working journalist so we will let them go first. after that, we will take questions from others in the audience. please keep your questions fairly brief and to the point because we would like to be able to get in as many questions as time allows. everyone asking questions should please identify yourself before asking and state the agency or organization that you represent. reform gets started, i would like to mention a few upcoming events that may be of interest. at 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, the club's newsmakers committee will host a panel of leaders from solar energy companies to discuss what they say is the critical importance of congress extending the 603-grant program. the newsmaker forum will take place in the moral room. gtm will reveal results which will provide detailed analysis of the solar market's historical growth in the third quarter, the best ever, for the solar industry which is doing well despite bethe solyndra bankruptcy. also on wednesday, jim can tory -- jim cantore from the weather channel during a luncheon in the club ballroom. hitt at 9:00 a.m. on friday, irina bekova, the director of the u.n. scientific organization will take questions regarding the cut in u.s. funding to the organization following the vote of the unesco conference to admit palestine on october 31st. ok. please we get started, bu turn off your cell phones and other gadgets. we are already getting some noise and invariably we will get that. turn them off. and now, our guests. ben cohen and jerry greenfield, the co-founders of ben & jerry's, inc., will explain how they share many of the values they share with the occupy wall street business because they consider it good for business to get more americans back to work. they want to talk about why and how business leaders should work to reduce inequality and ito help the occupy movement. they built a storefront into a $330 million empire. ben cohen growth and went to school in long island and it is there he met greenfield and the two have remained close friends ever since. they are joined today by jostein solheim, the ceo, and jeff furman, chairman of the board to answer questions about the company's progressive values and their strong support for the occupy movement. i and stand -- i understand mr. furman will open with a statement. go right ahead. >> good morning. mic check. i hope everyone enjoys being here. my name is jeff furman and i have been with the company since it started and i'm currently chaired the board of directors. i want to talk a little bit about our relationship and what the board of directors issued a statement to support the occupy movement within 2.5 weeks after it started and a little bit about why i think businesses should support the occupy movement. basically, we have a board of directors that was established when the company was sold in this board of directors was given contractual rights to two of the three main missions of the company. we have the right to force and control the social mission of the company, to make it continue on for ever, our agreement goes on in perpetuity. that is one of our main functions and we operate just like a bored with those contractual rights which are very firm and real. the other is to make sure to continue the product continues to taste good. you guys can probably report on that better than i. that is essentially our role. we have 11 seats on the board two held by unilever. i have been on the board for over 30 years. the occupy movement started and 2.5 weeks later, we issued a statement of solidarity for the occupiers. we did this because we were deeply touched by their courage and audacity, their spirit of generosity, they're caring for each other, they're giving voice to the on heard, and for the need the articulated for a more just economic system. for all of these and more, we hardly offer our deepest gratitude and respect. these values are ones that we, as individuals and as a company, have tried to live by. yes, we understand that we are a business. we understand that we are a wholly-owned subsidiary, and yes it is a complicated and complex marriage, but none of us sitting here from ben & jerry's believe the have to leave your humanity at home because you run a business. the opportunities expand rather than shrink. i have visited occupy boston, london come on washington, geneva, and others. i have scooped ice cream that many of these venues. you're forced to stay in the same place for a couple of hours and that is when you're really pick up the rhythm and the culture of the movement. it is from those visits that i feel my personal commitment and that of the company has grown stronger. the issues have been raised of economic inequality. this has been a core issue and concern for the company. one of the incredible successes of the movement is how it has given more exposure and relevance than at any time since the war on poverty, and some of you may remember that, or dr. king's poor people march on washington. neither of these efforts have the support of business. we need to encourage other businesses, large and small, to join us and to add their voices to this non-a violent effort. i will focus on a couple of reasons for small businesses and will speak about the others. small businesses with less than 20 employees make up a part of the 99%. they are a part of our community and dave survive with their neighbors, engaged in community- specific events. when their community struggles, they struggle. they have more in common with the 99% down the 1%. secondly, the 1% is often not very interested or supportive in having the smaller businesses join their ranks. wasears ago, ben & jerry's faced with a large business trying to keep us from growing. haagen-dazs is on -- was owned by pillsbury and their required all of their distributors to stop selling ben & jerry's, which was a clear violation. we did not have the money to hire fancy lawyers had and wait for the time that it would take to get the issue resolved. jerry wanted to protest to their headquarters in started the "what is the doughboy afraid of" campaign. lastly, the citizens united case as increase the influence of the 1%. the small farmer, local food producer, alternative energy provider, mom-and-pop store, and scores of others will have to wait long group for something to trickle-down. every day, we read about some government-awarded a contract that was not bid, some lobbying effort challenging consumers' rights, some eating between our elected officials, and a large donor giving patronage. we must get money out of politics. brandeis said years ago we could have a democracy or we could have great wealth concentrated in the hands of you, but not both. we choose democracy. the ceo, the founders, the board, and the management are aligned in solidarity with those occupying for the long haul so we can help the moral arc of the universe that dr. king referred to, more justice. before i sit down, i do want to introduce jostein solheim. i'm lucky to be chairman of the board while he is ceo. he is a pleasure to work with. thanks. [applause] >> can morning. -- good morning. my name is jostein, and i am usually the guy who gets to speak after the introductions and before the guys really came to your speech. before i start, and i really do want to say that if every ceo of every company had a board and founders as committed, as dedicated as ben & jerry's, the world would be a better place. to run a business in that environment is an incredible experience for me and it is something that i truly cherish. today, i am here really to discuss a call to action for other businesses to discuss us -- to join us in the occupied movement. i want to explain why it is good for your business to support the 99%. the first obvious question, what does this have to do with ice cream? you think we can solve this by launching another crazy ben & jerry's flavor, maybe, maybe not. ice cream is never wrong, you know? it never does any harm. stephen colbert feels his labor is a perfect symbol of the movement, but we do have a lot of suggestions from consumers and people out there. american occupy is one. free peach for people. we have not totally given up on it, but i genuinely think it has everything to do with ice cream. having to do with pizza, cars, soap. regular people, the 99%, the engine of the economy. they represent the majority of consumption in america. they are the key customers in the real mainstream economy. they should be the focus of the economy. the 99% eats a lot more ice cream than the 1%. i think that is why the occupy movement than the 99% is a huge opportunity for business in america. this is not a new model. but these guys have been added for a while. the principal work for all the companies in the mainstream economy. we operate under a mission statement that tries to articulate a sustainable corporate model of the land to prosperity. it sounds fancy. we call it the three-part mission statement where we lay out equally our mission, to make the world's best ice-cream, our economic mission to give every return to shareholders, and our social mission, how to contribute to the common good of our society and community. that rise everything we do. we look at every decision through those three things. why should anyone else do this? why should all businesses support the 99%? first of all, they are your customers. we are ice-cream guys. we are not economists. the middle class is really the core driving force of consumption in america. our political and economic echo's system is unbalanced because it is top heavy. -- our political and economic ecosystem is unbalanced. too often they fail the ones in the middle and at the bottom. this is true or on a national and global level. at the end of the day, people work in our offices and factories, they buy our products, they grow our ingredients, they pay the taxes to build the roads, the water treatment facilities come up on lines, schools that we all use. shared prosperity a people- centered prosperity is really the only type of economic model that offers a sustainable success. even some of economists may agree with us on that. competition is really at the heart of our economic system. we all lose of great companies and entrepreneurs are not able to compete because of the powerful links between the political system and the corporate special interests. games have rules, and everyone has to play by them, and that is why we can create economic growth. thirdly, consumer loyalty. if you have not noticed, the world is changing. the 99% are yorkie consumers. with the social media revolution, they are increasingly knowing everything about your company. it is no longer just a brand, a price, and a benefit, but people will increasingly choose those stabbed in minimum impact on the environment, which is at the heart of the ben and jerry business philosophy. finally, the success of any business depends on the dedication and commitment of its employees. they are the 99% and i can tell you they do give more, perform better, find new solutions to our challenges, when they know the company they work for has really embraced their greater role in society. this is certainly true at ben & jerry's. business is one of the most powerful forces of change on the planet. yet, as we have seen, when people get together and the man change, be it in the middle east or occupy, you better listen. they can be an even more powerful choice for change. that is why i am excited about this movement. business as usual will not change the system which is my other businesses must listen to the 99%. what do we do next? we think america has some of the most talented politicians and policy-makers in the world. our job is to make sure they can get on with their job without the undue influence of the 1%, which is why ben and jerry's is committed to getting corporate money out of politics. we deal corporate money hampers our ability to make progress in every political, economic, and social issue because it takes away the accountability of government. that is the court challenge. in january 2011, ben & jerry's was a founding member of business for democracy, linking businesses together to oppose the supreme court's mist guided citizens united ruling. this 5-4 ruling allows corporations to spend unlimited funding for candidates for office, a far cry of government by the people, for the people. we will be launching a new campaign called "get the dough out of politics" and we will work to resolve this. it is a huge challenge. let's face it. we need the momentum and the power of the occupy movement to make it happen. there are a lot of great organizations, free-speech for people, the emblem help us make it happen. business as usual will not make it happen. thank you. i will now handed over to jerry. [applause] >> good morning. nice to see everyone. really a pleasure to be here. i would like to speak about how i got connected with occupy wall street. ben and i both live in vermont, so we're not exactly at the place where all these things happen, but we had followed a little bit about what had happened at occupy and a few weeks after it started, i had the opportunity to be down in new york city. i stopped by occupy, and it was incredibly inspiring. what i saw were people who were committed, thoughtful, dedicated, and people who were engaged in one of the greatest activities that has led to the progress in our country becoming what it is today. engaged in protest against inequalities and injustice. these were people who had played by all the rules in the system. the have gotten an education, worked hard, have jobs, lost jobs, and after everything, they had nothing to show for it, or in some cases, less than that, huge debts. so it became clear that we were operating in a system that was not really working for people. it was not the american dream. i went back to vermont a couple of weeks later. ben and i went back and we scooped ice cream. what i learned, in addition to the fact that occupiers enjoy ice-cream as much as anyone else is that i was a little concerned that we might not be welcomed some much. we were business people. i was concerned that occupy was going to be anti-business, and what i found was that the people were not anti-business. they are anti-a system that advantages the few and does not give opportunity to the many. against a system that increases the wealth and income gap, the enormously growing income and wealth gap between the rich and poor. a system which gives corporations enormous power over our political system. so, feeling good that i was not rejected as a business person, then and i continued to visit more occupy sites. i scooped ice cream at occupied, d.c., occupy seattle, i visited occupy portland, ore. it is funny. after going to all of these different movements, talking to people, being with people, what becomes clear is something that i know, something that you know, something that we all now in our heart of hearts. the system is rigged. we all know it. we do talk about it. -- we do not talk about it. we all plod along struggling as best we can, but let's face it. the system is rated. what advantages the wealthy and the small numbers at the top and other people do not get a real opportunity. i was thinking of bringing along a song today, may be having some theme music when i walked in. i was going to bring along the leonard cohen song, "everybody knows." everybody knows that the dice are loaded. i thought that would be really too esoteric and no one would get it. it was probably a good decision. i, asy, ben and dyin individuals, are engaged in helping raise money for occupy wall street and we are joined in a group with several other business people and occupy people. we will be raising money for some basic infrastructure needs that have become more apparent since the movement has been evicted from zucotti. we will be raising money for some assembly space, office space, computers, things like that. i am dressed really thrilled that we are able to help in some small way to show our support and i am thrilled that ben & jerry's is here today publicly expressing its support. thank you very much, and here is bending down -- and here is ben. [applause] >> hi. i'm really happy to have honor to be here with you guys today. i have personally been inspired by the occupy movement because i believe it has the power to finally wrest control of our country from corporations and wealthy and return our country to a place that is of the people, by the people, for the people. call me naive, but i believe the stuff they taught us in elementary school. over the last few weeks, but the old order has been shutting down occupy encampments around the country. they may have succeeded in forcibly evicting peaceful protesters from parks, but you cannot evict an idea whose time has come. brut violent course, whether perpetrated by the military, or by police in riot gear, can no longer contain people who are oppressed. whether it is over in countries run by dictators, or over here where our country is run by giant corporations. the internet, social networking, and smartphones have forever changed the balance of power between the people and those who try to control them in their own narrow self-interest. now the ordinary people can communicate with each other en masse without being filtered in real time, the people are truly powerful. in just two short months, occupy has succeeded in unmasking america's dirty little secret. over the last three decades, the yen, the top 1% grew more than the income of the entire bottom 90%. today, the u.s. has the fifth largest spread between the rich and poor of every country in the world. it is now common knowledge that 1% of our population owns 40% of the wealth. the overall message of occupy wall street is that this did not happen by accident. it is the result of tax policies, trade policies, some cities, labor laws, regulations, or lack thereof. all of it has been done in the narrow self-interest of corporations, many of whom have socialized costs and privatized profits. to put it in occupy wall street language, banks got bailed out and we got sold out. with the occupy movement is saying is that it does not have to be that way. we can create a system that works for everyone, but in order for that to happen, we need to create a system where everyone's voice is equal. one-person, one-vote, not $1, one vote. the movement has been criticized because it does not have a concise list of demands. the demands are clear. stop running the country in the narrow self-interest of the rich and powerful. return to the ideals of the country we were founded on. it is about values, fairness, equality, justice, but if you want specifics, i will give you a view that the occupy movement would not hesitate to embrace. resend corporate personhood. corporations have become too powerful and too greedy. you know, corporations were originally designed to serve the interests of the public. and now, it seems that is the public that serves the interest of corporations. the concept of corporate personhood, that corporations a legal contract whose purpose is to maximize profit, to have the same inalienable rights as people is absurd. here's another one that would go down well -- get money out of politics. i mean -- really get money out of politics. i will even throw in a third. institute of financial transactions tax. that would generate $200 billion per year and the cost is minuscule, 0.3%, of the transaction cost. rescinding the double absurdities that corporations upper -- our people and that money is free speech requires a constitutional amendment. i used to think that passing a constitutional amendment was next to impossible. now that the occupy 99% movement has the potential, it can create a broad based massive non-partisan course which has the power to make a constitutional amendment they reality. you know, i think the most important moment for me, the most interesting moment for me, when i was scooping ice cream was when a clean-cut 20- something year-old came to me and said, "i do not get it. you are a 1%-er. what are you doing here supporting the 99%?" that is just it. that is how bad the things have become. our kids have grown up in the world were operating in your own self-interest has become so much the norm that not doing so it is incomprehensible. fairness and justice is not about self-interest. it is about doing what is right. the stuff in the bible and upon which all religions are based is not about self-interest, but the idea that we are all in this together. capitalism and the common good can coexist and drive -- thrive only government would create a level playing field on which to do so. with all the evictions going on, some people may think of the occupied movement is waning. after spending the last several weeks working with occupy wall street, i can tell you that the movement is alive and well. you cannot evict an idea whose time has come. the tactics will of all. this is the beginning of the beginning. [applause] >> ok. we will open a to questions. give us your name and organization and keep your questions to the point, please. thank you. [inaudible] >> it is a sad situation. they make it difficult to get in. why can more corporate leaders not see that this is a way to make the top one percent sign even richer. is a mistaken and selflessness? -- a way to make the 1% even richer. is it something else? [unintelligible] >> why did the other guy's not get it? you know, i think it is misguided self-interest. i think they do not yet realize that reducing economic disparity and getting more money into the hands of people who do not have much is actually going to cause the situation where those people buy more of their products. who was it? schopenhauer said all truth goes through three stages. first, it is ridiculed, seconded is violently opposed, third it is accepted as being self- evident. we are at the very beginning of that curve. corporations are notoriously slow to react. [laughter] >> wait, wait. i will try to answer the question briefly. i think it comes from a fear about once you open your heart to the issue of what is happening, to the millions of people in this country who do not eat, you are not only in workforce but all the things going in the united states, you're afraid that it will be never-ending. there is a rigidity of opening our hearts that comes from a lot of people, not only in the business world but elsewhere. it is the fear that keeps them from saying, we should try to make a difference for all those people. thanks. >> talking about corporate giving and such. as corporatey's leaders, what about corporate giving? [unintelligible] will you pull back on that? >> i think it is really important. we're not advocating that company should not take a public stance in their own name. i recommend that companies do. what we are advocating is not to spend money and by elected officials. that is the big distinction, you know? companies have a duty to really explain their policies, what they're trying to do, their point of view, but they should just not interfere in the elective process so we keep a clear segregation. specifically in the obama favor, that was post-launch euphoriant rather than election campaign. >> in the back. >> can i? questions to be clear, ben and jerry did not contribute any money to partisan politics. and never has. the obama flavor came after he was elected and it was a way to celebrate a new presidency. >> i just wanted to pick up on [no audio] might there be a new flavor to a company -- accompany this? >> we're heading to new york just after this and we will be meeting up with a bunch of people there. the key for us is to tap into the movement. "get the dough out of politics" will be key, but it is important to rally people. this is a democratic movement. we do not want to hijack it, but be a part of it. we have to recognize that if we keep doing what we have been doing, we will not generate results. that is what the get the dough out of politics campaign is really focusing on. will we do another flavor? maybe. we have a couple of options on the table. we have not drawn the final straw yet. [unintelligible] >> you all have a mission in perpetuity for your social contract. you alluded to religion and how to achieve it. corporations hve no mantle of how to behave in terms of achieving everlasting life, yet they want all of the attributes. do you have something like a 10 commandments of ethical behavior that would allow corporations to earn this concept of life in perpetuity? >> no, i have not been up to the mountain. i do not have the the tablets. i have seen some that other people have come up with. i think jeffrey hollander, the former seventh generation guy, can up with some. there are a lot of different ideas for how corporations should behave. i really thank, in terms of the issue of perpetuity, that we should go back to the original contract of corporations, which is that there were only granted charters by the states in order to serve the public interests. if they stay believe that a corporation with no longer serving the public interest, they could revoke their charter. i do not think we should have corporations in perpetuity. >> at ben & jerry's, it is the system and governance model we have created with a very stated mission, but there's also a bigger piece, to benefit the corp. movement. the benefit corporation movement would allow companies to sign up to a system and a very clear guidance that is transparent for all to see. but they concede that they're taking on in a socially responsible way to do this. >> starbucks has also been active in taking part of the bickering in washington. can you think of any leaders to try and join your cause? >> the short answer is yes. to be frank, we work with a large group of companies pretty much on an ongoing basis. with occupy, when we put our statement out, i got up and i looked around, there was not a big crowd out there. there were the criticisms that ben alluded to come a very quick to get a bunch of risk managers in to say that it is comfortable because it is demanding change, not asking for change. it is demanding change. people are now really coming on board. i think business leaders, like myself, are much more comfortable when we are in solution mode than in protest mode. as this movement transforms itself from being pure protest to a strong symbolism and a call for change into embracing the type of change we need, i think businesses will find it much easier to come on board because they can see the self-interest. >> at the question of corporate personhood [unintelligible] he says corporate personhood is just the tip of the iceberg. so on and so forth, all about revoking the corporate charters and looking at three different forms of social organizations. even more generally, [unintelligible] >> ice think one of the tenets of occupy wall street is to speak with us, not for us. the particular initiatives that i mentioned, corporate personhood, rescinding the supreme court decision to equate money with free speech, are only a few of the things that occupiers, i think, would be quite in favor of. that is just a few of the things. it does not totally solve all problems, but i do believe that the root cause of a lot of the problems is that corporations have the same rights as people. i think it would go a long way towards helping things. i think 80% of the population, once they understand that, will also believe it is absurd that corporations are considered to be people. i think it is a good place to start. >> i would just add a little bit to that. i agree completely with what ben said and the quote you said. we have the most power in areas where we have our credibility. it is a strength of our saying we want to limit the power we have, which is a good place for us to start as a company. it just means more and it is more real. that is, i think, one of the reasons why we're looking to do that in the area of corporate personhood. >> anybody who has not asked a question that would like to? >> doucet not to many other companies stood up once you announce that. who else will be working with you on getting the private resources to the occupy movement? individuals? >> it is individuals that we're working with. >> i am not from the press. you mentioned voluntarily working with corporations on this issue. working with occupied ask corporations, even though under the citizens united statement that they can spend money on elections come on people, an independent expenditures, that they will voluntarily not do that. a number of groups are organizing a pledge campaign. i was wondering if you guys would support a pledge campaign were corporations across the country would join in saying in the year 2012, where we are committed under the citizens united decision to spend money on election expenses, we choose not to for your corporate shareholders. >> what do you think? >> any questions? >> i am sure you have done more research about how your commitment to social responsibility helps to sell your product. can he give us a little bit of integration about whether it makes a difference? communicating about social responsibility, does all make a difference to your bottom line? >> when you come to ben & jerry's and a takeover, you have spent your whole life in marketing where products are basically a price and a benefit, and advertising is about getting one thing across. then you meet up with these guys and they say what they have found is that the more they did what they believed in, the market focused on what they thought was the right thing, the more ice cream they sold. that is still very much the fundamental belief. we do market research to optimize things, product tasting, the people actually understand what we're trying to say? but we do not do market research to decide what we want to do. what we want to do is led by our mission statement, led by what we believe is the right thing to do. through that, we create a much stronger relationship with maybe not a big group, but the group families in what we believe and. they stay loyal for life. on a global scale, we are in 34 countries. i talked a little bit about the social media revolution that is happening out there, and that is the beauty of it. it is really merging together. we have 4 million fans on our facebook page and they communicate from all around the world. everybody cares now. this is a pretty big thing in the u.s., the economy, the way of life, the u.s. idea. it is a big deal. people are pretty engaged in staying interested. >> adjust quickly, from the board of director's perspective, we issued our support and solidarity letter without any market research at all just because our hearts felt was the right thing to do. it was not done in secret, without management support and involvement. we told them we wanted to do this. they helped make the letter better, and then we were supported by the whole organization. it did not go out to see whether or not it would sell any more ice cream at all. it came because it felt was the right thing to do. that is the best market research we have ever found. if you do something you believe in, it is usually a good thing. >> have you had a lot of negative blow back from some of your fellow corporate types? i do not know if you want to name names, but not publicly, but any communication to have gotten or what ever. have you had negative feedback? >> i will not name any names, but it is clear that it is a very, very uncomfortable situation. we are always operating in this very structured, organized, logical environment. i have had many business leaders and ceos asking why we're involved in this. i will tell you what. once they give me 30 seconds to explain why, i have not had many people just walk away at least not thinking about it. i am lucky enough to know a lot of people and a lot of people feel very strongly there. you know, most companies do not want to get engaged with the movements come what they determined to be politics. we think it has to do with society, a community in which we operate and hence have a responsibility to participate. there has been a definite uncomfortableness in the corporate world. >> john mackey is one of the most politically active members. have you had a chance to speak to him about this? why or why not? >> i do not think any of us have spoken with john. we just normally do not talk to him. [laughter] >> i have not had the joy of sitting down with john yet. that would be great. there is a group, definitely bad as one of the convening groups -- that is one of the groups, and we are pushing everyone around us to join and to get there had around it. this is not just about physical occupation of a park but the movement for the 99% of people and it will have an impact on your business, so they should get there have around. -- their head around it. >> you have support more than perhaps is apparent. it would support more taxing of the millionaires for a better overall economic climate, the political leadership does not reflect that. how can what you're doing impact the political leadership, which seems to be at a stalemate? >> i will get up and try to answer the question. i think if you look at the history of social movements, things take time. then alluded to that in the three steps of the philosophy. i have been taking a rigid planning attention to how long it -- i have been paying attention for how long it took women to get the right to vote. 80 yeras. -- 80 years. only one person was alive to make it to that second meeting. then called this the beginning of the beginning. i think that is where we are at in this country. it is doing more and more all the time as a company and hoping that others will join us as we move forward, those types of amendments, the tip of the iceberg. that is how i think the whole thing will take off and grow. hopefully all of us in this room will be alive when there is more economic equality in this country. >> to have four minutes. [unintelligible] is that the voice of the man? [unintelligible] the question for me is that [unintelligible] or not? will you reach out to the 99% of people? those gathered in seattle, new york, or wherever. >> these 1% businessman, they do not have any accountability. [unintelligible] >> i did not quite understand the last two parts of your question, so i will leave that to my colleagues. but the first part, are we going to sell the movement the same way we sell ice cream? that is exactly my hope. i think what the movement needs to get that jerry's message, the message of the 99% movement come out into the whole rest of the country. all the sympathizers and supporters that are never going to be near an occupation or never will participate in "activist" type of activities. i do believe that there are millions of people in the united states that support the occupy movement. it has been shown by polling. we need to find a way to involve those people. that is what i hope we will do. >> i will try to respond to the second part of your question. i think it is the job of everybody here to make sure we are held accountable and transparent. that is a good function. it has been a long time where we have had what we call the social audit where we bring in outside people to hold our feet to the fire and make sure what we're saying is what we are doing. -- that is an important thing. all the things that are going on globally has been an incredibly important thing. we try to do this with our social audit and we encourage crazy.house assle us like >> thank you. that concludes the program. is there ice-cream? do you guys care ice-cream? ok. thank you very much for your attendance today. [applause] [ambient room noise] [ambient room sounds] [ambient room sounds] [ambient room sounds] >> here is look at some of today's live coverage of the c- span network. the house will meet at 2:00 p.m. today. you can see live coverage right here on c-span. the senate gavels in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the nominations are scheduled before 5:30 eastern. live coverage on c-span2. the house rules committee will consider what amendments will be allowed to the republican plan extending the payroll tax cut and medicare payment rates to doctors. >> the fcc is a new deal-era agency. there are a lot of premises in the way it was constructed that are about an era long ago. i'm not one of those people who think we don't need it. i think we do need it. but i do think at some point, five commissioners -- organize in this way -- apa, administrative procedure -- in the internet age, that may become increasingly too cumbersome. >> former fcc chairman and current head of the national cable and telecommunications association michael powell talks about the issues affecting the cable and telecommunications industry, tonight at 8:00 on "the communicators," on c-span2. >> the department has taken such steps so that those tactics are not seen again. guns will continue to shop at crime scenes across the border. it is time to rewrite that. those are out of date and they need to be rewritten and it is despite the knees to do woulit. >> i am not aware of those nor do have the information to be able to look at those transactions. >> hundreds of hours available each week, the c-span video library is your online resource. find what you want when you want. it is washington your way. >> the highest court has agreed to rule on illegal immigrants. there will review a ruling that blocked several provisions in the arizona law. questioning a person's immigration status. the obama administration challenge the hours on not law saying this is the job of the federal government and not states. similar laws are also facing administration lawsuits. martin dempsey says the pentagon is still investigating a recent attack on two border post in pakistan. he spoke at an event hosted here in washington. he comments on the pentagon's budget plan and the future of nato. this is just over an hour. >> good morning and welcome. it is a distinct honor to welcome general martin dempsey to the atlantic council for a conversation with my good friend and journalist, author, commentator, david ignatius of the "the washington post." this morning's conversation is important because it features general dempsey in one of his first public appearances, and david, but the combines the atlantic council's longstanding commanders speaker series with the work of our new defense austerity task force. the atlantic council launched the commanders series in 2008 to provide a platform in washington for leading military officials from the united states and important allied and partner countries. we wanted them to help shape the debate on the most important military matters of the day. the series has featured chiefs of defense and allies such as david richards of the u.k., monthly general dempsey has just met recently. it has included many others. the commander series has featured combatant commanders and service chiefs, today is the first time the series has featured the chief of defense of the united states. this is a great honor for us, sir. the conversation is important because it will inform the work of this new task force entitled defense in an age of austerity towards new partnerships. the title of the conversation today with david ignatius is security and partnership in an age of austerity and ties with the substance of this important task force. there are no shortage of think tanks looking at how the united states will have to manage its defense budget in this financial situation. but we think the atlantic council will make a contribution to the debate that is nevertheless unique in looking at the international perspective to this conversation. our task force in to identify how the united states can better leverage partnerships with allies and friendly countries as well as with defense industries who optimize limited resources. so, we want to thank the leadership of the president and ceo from north america and council director, who has been backing both the commander series and the defense austerity task force. today's conversation is a lot launched event of the new print scowcroft center and international security -- the new brand scowcroft center -- brent scowcroft. thank you for being here, general scowcroft. we will pay tribute next week on tuesday night to general still contributions in a dinner in honor general scowcroft to build the scowcroft center which will increase and enhance the council's capacity to conduct cutting its policy analysis of the greatest local security challenges facing the atlantic community and our global partners. britney global partners into the policy dialogue on current and future challenges. this dinner will bring next tuesday night, will bring together seven former national security advisers, current members of the congress, the obama administration, senior levels of the u.s. military, former secretary of defense robert gates, for a celebration of general scowcroft's life of public service. if you like to attend this dinner, please contact the land council for ways to get involved. yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the charter that created the atlantic council, when some of the great leaders of those times -- henry cabot lodge -- came together to create our atlantic council. i was going to turn over the floor to my boss, the chairman of the atlantic council, senator to introduce martin dempsey. he had emergency eye surgery a couple of days ago. he has been forced to cancel this and also meetings at the pentagon he had to make any sense his regrets. he represents the kind of leadership we have that the atlantic council, bipartisan, principles. he has taken an oath to the constitution. he and his brother served side by side as infantry squad leaders in vietnam with the ninth infantry division and twice awarded the purple heart. we have a marine, james l. jones, we have the air force, general scowcroft, and as senator hagel describes himself a buck sergeant. it is a great multi services approach to things. now look forward to introducing new. general martin dempsey is the -- he is uniquely well suited to lead u.s. armed forces through time of transition that falls over a decade of continuous warfare. general dempsey has developed a unique understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the u.s. military in today's complex world. in 1974 graduate of west point. he is supreme educated holding three master's degrees including a master's in english from duke university. deployed with operation desert storm. operation rock creek freedom -- iraqi freedom. developing u.s. forces which speaks to today's subjects. trained the saudi arabian national guard during a difficult time in iraq's history. experience in the middle east and acting commander, general dempsey would return to the united states to command u.s. army training, after which it was appointed chief of the army staff. it is a distinct pleasure to have general dempsey here today for this important event. thank you for your service. david ignatius, i am pleased we have no less a distinguished journalist to moderate today's discussion. this will be more of a discussion than a speech. it will be a discussion. that's the way general dempsey wanted it. i consider him a source of personal inspiration and also a person whose advice and counsel to me and many others has been quite important. i have been an avid reader of this award-winning in journalism and best-selling novels. please by his newest book, " blood money." david is the associate editor for the "washington post." distinguished 35-year as a journalist, editor at great newspapers, "the washington post" and we were together at the "wall street journal." please welcome general dempsey and david ignatius to the stage. [applause] >> there they are. we'll take your seats. general dempsey has it hard to collect 30 close -- has a hard 10:30 close. if you like to open with a brief statement of your thoughts on the topics of budget and partnership and we will go into questions from me and we'll turn to you in the audits for your questions. >> i am delighted to be here and i appreciate the work that the council does and to how this among my initial encounters here washington, d.c.y n i want to offer my congratulations to general scowcroft. it occurs to me as i look at what i'm asked to do, it seems to me i will be a chairman that has to manage three big transitions. a transition from the armed forces of the united states being generally and predominately in conflict to a military that will remain in conflict at some level but also get back into the business of preparing for conflict. that is one big transition. if this makes news, we have a big problem. i'm going to manage the armed forces from bigger budgets to smaller budgets. how much bigger and smaller is yet to be determined. that is the second significant transition. the transition of a significant number of young men and women who a transition from being in the services routinely -- we always have turnover. there is this issue of transitioning and building a different kind of relationship with the veterans administration. those are the three big transitions i see as 0 occurring over the next three or quarter years. -- three or four years. >> let's start with one transition that will drive everything else and that's the budget. we are in a time when budget pressures and austerity mean there will be some changes in the pentagon budget from low oil leaks and reporting we have a sense that as secretary panetta and the white house work with you to shape that budget for some basic outlines. one of them seems to be a reduction in ground forces on the expectation that a large scale counter insurgency of the kind we fought in afghanistan and iraq are not likely. we're not going to cut asia. help us to understand. what the shape of this budget is like. are the league's i described, do they have the contours' about right -- are the leaks i described. >> leaks in washington. that is something i'm not familiar with. let me say this about the process. it is important to understand about the process. we can get into a greater or lesser detail. the processor has been encouraging to me -- the process has been encouraging to me. we have managed to achieve when i thought was unachievable in the timeline available. we have a process to figure out the budget through the lens of an emerging strategy. we clearly are in a position where it even if i had all the money i needed for wanted -- if i had a blank check, we would want to take a look at our strategy and our structure, modernization programs through the lens of what we learned over the past 10 years, through the lens of the merging capability, things we did have 10 years ago. cyber was not a significant factor in military operations 10 years ago. we have a much better capability in our special operating forces than we did 10 years ago. are those additive to what we have done, or do we have an opportunity to build a different kind of relationship inside of our armed forces and redefine our cells based on losses of the past 10 years? we should be if a consider ourselves to be a learning organization. the other factor in this is a look at our strategic risks. what are the strategic risks to our nation? are they were the work for or are they shifting? we see strategic risks as shifting. democrats -- the military powers have shifted. it is incumbent upon us as military leaders to inform and advise on how we should adapt ourselves to those shifting strategic risks, not at the expense of our strategic partners. this is about rebalancing. i'm quite encouraged that we have strategy slightly in the lead of our budget decisions. the secretary of defense had s made clear in frequent meetings -- his group of advisers inside the department, that nothing is decided until everything is decided. so that's where we are and we're moving along quite nicely. -- theake sure i'm clear world you're preparing for as you do this strategic process is one in which you don't think it is likely that large scale, 150 ,000 troop deployments is likely and that therefore incising your ground forces, you're not assuming we will do another iraq or afghanistan soon. is that right? >> let me rephrase that. i'm not prepared nor should our allies be prepared to ignore or wish away any kind of conflict in the future. that is not the way the war works -- world works. i am not prepared to say that or give that advice to the commander in chief or the secretary of defense. how do we rebalance that force so that it is capable, it is not a niche organization -- how do we rebalance ourselves so we are capable across the full spectrum? we're in a new fiscal environment. everything we do is in the context of understanding the economic conditions of our nation and understanding our national power is the sum of military and diplomatic power. we're looking at what we can afford to do, how we rebels ourselves to maintain that which we must provide the nation in terms of options across the spectrum. i have the same conversation with sir davis richards. i worry about our allies, and to the conclusion that they can be capable only in monniches of conflict. it is about rebalancing. >> let's talk about the themes of partnerships and burden sharing. i can remember a time when i wrote about defense issues that i did not hear u.s. officials almost depleting -- pleading with europe to be more active and to share the burden. we just came through a war in libya in which the was some real burden sharing. we would be interested in your assessment on how the libyan campaign went and the extent to which it showed those burden sharing options are real. the newspaper's business news of how serious and potentially catastrophic europe's financial fiscal problems are right now, which has to make someone like you were a little bit about the ability of our european allies to follow stepu up. first, libya, and in the fiscal crisis in europe. answer theseto questions now. i was over great britain last week, two weeks ago. the british media can be confrontational said, "what is like to be the leader of a military in decline?" i said we're doing pretty good, much.e very mu thank you very the second thing they do of that is they talk about the decline in the euro and of nato and i find that kind of surprising. nato is not the same in natal that i joint in 1974 as a young second lieutenant. it has adapted itself and not what the same resources committed to a for security as we have, but it has adapted itself and done reasonably well since the cold war when general scowcroft oversaw our adaptations. if you take each of their countries' individual, their contributions to security pale in comparison to hours, but so does the rest of our world. it is about $300 billion, and it seems to me that is not an insignificant amount of money in an environment in which they, too, are pressed economically. to pick a loath template. if we ever decide we have a template, will find our templates as a square peg in a round hole. we got some lessons out of there. the opportunity to provide capabilities that we have uniquely to call upon them to provide capabilities. we have learned lessons about intelligence sharing, fusing of intel and ops in it would probably surprised them. i think libya is worthy. i consider it a success for nato. we're not far enough removed from yet to decide that we got the lessons right, but there are lessons to be learned. economics. when i took this job, i went up to west point -- this was in between jobs. i went to west point and went to the department of economics. i walked into the head of department and said i'm sorry. i said i'm sort i did not pay attention back when i was a kid here. what you're talking about, macroeconomics and michael economics. i just now realize this will be a big factor in my life for the next two or four years. i was in new york city three weeks ago and spent half a day with the fed. i had director ben bernanke in my office for two hours last week. the topic is, whether economics not only here but in europe. the eurozone is at great risk. they have taken some measures to try to better align monetary and fiscal policy. it is on clear that that will be the -- it is unclear that that will be the glue to hold that together. in some ways we are exposed through contracts, but also because the potential for civil unrest and the breakup of the union that has been forged over there with the euro as its basis. we're concerned and they are concerned. our government has dispatched all of our economic advisers to try to assist them through it. >> let me ask you about the raw numbers. the exercise that you been through with secretary panetta in preparing the 2013 budget has not taken into account the possibility that funds would be sequestered with the failure of the super committee, this across-the-board set of cuts by secretary panetta's estimates for roughly double the total cost you are facing from some but on the order of $500 million to $1 trillion. talk about that world. technically where on a glide path to an additional five letter million dollars -- $500 million in cuts. you're trying to make strategic choices. you might have to make hard choices. we cannot do sent-com and asia if we have to take a another $500 million out. worldon't know what that look-alike, and i say that sincerely. we have the deficit reduction target that we were headed, $450 billion-plus. that was one of the first gi fts i was given as chairman. our effort has focused on determining -- with tenures of loading behind us, we wanted to be and what force could we build against that. we're not have the intellectual band with to think about and to do any of the analysts related to -- analytics related to sequester. we have not done any work, what further cuts would be needed. we're not done yet with 13-17. secretary panetta has been careful to make sure we all know that nothing is decided until everything is decided. one of my priority areas where i became the chairman was to establish this idea that pulls along the way to figure out what we need to be in 2020. what is the joint force, what capacity and capability must provide for the nation in 2020? i picked 2024 two reasons -- i picked 2020 for two reason. it is fact that i and the service chiefs with the secretary and the president, we will build a joint force of 2020. we will submit -- 16-20. if we don't think now about what we need to be in 2020, we will find ourselves in this kind of annual revision and the annual effort to try to figure out what we need to provide the nation. that is not a place we should be. .e're working towards 2020 we are at bat right now figuring 13-17. we do not submit the budget and wipe our brows and move on to something else. we have to walk a towards 2020. we have decision points and off ramps each year to get a as to 2020. i'm not overly concerned to start the work yet on sequestration. i want to make sure we get this effort right. then we'll have time to deal with it if it becomes a reality. >> let me turn to afghanistan war that thousands of your soldiers, service people are fighting. i want to ask you for your candid assessment of how that war is going. i like to start by asking about something that was reported this week in "the wall street journal," a statement by general allen in kabul who was said to have told visitors that as he looks at his campaign plan, he thinks that it would be wise not to plan for additional troop withdrawals in 2013. president has a timetable for those with charles and the search forces by september of next year -- for those surges. i like to see as hold steady through 2013 and then look at our final year, 2014. i'm sure you talked regularly with your commanders. i would be interested in your own sense. should we stop the automatic assumption wheel of a steadily glidepath? >> thank you for the chance to put that in contact. i find john allen remarkable, by the way. he is a great tactician. he lives in three worlds and that the strategic level as well and is very capable at all three levels. we have spoken. i probably speak with him twice a week. he has a tough job over there. you ask me how afghanistan is going. i think the military aspects have achieved their intended purpose. we have reversed some of the taliban's momentum. we have had -- there are issues related to the other lines of the effort that are not moving as well as wouldl like. i was encouraged by the traditional gathering of afghan leaders. it is and informative body. they came together in an encouraging way and they noted that state need and want a relationship with us longer term, not one that ends in 2014. we have not determined what longer term means, but it is an encouraging step. pakistan -- we have to concede to work hard to control its influence on our afghan mission. we are reviewing with general allen and with general mattis. based on what i just described as what we have accomplished in terms of the campaign objective and being committed from a to the lisbon objectives, the question we're asking ourselves, and i mean ourselves -- the department and the military leaders -- will we need to do between september 2012 and december of 2014. what will along -- pull us along and then we will ask john allen to do the analysis against those objectives. if you were to ask me as a commander -- i have been asked on occasion. what you think you need today -- what do you think you need the today?o l literally if we reassess and make any changes, the commander will do what they do. "you want me to do that? here's the troop analysis." you'll get an answer through the lens of today. john and i are in contact about what can do for now to achieve the lisbon objectives. if we change the narrative, it will change his answer to that question. we're not there yet. some try to pit him against the president's stated objectives in the west point speech, a steady reduction in our force presence. i'm also on the side of those who believe that we sometimes our reluctance to turn over responsibility to those forces that we are building. i said this in iraq. we hold on to the bicycle seat sometimes able to along. are we enabling our afghan partners to do more sooner? are we asking the question to, and what answers are we finding? that will influence that belied slope of force structure -- that will influence that kaleidosglidescope. many of which you can convince yourself it is not all that good a neighborhood. there are other resources around the region that should be part of this equation. if you ratchet it up one level to me, i look of the strategic risk to the nation globally. we cannot look of this to the soda straw of afghanistan and iraq. we will give them what they need to accomplish the missions we have asked them to accomplish. jim mattis has to see that and i have to that globally. i was not surprised by john's answer. we have not done yet our analytics. >> i want to make sure i understand your answer. your battlefield commander is saying he does not now want to project further, additional cuts after sept. 2012, and you're there,that's you're not you may need to have a continuing glidepath down after september, 2012. >> to make sure that it is in my words, we are reviewing what we need to do to deliver on the lisbon objectives. what would need to do as u.s. forces to get from a september 2012 to december 2014. then it will discuss kaleidoscope -- glide scope. >> let me ask you about the continuing ability of our adversaries in afghanistan to stage spectacular attacks that art is stabilize of the population and affect world opinion. hearing our uniformed military, you tend to get pretty positive accounts of how the campaign is going. these big events. the latest is of particular interest because it was an attack on a mosque on a special holiday for shiite and it reminded me hauntingly of a when iraq was seeking to create sectarian war. you wonder if they are trying the same tactic in afghanistan. maybe you can speak to those things, taking big swings in kabul and the sectarian card being played. >> let me start with the latter. the demographics in afghanistan are far different than they are in iraq. iraq sits on the cultural fault line between the shia and sunni sections of islam. 80% - 80% of iraq is sunni, and there is no history of sectarian violence. i don't know the answer. we will see if it is a pattern. right now it is not. they made a pretty lucrative target for a couple of different attacks around the country. we'll see. when things like that manifest themselves, we have to assess their impact on the campaign. as far as the ability of the insurgents and terrorists to conduct the high-profile attacks, there is a pattern of high-profile attacks. we do not talk about the ones -- we tend to talk about the ones the happen and we lost gloss by ones that did not happen. the intel was pronounced that troops like the afghan taliban in pakistan would come across and tried to disrupt them because they did not want this affirmation of a relationship with the united states, and they did not succeed. the security was robotic afghan national security forces, police and military. that did not happen. that is a pattern that has proven lucrative for them in the past and will remain lucrative in the future. it will turn -- what will turn the afghan campaign is not that high-profile attack. it is what happens out where our soldiers and sailors and marines are walking in. . you tend to find more optimistic than those who stay in kabul. at the local level, they can turn things. that is what it haidas profile attacks, we tend to see them as one off rather than indicative of an attack on the entire mission. >> pakistan was a special area responsibility, sometimes a special havoc for your predecessor, admiral mullen -- a special headache. give us your assessment of the military will issue, starting with what ever you can say today about what happened that night up in the mountains along the border that led to the deaths of several dozen pakistanis troops. >> we're the victim of our own success. weeper trade picture to the will have not said this, but the rest of the world sees us as all-knowing, all- seeing, completely precise. workfare is really -- it is just buckley and messy and unpredictable and unpredictable-- to the ugly. there is fog and friction. i don't know what happened. i want this investigation to have the freedom to tell us what happened. here's what i can say. it was also but we did intentionally. regrettably, the pakistan military believes we did. they do, to either discredit them or go for further action. it is incomprehensible to me that they believe that, but they do believe that. we're trying to address each other on the basis. what i can say, which did not attack a border post of pakistan's military border post intentionally. if you think we did, i would ask what in the world we hope to gain by doing that? the relationship is strained. i have spoken with the general who was my leavenworth classmate. i spoke with our own leaders over there who encouraged this investigation to get to the facts and take the time and needs to be done correctly so that we can in gauge -- engage our pakistan counterparts. the general is doing a good job trying to restore some balance. we are adapting to some of the things that were done. we are assessing the cost of that. is showre trying to do some patience, asking them to show some patience, then we'll try to get back in touch with each other and see if we can work through it. it is a mess. >> to supply our forces in afghanistan, the two key transit routes into afghanistan are close. we had torching the field yesterday. thinking about fuel alone -- let me ask directly. how much longer can we go with that closed? mr. an alternative way to get fuel through -- is there an alternative way to get fuel through? >> the simplest answer is, we can change the percentages of reliance upon. we can get things to the pakistan line of communication and we fly things there. we can adjust and we can get it done. it will be more expensive and more time consuming. the real problem for me is not the cost, although in the new fiscal and farmers, i am cost- conscious -- in the new fiscal environment. we can litigate that. one says about the relationship is a more troubling aspect. on the fuel issue, we do not pay for the fuel until it is delivered into our operating basis. when they torched fuel, it is not our fuel their torching. at some point with to understand what is going on -- at some point, we have to understand what is going on. >> the house meeting for