sales were fine. even people who did not agree with the position, respected that ben & jerry's was willing to take a stand on an issue that was not in its own financial self-interest. it was for the common good. that was the big difference. business is always taking political stance.

business is a very political animal. it is always lobbying to not raise the minimum wage. business is always lobbying to not add any more environmental regulation. business is always looking out for its financial self-interest. but when business takes a stand for the common good, people stand up and take notice. this is something that is different. that really set ben & jerry's on the path to being a different kind of company. and as ben said, soon there after the cold war ended, so it was very successful. [laughter] host: i must say, there are most days i have to say i love my job, and today is one day i especially love my job. i got to have this amazing conversation and on behalf of all of us that put this together, we have something for

you. [applause] host: thank you so much. mr. greenfield: thank you. host: and look -- mr. greenfield: i have got to show my -- this is where it's at. [applause] host: where do we find ice cream? back in the hallway? head down the hallway, ben & jerry's ice cream is waiting for you. mr. greenfield: i will be hanging out, happy to chat. host: thank you so much. mr. greenfield: thank you. forward to the next flavor. >> it is called the 1%, 99% vanilla -- [chatter]

>> next, a discussion on cyber security in japan. then in conversation about education policy in the donald trump administration. and talking about the operations and future of the military. and all the branches of the military will have a role in the inauguration, a look at what is at the u.s. capitol, the fans -- stands underway and the riser s for the media platform. all of this is underway, less than one month from inauguration day.

onand area likely to be full inauguration day and our live coverage starting at 7:00 that day. meanwhile, in palm beach, donald trump busy today with the of the president's assistant for trade and industrial policy. he also met with his chief of staff today and his incoming national security director, michael flynn. president elect spoke to reporters earlier today along with michael flynn.

[indiscernible] and turkey on monday night. >> have you spoken with the president-elect? >> has a cause you to reevaluate your plans? what is happening -- have a talk to president obama at all? comments about the attack in berlin being against christians some of you think that's -- the attack in berlin being against christians?

mr. trump: when was that said? >> i believe you said in a press release. mr. trump: did i? >> we were wondering how this would affect relations with -- [indiscernible] thank you. >> this week on c-span, tonight at 8:00, the former vice president dick cheney and leon panetta on the future of the defense department under president-elect donald trump. >> i think the challenges are very great and i think we have unfortunately, over the course of many years, done serious damage to her capabilities to be able to meet the threats. >> living in that time, they

were many flashpoints and a new administration will need to look at that kind of world and obviously defined policy that we need in order to deal with that, then develop the defense policy to confront that type of work. >> thursday at 8:00, a look at the career of mike pence. >> and among the shifting stands -- stand, we have stood for the sanctity of life and the importance of marriage and the freedom of religion. >> on friday night, beginning at 8:00, a tribute to outgoing senators, including harry reid, barbara boxer, and a dan coats. this week in prime time on c-span. this holiday weekend, here are some of our featured programs. on saturday, we will take a look at farewell speeches and

attributes for outgoing members of congress. starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern with the senator of maryland and at 2:00 p.m., speeches of joe biden. and the 8:00 on the christmas at the white house. join first lady obama as she receives the white house christmas tree and to see the decorations in the white house. make business projects with military families, and finally the tree lighting ceremony on the national mall. and at 8:40 p.m. coming here from the former speaker john boehner on the donald trump presidency in his time at the conference. and at 9:40 p.m., attend a portrait unveiling of harry reid, democrat of nevada. speakers include hillary clinton, joe biden, and carl schumer. and a 12:30 p.m. on sunday, we will hear from representative charles rangel of new york. and at 2:10 p.m., from the

shakespeare theatre, we taking to the romeo and juliet wrongful death mock trial where samuel alito will serve as presiding judge. and at 6:30 p.m., a look at the career of mike pence and his new role as vice president. watch on c-span and c-span.org and to listen on the free c-span radio app. now military officials discuss the u.s. japan relationship on defense, industrial security and cyber security. posted by the -- posted by the -- hosted by the hudson institute. host: we want to get started on our last panel. a panel i think in many ways put the seal on how we think about u.s. and japan technical

cooperation and how we move forward from this point. and that is from the point of view of industrial security. it is one thing to talk about technology sharing, technology codevelopment, about technology coproduction, but there is always the overarching question of how you go about protecting that technology and the data, and the algorithms that a company it, from falling into the wrong hands or even just falling into crying hands -- prying hands. that is what the issue of industrial security comes down to. and it is important to realize that one of the least discussed, but perhaps one of the most essential aspects of building a strong u.s.-japan defense ishnology corporation regime that it must be with a robust

security regime. and the dimensions of this problem to deal with our enormous, particularly when we consider the one particular bad actor, by no means the only one, but one particularly bad actor in the mix from the point of view of industrial security, third the subject of our panel, china. 2005,about this -- in japan underwent something like 350 million cyber attacks. 2014, that number grew to 25 billion cyber attacks. now, there are enormous problems in dealing with this issue that go beyond simply questions of rules and relations.

from japan, from the cyber security point of view, one challenge that japan faces is personnel. the reason government report on how to get japan's cyber security framework and one ofcture straight, the findings was that japan loss, or has a need for 80,000 seven security experts and personnel, that is a hard number to come up with, particularly, excuse me for saying so, in aging population where the twentysomethings and younger are the ones you want to turn to in terms of and peter engineering and software engineering. and there is issues of information sharing, of having proper protocol by which the government and industry are able to share information about cyber attacks and a cyber theft.

also information sharing within government agencies. for example, within the japanese intelligence agency with japanese companies and with the ministry of defense on these important issues here. but also, i think there is no point in overlooking the degree to which having a proper framework, by which to operate in terms of industrial security, that includes not just the cyber domain, but all different aspects by which these kinds of technologies, and intellectual properties, will be properly protected and properly secured for the future. that is what this panel is going to be about. and why am delighted to have expertsto experts, two on this field that are able to deal with and give us a presentation on what will be needed as we look to going forward in this area.

the first is an industrial security consultants and white and case. concerningdustrial -- industrial security consultant on a committee of foreign practices. he provides strategic advice in compliance with the department of defense and energy. industrial security regulations. and he has been with them for 17 years for the department of, defense for defense discerning best for defense security. he knows the end and out of what it is that makes for good industrial security and what makes for bad. that is why i think we should be very pleased and happy to have him speaking with us this afternoon. >> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here today. the pleasure to be here today. ok. thank you very much.

it is a pleasure to be here today. i will speak in broad terms about the u.s. industrial security regime. it is a very robust regime that has been in place very robust r. it has been in place since 1951. in fact, when the program was first in up, the body of regulations that apply to industry at the time was only nine pages long. into a coupleed of hundred pages now, with respect to the body of regulations have to follow now. that othertant countries have an industrial security program as well, because u.s. industry cannot engage in classified contracts on unless your counter parts have clearance as well. there are a number of foreign countries that have industrial security programs in place