it's very encouraging to hear the sharing economy companies around the table talk about collaboration with local government. i work for the city of austin and we're trying to craft appropriate regulations that both address the public policy needs we have as well as ensure these kinds kinds of new and inmotivatetive services can deliver benefits to citizens. the challenge that i think we

face is often that there are -- we have to look at these problems not only from the question of, here's a new service, such as maybe being used by -- initially by a small slays of the population that has certain self-regulating characteristics to it. when you think about a regulatory regime that will apply not only to what exists today but with what comes after it. how these individual services revolve, what new services are created in the same space. so they're there needs to be an opened-minedness on the part of local governments and also a measure of caution that says what works for transportation company x may actually turn out to not be sufficiently protective of the public interests when it comes to transportation company y that starts up next week. so, i think that's the balance we have but we certainly found that most of the companies in the space have been very open to working with us at the local level and it's a dialogue that the city of austin at least is

very open to having. >> adam conor i work at brigade, new civic engagement startup, and prior to that i work at facebook. i think these examples of collaboration with government at the local levels is encouraging because in my experience particularly having worked with the federal and larger state governments to take a step back when startups or internet companies try to use this technology when federal agencies, for instance were first interested in using facebook, a co lap operation is not -- collaboration is not the word i would use. these are the things you have to do to let the government use your free service. they cost you time and lawyer money. make changes they do arbitrary things just to give the pleasure of the government use your service for free and it wasn't necessarily a collaboration and they were really good peep inside a lot of structures making one of them working hard to push this forward. i go to a meeting and ten government lawyers would sit down and say here's the 32 thing

you have to change in order for us to use your free spirit and why won't you work with government. there's about burden on startups for these collaborations. so we say is there any world in which you might think about changing your policies or talking about modernization, and they say oh, no we're not going to change anything on our end. what is nice about hearing about the local model, i think it hopefully -- i know maybe people in government are doing good work but there needs to be responsiveness and chance modernize certain things as well. we need government to allow agencies and others to use that and that's another part of the conversation. whether we're talking about congress, talking about federal or state or others, if we want to benefit these new technologies we need also make sure the internal rules governing governance are being considered to modernize them. it's an unfair burden that we were able to take on because at the time we were facebook had the ability even though we were muff smaller, but a lot of other one or two-person governments

that government may benefit from using may -- i think that's a tremendous loss for everyone. >> todd cohen from ebay. i appreciate what my colleagues from uber and air b & b lyft and potential regulation of their services and the need to collaborate at the local level, and i wholeheartedly endorse them to do that. also with the reality that there are very entrenched economic interests that have every desire to put startups like that out of business and they work actively and have political power and engage in many ways the worst type of regulatory models the -- we want to have a level playing field is the classic example. then therefore we should have

these unnecessary burdens placed upon new entrants that have nothing whatsoever to do with the service that is underlying that and i'm pleased to see what the german people are responding, and signing up at 592% increases because it is actually what people want, and i would just make sure that as many of these companies i advocate you try to get in early and inoculate yourself and try to make sure that you find the regulators that are not only captive but that understand what is going on because what happens in the end is, it's an example of fraternity hazing. we got hazed when we joined the fraternity. you're going to get aheadded when you want to join the fraternity. so i appreciate everyone has the right attitude of, we want to collaborate and work with government, but let's be very clear, there are a lot of people that want to stop these services and will spend energy and effort and political power to harm these businesses. >> actually that's a great point

in the context of if we're talking on this panel about startups and why internet policy matters to startups and we're thinking about every -- really every company in the room is frankly pretty young compared with some of the much more established industries, your frequently dealing with on policy and regulation, and there seems to me there's two challenges, one is a challenge of ent.ed industries trying to protect their turf from challenges frequently from unexpected quarters. another might actually be just a generational gap among decisionmakers. on monday when i was in germany, was meeting with a group of very senior german officials, who had no idea what uber was and they wanted me to sew it to them on my phone. and this goes a little bit to

adam's comment about the challenges faced in dealing with these institutions. i wonder what are the right strategies or what did some of the experiences been around dealing with government institutions that are -- may have generational gap in understanding some of these issues and experiencing them coupled with some organizations companies, like comcast, been in the industry decades long hoyt for the -- history for the industry there and what kind of environment that creates for shaping public policy. >> i thought -- sorry adam with google. thought todd's comments were right on. if you're only playing what i would consider the inside game with policymakers there's a good good chance that new are companies and newer industries

are going to lose, simply on the basis of old are industries having been there longer. not just the taxicab industry or the hotel industry but the content industry the telecommunications firms. these are companies that are -- many of whom or regulated. they've been players before, policymakers for a long time. i do think that one of the tooled that is effective here and has been effective is showing policymakers when they are out of tune when consumers. the battle that was referenced earlier is the quintessential example here. that issue was proceeding as an inside game debate and it wasn't until it became an outside game with consumers weighing in that policymakers put the brakes on what they were doing. unfortunately i think that tactic is probably going to have to be used but i will say in

the wake of pipa policymakers in the u.s. are extremely cautious about legislation becoming the next pupa-sopa. they don't want to be the recipient of thousands of phone calls, saying that they're on the wrong side of something. i think there are going to need to be moments of things todd reverendded, where newer companies confront policymakers with saying, look, it's us that is on the side of consumers. and i think one of the scariest things a policymaker can encounter they're not on the side of the consumers and they often switch sides very quickly to avoid that situation. most long-serving policymakers are not going to last very long if they're completely in a sustained way out of touch what if their voters want. >> if i could just add on to that.

i'm trying find it in my e-mail but it's not working. i seem to remember getting an e-mail from uber-maybe a year and a half two years ago about the challenges they were having in d.c., and i thought that was just remarkable. i don't want to say it didn't happen. i wanted to look it up. i seem to remember this happening. they were actually going to customers to say this is your community, and then you look at what i think was a terrific decision to hire david plus. that is a tactic he is very familiar with, and so to my earlier point, as companies start want -- >> what do you mean that's a tactic he is familiar with. what tactic? >> grassroots organizing using technology to play an outside game. and so have companies start engaging in these debates and realize an inside strategy is maybe not sufficient and playing the out game. it is just really mind-boggling to me the amount of power that these candidate that have these large membership lists have when they decide something is important to their corporate

interests now. they can call them user interests but it's a corporate interest and they can use the lists to advocate for the interests. it's not good 0 or bad just a new political dynamic. >> i'd just like to add something wick. i agree with the importance of grassroots organizing and advocacy, but a unique challenge to startups regarding that is turkly ones that are far smaller than those of us at this table. they don't have enough people to do grassroots advocacy on their behalf. i think education is also really important, and air b & b has invested a lot in sharing -- studying and sharing information about the impact this activity has to disspell a lot of the misinformation out there and educate policymaker sod they're not rely 0 an anecdote from nephew but on data about who all of the citizens in their city -- what they're doing and again

that's a challenge for startups who maybe don't have the capability or the scale to share that kind of information and data will policymakers so that they can make informed decisions. >> i just wanted to jump on that point about the power that companies have to mobilized their user bases itch think it's actually more a way of keeping companies hospital about what issues they take on -- companies honest about what issues they take on. our people aren't going to follow us unless they understand how the positions taken have a direct impact on them. for example, we have been doing a ton around net neutrality late lay because our user community cared about it a lot and they're worried that slow beyond of internet speeds will have a direct and negative impact on their small businesses so they're crafting pel lows that say, protect an open internet and doing stuff like that which is great and also makes us feel very confident that when we mobilize our users next week to contact congress about this

that they have our back and we're not diverging from the interests of our community itch think that's probably true for all the companies around the table. >> thank you. just the first sort of premise that is important to recognize in this whole conversation is that there's really no advertising model for democracy. there's not a way to sustain public purpose in a civic space with an advertising model. it's never been that way. and we have to figure out what is a sustainable business plan in civic engagement data in general. this is a big conversation that is starting to happen. the other thing is that our institutions have to be technology include self-dermatology some extent. we have to give them capacity and one of the ways to do this is by giving places like congress staff. why don't we have fell lows, a code for america for the legislative branch where we

re-invent land grant knowledge for the public interests. what members of congress don't often have is basic situational awareness. once they have the technological process competence in my view as a national security staff in congress, the more complexity migrates to the military services, this is a classic explanation of what happened with the nsa. when you give the technical competence and the rewards of public service to the defense department in this case, a lot of responsibilities that are too hard for the civilians are just going to go there and they've had the computer scientists and had the situational awareness tools for decades now. there are probably a couple hundred -- probably a couple hundred trifellows inside congress. if you need foreign policy expertise, you ask for a military fellow. the state department maybe had two dozen. the other problem inside congress is it's working at 60%

of 1979 levels of staff. meanwhile, almost 50% of house staff has been moved into the district, so it's in the states. unless we create some kind of a high quality decision support system for our legislative branch, in the states it's not going to appear and it's going to continue to look sort of like this prooperate tear information cartell -- proprietary information cartell, which is what congress looks like. i say this with a great deal of love for his institution. but it needs this kind of institutional empathy right now. so glad you're hearing but a the executive branch has been the focus of attention, but it's running into a wall right now when it comes to legislative branch capacity for even understanding these problems. you sit -- when you're working on the hill you ask the person sitting next to you. it could be nuclear

nonproliferation and could be technical i.t. questions. we have to somehow provide them people. >> nick do you want to jump in there? >> i think there's tremendous potential to bring entrepreneurs and innovators into government and that what wear doing with the presidential innovation fellows program, what we are doing with the u.s. digital services. that really important as we think about modernizing our government's services. the reason that's relevant to internet entrepreneurs and startups is government can be a platform to quote tim o'reilly, and we are opening up data as fuel for private sector innovation. so that's something -- one of many things the presidential innovations fellows work on. >> one of the challenges for the public policy space in the internet age is that in the private sector is through

startups, the disruption of all business modeled that can be re-invent it because of new technology in government particular through federal government particularly an institution like congress you won't see the level of disruption at the same pace. so it manifested itself, in my view, with things live seven percent approval rate examination those approval ratings that persist through a pelosi majority and a republican majority. different ideologies. so it's not a ideological rejection. it's a process rejection and that's an extremely important issue for our country, and programs like this and others 18f, serve as models, the united kingdom has done exciting work modernizing legislative activity. i'd say the challenge for the broader technology community is a certain point -- how to regulate uber-with you live your existence in a motorcade.

we need legislators institutions and executive leaders to be connected with the reality of life in our society and i think it's a natural process. we have been through it before with the rise of television and the rise of radio and other things. i think we'll get there. if i can pivot slightly to the startup and regulations. i think one thing that its remarkable before the technology industry as a whole-at least right now and through the last several decades, it is unique in the sense it typically protects disruption of itself. in a way that most other industries don't do. and as the technology begins to impact more and more sectors in our society, you see this regulatory response, not as a way of serving public interest necessarily but as a weapon to protect the status quo. i think it's -- the technology industry needs to keep the public on its side as sort of a primary objective because without that it will never be able to defeat those static

interests. so you think about things like self-driving cars, which are -- i think in my opinion a net good for society on a variety of levels. but how is that going to impact the insurance industry and the transportation industry and the taxi industry and the trucking industry and all these other industries and a massive regulatory fight, and one of dozens of examples you can see companies around the room deal with on a daily basis itch don't see the technology industry as being able to succeed unless they very cognitively protect the interests of their users so they can leverage that in a modern kind of corporate grassroots organizing. >> so, i would just build on that and say, i think that there is tremendous opportunity for engaged partnership between the technology industry and the startup community and government itself. chris alluded to this a little but the talking about the ways in which, for example service like lyft could share transportation data with

their -- with the cities in which they operate perhaps help the city improve overall service delivery. we have done some ferments in boston -- we built some products in boston during this session i gotta a notice that the broken glass i reported on the sidewalk by my house using our city app this morning had been cleaned up by our public works department. a few hours every reported it. that's about changing people's expectations of government, not just picking up glass. it's about recognizing that people expect a standard that is defined in large part by what the technology industry has created. and so what i would ask is somebody in government to people who work in the technology industry, as reach out to us and look for ways to partner with us because we have service delivery not onlyon obligations but a desire to up our game and be able to match the expectations people have. and instead of thinking about it as how do we avoid this regulation or how do we get an opening to do this kind of service, if you think about where the mutual benefit lies,

there are a lot of opportunities for everybody to come out of this delivering a great product for their customers, whether they be citizens or paying customers on the other end of a product. >> you can expect me to ask questions because i don't know anything. i hear lately a lot of people talking bat libertarian moment in politics. i don't know if it's true or not. i wanted to ask if maybe the rise of internet startups wouldn't to an extent drive senate you look at uber in lyft and the pressure it puts on government to reduce their regulations of the way they regulate transportation services, and i look at this and think, are we going to have to go through there is with every new enter nate based idea, where whole new areas of regulation will have to be rethought and won't that lead to a general push continue creasingly deregulate sectored of the economy to make it easier for small companies to start up to

make it easier for people to use the internet to disintermediate traditional industries? are we going to start seeing political for your do that or an ad hoc case-by-case basis, some new company comes along and we have to rethink that one sector. >> i've seth from trip adviser. to answer your question, think what you may see is consumer appetite to have -- and a willingness to have more experimentation or more laissez-faire attitude about -- flip key, trip adviser company here in boston -- the bumping up against old regulations that have existed for health safety and welfare, and we're supportive of those, against new technology, and mollie talks about, being able to aggregate and bryan talks about get 50:00:00 people to sign up. that power and being able to do that has not existed up to now. vote that's an amazing opportunity for an entrepreneur

to find a market demand that is pent up by the populace. as that proliferates and people start doing it and adopting it i think we have seen in many different instances, whether it's the companies we named or stub hub, with ticket regulations, all these things over the past ten years, a little bit of a hey, easy on the tiller, let's kind of see how this place out, is one of the things that local government can do because i do think there's a tremendous opportunity in the 35,000 municipalities that air b & b is or lyft and uber-will be a flip key off to test and learn and understand. part of we do as a technology company is it rate and you have an amazing lab around the world to be able to see what works and what doesn't work. i think that can actually be applied also to the federal government, and what you're talking about with congress. i think how boston implements

technology and use it on a -- and taking the best from what boston can do or new york city or chicago and then seeing what works. i don't know if it's going to happen on a top-down approach but the taking the best of the best is something we could reasonably look forward to. >> juliet, and then margaret and then adam. >> i just wanted to come back to the questions that matt raised around disruptive technologies and in particular to think about technological unemployment. and just talk a little bit about the economic context in which all of this is happening. partly because i think the sharing economy companies particularly but tech companies in general as well claim a lot of public good effects and if we think about the massive employment destroying

capabilities of these technologies d -- that's the flip side 0 efficiency. you have to own that part of disruptive as well ask then ask the question, what about technological unemployment? something that came up yesterday in the evening discussion texas and wasn't dressed well issue don't think it's true that new jobs are created, but if you think about the whole picture of economic analysis, and you look at the last -- the previous two centuries and how technological unemployment got absorbed it was in two ways. number one was growth so you had very rapidly growing economies. and number two massive reductions in hours of work. we went from average hours of work being 3,000 hours of work in the late 19th century, down to under 2000. so neither of those -- in the united states, neither of those conditions is really operative

at the moment went have slow growth. we are a mature economy. just came out with a new report about all of the member economies. we are facing a future of low gdp growth rates over next couple of decades. and we have big barriers to the reduction of hours in the united states and i don't think we can just assume we'll be able to absorb. if this sector wants to be able to not only sort of promote gains in the narrow but also have the whole thing work out in way that yields public good we have to think about the larger labor market policies. >> i think this is -- some of this is the way we want to look at a market in action. i think there's -- if you're

looking at is as something finite and we maxed out what we're capable of doing, this is a bigger problem. if you look at is as the pie is so much bigger than we realize. an example, our chicago team reported back that last year in 2013 they added 25,000 rides to the economy in chicago. not they took 25,000 from cabs, not we had 25,000 out of x amount. on top of what was already existing the year before there were 25,000 more ride with uber in the market andly t in the market. the potential and deplanned there is for all these services and that gets to the answer seth gave. the demand has always been out there for the stuff but now we have the technology to actually meet that demanded, and that changes the entire economic makeup. we're on the cusp of an economic sea change here and the way our economy works, there's a time l where there's a s'mores buggy on the road next to a car and people got around both ways and

the world is changing that way and technology is allowing that change to happen, and i think these are valid concerns but i think as that growth potential there is for the solutions to be there, too, but if you stifle that growth just out of fear we don't know the answer, then you're stuck. you're literally stuck and never moving forward. >> we do have janet yellen trying to encourage the idea among economist and employers that increased wages are actually a good sign for economic growth. and i also think about the point made about using your customers mobilizing them to help affect policy change, but that can work both ways, too. that can lead to the people who use platforms for income and employment to effectively unionize, maybe the nontraditional sense demand increased wages or increased

benefits. >> i think we're -- margaret? >> i was going to make a point three points back. >> i was just going to briefly say -- i have -- i couldn't resist. there was a recent -- a couple of years ago a story about -- in fact lots of stories about the minimum page and these people were stuck in these jobs, and the growing protests they're launching and you find yourself cheering and sympathizing but the very technology we're talking about are going to make it virtually impossible for these protests to pay off in the long run. you already have things like fastfood restaurants moving to kiosks and tablets and what you're going to see is the problem of these wages remaining utterly stagnant for a large segment of the american population and a lot of the technology we're talking about right here are indeed part of the problem and nobody has quite figured out how to work around that yet, and i don't think there's an easy answer at all.

>> but they are the answer. the technologies are the answer. that's the point i was trying to make. i was in san francisco and i took a ride to where i was going and the woman who picked me up, her husband came home from work, had the car during the day, came home from work and she would go during rush hour while he was home with the kids. she wasn't working full-time as an uber drift. she had the lyft app on when i was in, and people use both, whichever one they can -- the lyft ride pops first they do that. it's creating opportunities. instead of saying i ought to be making more money at the fastfood restaurant, it's goaling you an opportunity to supplement your lifestyle in a way that is more convenient for you. the opportunities is here. this isn't something that is holding people back. >> an opportunity to work three jobs instead of two. >> but it is offering a certain amount of flex exhibit may mean that the work force has to

change and people's expectations of the work force changes. it may be that you have a small business that you're running on ebay to make things or sell things while you're also producing articles that run on the yahoo developer network and doing multiple thinged and allow you to be a stay-at-home mom and work out of your house. i the think there are problems with the transition period from sort of the everyone goes to work from 9:00 to 5:00 and has one job and stays there for 15 years, to this sort of an economy, but i do think -- i agree with brian that there are -- as there are certainly concerns and problems with it, there areles a lot of opportunities and i don't think we know yet where all the opportunities will arise. generally the technology and the platforms we all use create opportunities, and i think that also the case in our sort of lobbying and policy-setting.

one of the things that's been really fun about working for yahoo! is there's an opportunity to education lawmakers about policy issues they never thought about, technologies they never used. so you're often timed fighting an entrenched industry you're also not set into any one policy answer. you could have three different policy answers that might work for the industry and you get to sit down and sort of have that conversation with lawmakers, you get to sit down and talk to them about what are your concerns, your concerns, how to make that work and there isn't one necessarily right answer but there's a huge opportunity to do a lot and i think part of it is bringing the consumers along and making sure they're part of the dialogue and that's what your starting to see in terms of effective advocacy by this industry. >> we have juliet david, and then matthew. >> i think we can't argue this on the basis of anecdote. there is little doubt that these technologies have enormous labor

displacing impact. that's why people like them. that's the power of them. that's all the efficiency being claimed. and it's not to say that uber won't create more rides but i think there are really two big questions, number one is, what is the aggregate rate of growth? that absolute absolutely central for how much of the displaced labor can be employed. and we can't forget that every additional percentage point of gdp growth puts a certain amount of co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and it's a very close relationship and we are coming close to the point where we're going to have those kinds of caps. and so that's a whole other new kind of constraint on this thinking about what is going on at the level of the nation as a whole and the globe as a whole, and second is what is happening to hours of work, because if you don't have reductions in hours of work, you can't absorb

technological unemployment it just look throughout history. so it's not to say that we shouldn't have the new technologies or we should somehow stop this. it's to say, we got to think about their introduction in a bigger framework than just the local regulations around taxis. it's also about the income distribution and labor market policy and climate policy and all of those things. we need look at the big picture, and to make sure that we are aware -- where are the gains going to raise this point and sort of -- that may not just be the -- up one particular internet company may not want to get engaged in that but the community as a whole has to. precisely because of all those backlash issues. >> david matthew. >> i do think of david seemon

with sales force. this is providing software as a service. there's a valid point that when you have rapid technology change you have rapid employment displacement. i think one of the places where this needs to be re-evaluated very hard is in the educational front. this country has very much ignored stem education, science, technology engineering and math, for most of a generation. and we have yet to really try to take advantage of the technology. you have seen a little bit of it but in terms of stem education for people who are being displaced so they can get new jobs in this new economy that are valuable, the idea of sending people out to community college, which by the way community colleges are very valuable, but it's a relatively expensive way to re-educate somebody when you have the internet. and it creates all sorts of problems. how to get their daycare taken

care of when they have no income and have to go someplace. so i think all these needs to be taken advantage of it and kind of goes back to an earlier part of the problem, which is policymakers tend to get stuck in a certain way of thinking whenever their perspective is, and you have this real dichotomy of the 20 somethings the people doing a lot of the work for the policymaker but the policy decisionmaker is somebody who looks like me who typically very entrenched in a certain way of doing things because that's the way they've been doing things for two generations. >> so matt in terms of policymakers are the single biggest thing that policymakers don't get is the difference in economics between a brand new niche and a niche that even just three or four years old. what we have seen over and over again, with the internet and all kinds of new digital media space, these spaces lock in pretty quickly.

and that is especially doubly, triply true, with sharing economy niches, which are essentially just market makers. we have 300 year plus of experience of market making niches that become very quickly natural monopolies and that should make us even nor concerned about sort of this re-distribution of market power. because if i want to drive a car for a living very soon -- how many-sharing companies are going survive? i would bet a month's sally not three. probably not even two -- a month's salary not three probably not even two. so this very quickly becomes an issue where the economic concentration becomes self-sustainingsustaining and where it's very difficult for individuals to bargain on their own with these entrenched firms. >> even if two or three

ride-sharing companies exist there may be dozens of limo companies and taxi companies that they have relayed. there's still a consolidation in the market so to speak. >> by the time you're down to two, as with traditional auction houses, it's very easy for them to collude. you don't have to do an illegal conspiracy to make sure that you're offering the same sorts of deals to people who want to sell their artwork. >> althea, did you want -- >> i just wanted to jump on the sort of point about educating the work force say that i think that it's true that these technologies are both disrupting the labor market and creating new opportunities. we found that 42% of our sells sold for the first time so that half of our folks who wouldn't have started businesses otherwise. but i think it's more than sort of the stem education, which is

important but build fewer jobs i think, than sort of building out some of the work-around entrepreneurship and preparing folks for the new and changing economy, chris not the result of technology alone. the economy has been changing for a long time towards more flexible work self-employment, all of these things, and how do we help prepare sort of the workers that have been displaced for that new world outfield informal entrepreneurship that is a big question that doesn't fall just to the tech companies but policymakers more broadly. >> just have to say something about the stem comment because right down the street, at harvard law you have mr. tiedle bermuda who came out with a book saying that doesn't exist and america hat plenty of stem educated workers and this so-called panic about the shortage of stem workers are a

extra traditional cycle that happens -- most famously in the '50s after sputnik and you look at employment rates and waning rates and people have technical training, that are doesn't seem to be a problem here because wages have been relatively stagnant even for them. so the idea we can educate our way out by teaching everybody math is highly questionable and we need to look at that, too. >> what's the relationship between the stem education and some of the concerns in the tech industry about immigration? we're right here in a moment where we're -- the president is considering executive action on immigration if congress doesn't act. that seems to be politically charged. may not happen. and we have had forward.u.s. trying to take a very active role to push some movement on the immigration front. anybody want to comment on immigration and the role that is taking in this?

>> a scam to keep wages low? >> sure. >> so, my ceo, mark zuckerberg at facebook, has taken a very active role trying to push for comprehensive immigration reform over the last year plus. there's many components of comprehensive immigration reform. the ones you're specifically focused on related to stem have to do with what i think most of the companies who operate in this space do perceive as a shortfall of the types of highly skilled, trained engineers, computer scientist who can produce at the level that is required to remain globally competitive. i think most of the companies around here will be interested in reading the work of professor but they know they're another

able to find from the u.s. trained work force of u.s. born people a sufficient number of the skilled engineers they need to keep these companies growing and innovating and competing. so that's where immigration reform on the high skill side comes in. we have at facebook -- we probably get about 50% other a year of the h1b the temporary visas for high-skilled workers. people that we have given job offers to, many of whom have been educated in u.s. universities but are foreign-born. we get 50% in the lottery. a year. people who we have given job offers to. now, as a global company, if we can't bring those people to the united states to work with our engineers in california, we're probably still going to give them a job. we're just going to put it

someplace else, and that's not good for the united states and that's not good for our economy and for building and maintaining the kind of centers of excellence we 1/2 silicon valley and in austin and boston and other places and that we want to maintain just taking facebook as an example, but i think it's true for a lot of these companies around the table. we got close to 80% of our work force in the united states, and about 85% of our users outside the united states. that's the kind of structure that i think we want to maintain. we want u.s. based companies growing jobs here and serving the world. so i think it's the prospects for comprehensive immigration reform are looking dim, i would say, in the current congress. president is considering take something executive action. we're hopeful that to the extent he does that, he tries to address all aspects of the problem, both the current undocumented situation and the shortage of high-skilled

workers. >> laurel? >> i heard just that this whole issue of immigration and what facebook has been up to is a -- makes the case for the tech community to get more invested in long-term policy conversations and we have a humanitarian disaster on the border right now with a bunch of seven-year-olds coming and it's part of a much bigger systemic problem where issues like governance and state failure are counterterrorism issues. it's getting wrapped up in that. dhs and the military all are calling this under the headline of resilience. you're going to see more and more definitions of resilience and mass population movements are part of it. and unless this community, again, like takes on this whole civic problem-solving of complex sorting and filtering of the challenges we're facing as a

global society i would argue, i think it's going to be hard to get out of the box and can't just be about h1b visas for your company. i was really surprised honestly someone who has been working in d.c. for the last 14 years, is that most notable thing about the forward.u.s. was that one of the firsting it das was take out ad buys on environmental issues. d.c. really is -- aid kind of like a city that is a junior high. and there's -- a high school. there's the jobs the homecoming queens, the in other -- the nerds, the geeks.

problem solving folks come together and it's not going to look like these old models of lobbying, and i tell you what that looks like inside congress is this tendency to use a campaign technology for governing and what it's doing is making governing look like campaigning. i think people who look at congress can see this. it can't be petition sites and can't be -- like the correspondence management system of congress sorts sentiment, not substance. unless we figure out a way to privilege certain kinds of information that match institutional functions, like the subcommittee institutionally responsible for? that is the information it needs at the right time for authentic high reputation sources. so it's this kind of -- like my dream is that we're going to move toward a future where this community that has largely commercial interests in the space, reserves or helps create some new rules because i feel like every single time it's these process rules that are

just missing and they really don't exist right now for civic social norms. >> joel and then adam. >> so, just one response to what she was saying. i think in -- adam is a great person to talk about this. he at facebook six or seven years ago started pioneering the effort to educate members of congress about how to use at least our platform to communicate with their constituented and hear back from their con state -- constituents in new ways. one thing i want to point out is while these -- i think all of these observations about ways we can educate and change institutions, make a lot of sense. we also as companies and as organizations need to operate in the world in which we live today, and that's a big difference between silicon valley's approach to the world and washington's approach to the world. silicon valley companies they want to -- they see systems and want to go around them.

or change them or disrupt them. unfortunately for at least for now, congress still operates as a democratic body with members who go home to their districts and while they may care a lot about what people in sill son -- silicon valley think in alabama, some congressional district they care a lot more about what the members of their district think so. as you think about how to get policy changes -- this is what forward was struggling with and made a valiant northwest trying to get comprehensive immigration reform done -- you still have to change the minds of the people at home before their members of congress are going to be responsive to them. so what the strategy you mentioned of the ad, just that was one ad as part of a broader effort and a strategy to figure out how to build the support in the districts to give members of congress the fortitude to take what might be a popular vote in silicon valley but a difficult

vote in their home district. and it's this mix that we're still going to have to do for a while when it comes to politics somebody new stuff and try to change and it also have to try to convince people in some old fashioned ways, although maybe using new tools. >> just i think to talk about the -- seems -- i mean no disrespect -- confused slightly. i used to work in congress and i love institution. i think many of the things you suggested are good things. also has to be an institution that wants to save itself and that not always evident in congress. they seen continue-year contracts and don't break them. the cut staff and continue to cut staff. the don't always want to make the hard choices. it is incumbent on to us provide some help but you can't save somebody that doesn't want to be saved. that's a critical component. when you talk about comprehensive solutions, when i look around the table, the folks that represent policy shops in

washington many have deep connections in washington. but when you look at some of these issues you can see here, we need be more involved in immigration and governance and security issues. frankly, that's why we have governments. this is not the google job or facebook's job to solve a refugee crisis in lattin america. if they have to do that now as part of a broader thing they're certainly willing to play a role as many companies are but that's the role of government, and i think to kind of put solely the burden on us when we're trying to simultaneously save institutions we think are broken, there has to be willingness here and the benefit is there are good people in government, and in the chambers and at the local levels but that's -- you kind of want both things here. we have to save the institution that might not want to be saved and replace it and make it feel better. it feels like a confusing argue. >> i am definitely confused.

>> michael? >> just going to make the point that one of the innovations a number of these companies represent is reputational networks and there's a great example of that happening in executive branch where there's a recent article how ten thousand federal executive branch employees are using get hub, a platform to share code and also a way to share ideas and have dialogue. so you have ten thousand federal employees from folks in the white house down into regulatory agencies, who are collaborating and you have these reputational mechanisms helping them sort that kind of input from the public and from other federal agencies and so forth. on the -- how we make policy, yes, a lot does happen from congress, but also a lot happens from regulatory agencies, and what i'm really excited to see is the modernization of regulatory agency in the coming

decade. just as one small example, the platforms that power the regulatory agencies are developing a open read/write api. not you just have to go to the web site of that regulatory agency to put a comment in but that advocacy platforms, grass arrests, everyone can on their own platforms contribute and there can be -- we can use technology to sort and weigh and all of those things in the rulemaking process which is a big part of kind of how we govern. >> michael. >> i'd like to add on the topic of immigration reform certainly an area that affects our entire economy, and probably every single industry in this country, and when you look at internet companies, as a whole they're all relatively new companies young, in their development and certainly new to politics and policy and i would argue that when it comes to immigration reform, our companies have done more and certainly more than their share, to push this debate

forward, and have it be a constructive conversation and move the ball down the court to get reform done and it's not something that happens in one congress or one year. it's been many years since the last reform was in the '80s, and i think that internet companies deserve a lot of credit for not just picking up the plan tell on what matters most to their intense interests they picked up in up the mantle for what is best for broader reform matters to the general economy, and this general topic why internet policy matters to startups and also to companies still startups as heart, and there are a lot of issues and as new entrants come in, policymakers have to make a decision, are we going to be protectionist and try to protect industries that have been around like last night, mentioned her father was manufacturing railroad ties and then when the next generation came out he had to figure out what to do expert of to the great thing about our economy and our country we're

coming i up with new and better ways and it's improving our society and our economy as a whole and we want to see that happen. enter northwest it a great catalyst for that. another issue we haven't raided which is important to startups and internet companies is the issue of patent reform. we have seen a surge in entity known at patent trolls that have gone after the larger internet companies and also startups where year trying to create a business and instead you're having to deal with court cases case something policymakers need to look at and probably people have thoughts on that issue as well. >> we have around the table people from industry academics, public servants, and we have a moment here where we can -- we should really have a discussion about what is missing, what do

we not know giving broader context to the policy issues we're looking atment what are some in your minds important areas for research, for discussion to really dig in here, as we look forward over the next couple of years, what are areas that really need loot more attention so we can make good policies, that we make good decisions. >> i think some of that has to start with education and engagement, and so i think that's one of the reasons why you're saying internet companies come together and start groups like the internet association, i think it's why you're saying the sharing economy companies come forward and start tone game with go, but for government to make good policy, and to be thoughtful about it and how these companies will evolve in the future and write policy that works in the long one i think now is the time for a lot of

engamement and a lot of education and a lot of conversations so that the groundwork is there for smart policy to be written versus sort of where we have -- where i have seen we have been for the last few years, which is sort of reactionary policy that it nothings based on an understanding of the industry or issues or where the industry is evolving. that's sort of a joint responsibility for both government and our industries to really start that and continue that conversation that dialogue, and start building those bridges. >> we can articulate or pock policy goals around say, livery service or rental housing, but it's very hard for us to get good dat owie publictive loire

ineffectively these systems being built by some of the more innovative companies actually do or development achieve those of goals so consequently a lot of the decisionmaking is done in the realm of anecdote, i heard about there is time when this thing happened. of course the companies in the space have a vested interest in releasing data that tells a story. it's an area for people interested in public policy research to look at to say what is the overall impact of say, a livery service alternative to the sharing based livey service alternative to the transportation availability, to costs, to supply in areas that are undersupplied, things like that to actually give us some hard data we can look at to see how well these services do or don't support the policy objectives we have. >> i think -- is a really important mention of the data possibilities, and there are lot

of claims particularly in the sharing economy, about the footprint lowering aspect of these activities and at the moment we don't really know much about how true those claims are. air bers b just did a study. so, i think we are going to be doing more and more carbon accounting in coming decades and i think this is an area where the whole industry could get out in front in theory it should be a good, happy story to tell. and also to be a model for the kind of putting these accounting systems into place and being kind of pro-active about it. i think would be really fantastic. >> it's interesting i've never encountered a politician who isoptin know vacation, and

very -- anti-innovation and very few are anti-internet and yet innovation as we know has affects, has consequences. we talked about a lot of them. it can be disruptive. it can cause a shift in the work force. and the difficulty that a lot of us are engaged in public policy are engaged in, is that often times there's a quick reaction from policymakers oh, we were for innovation until we started seeing these disruptive effects. now we need put the brakes on that. i think that these are all valid questions. look we have a structure of labor laws of child safety laws and private laws north just in this country or elsewhere. so though we might not agree on the structure and specifics to the laws the laws generally reflect a past consensus that those things important to us. the formats the laws take in the future may be very different from the past.

i'm not sure that protecting taxi medallan system is the best way to ensure we have a vibrant middle class. i don't know

that govern society can keep up with. i know that because i've been first-row seat. so i walk away a little concerned about how we're actually going to fix these institutions. i think at the local level when

you see people like joshua going in and they're a flub of folks doing this that makes me really optimistic but when we look at congress i don't know the path for that. i applaud lorelei working on this but i don't think you figured it out either. one thing i would ask all of you to keep in mind we definitefully d.c. feel an attitude at times of well government's broken let's just avoid them. but just ask yourself to the earlier mid-rater's point, where are we in 2030 if you keep that attitude and what are the choices you can make to help improve our institutions because you're forcing a lot of changes in society that have impacts far beyond who gets a taxi. it's who is driving the taxi and do they have health care and what happens to people out of work? the environment, all of these things and our institutions can't keep up with that rate of change. >> a positive note to end on.

>> hmm. before we wrap up -- i know people have some flights to catch, but we did have some people at the table who didn't -- haven't had a chance to talk. i want to open up maybe chris or carrie or who else hasn't had a chance. down on this end, you want to add anything to the discussion before we wrap up? >> hi. i'm carrie jorgenson, from transcribe adviser. the lawyer who is in charge of vacation rentals, flipkey.com, check it out. just on a more optimistic note following on what macon said -- there are some of these companies that are disruptive companies starting to take care of their -- they're not technically employees but

contractor. i think that minimum wage of 11.20 an hour and they're trying to treat their taskers well by directing them to -- getting good deals on health insurance and cell phones and so on and tools they might use in their tasks, and i think with companies that are sort of working through this, i -- i know uber faced protests in seattle recently by their drivers because they didn't think their pay is high enough. i think there will be -- i'm optimistic there will be a good outcome. people -- i wouldn't want 0 get into an uber if i feel like the uber driver is losing money on this ride and is unhappy.

my uber driving this morning -- i asked who she was she said, we're alive, it's wonderful. but anyway -- >> good job. >> i think that the companies -- flipkey and businesses aren't really dealing with labor so mach as really renting out property, so this isn't really directly impacting -- what's that? >> appreciate your bringing it up however. >> but i think that there will be -- every uber driver i have has had been general lynn winly happy. i worked at zip car before so i'm interested in mobile and their happiness. so i think -- i'm optimistic these new companies will be able to find an outcome that is good fork worees good for consumers good for the economy. >> leonard or matthew chris?

>> i am with the harvard innovation lab. this has been a great discussion listening to your points. i want to just make a comment on -- come of combine 'seth's and davids opinions. session you talk about infrastructure within the government, and david the dichotomy between those making the decisions and the people -- the consumers. what i see as a pattern here, how to decrease the social dips between the decisionmakers and those where those policies impact. you look at the city of san francisco has introduced a platform similar to open -- where they crowd source people living in the city to help solve problems and decide what to use either repurposed land or -- and so i see great opportunity for tech companies to help these

decisionmakers decrease that social distance to it has a more -- impact on society. >> i am chris from reditt. i'm interested in what was said, just the disconnect between congress and these companies and how quickly we're moving and users expecting things instantly. i think adam said that you used to have to look into the basement of the municipal building for a record but now you can get it immediately. so in 2030, what are -- what are people expecting of congress in the time it takes to make decisions? that's something i'm really interested in. i don't know the answer either but i think with the instant gratification we all have and uber -- there was a mistake within 20 mints they refunded my money and that's amazing. how can congress adapt to making that change?

>> just a few things i've learned kind of working -- i was confused by -- there's a big difference between policy deliberation and delivery of citizen services and when people think about technology and government, they kind of lump them together and so when you look ator should seeing glass on the sidewalk, takes a picture and it's fixed, that speaks exactly to the greek exec state people should be able to do anything anywhere at any time. having a deliberative body that rapid is a bad idea. it would be different because you're making choices and doing things which is perhaps preferrable to the current situation, but you need better deliberation. this does bring up one of the scariest thing about the internet on policy, is this notion that you have a lot of companies that deliver information to users base white think their users want and as we seive it develop year after year you start to see things

like the filter bubble and behaviors where people sect with people who share their world view and you're seeing a similar thing happen in politics, as people race to more extreme positions, literally move to new geographies, and i think it's affecting our political debate. i wonder how we stop that. because if the model for internet company is we want to deliver what your users want and make our robots work to deliver that information instantly, that doesn't actually force them to think differently about stuff. reinforces their world view and -- i don't know how that stops but really reminds me that what is best for our years isn't necessary live what is best for our citizens and we have to make sure that we're cognizant of that. >> leonard. >> sure. leonard carden from monster.com. want to circle back to the startupsups and what they should be thinking about. if they're entering a regulated industry, going back to my days

as a civil servant, the risk/reward ratio for a civil servant is entirely different than for an entrepreneur. the first time that there's a fatal accident due to a ride-sharing service, everybody is going look to government official that let that service operate, and the risk is extreme but there's no reward. whereas you're starting up that service, your reward is potential millions or billion dollar enterprise. you have a lot of motivation to get there quickly and get it done quickly, whereas the civil servant i going to be thinking do no harm. don't take the risk do no harm until i'm certain i witness work out. so you just need to keep that in mind. there's really no good way around that except the cooperative efforts we have heard about and educating the government officials about why your service will not do any harm, and i think i'm very encouraged by what people said before about the collaborative efforts occurring but sometimes

the ontremendous nears go charming into the room and don't realize the person they're meeting with the government initial -- there's not just protecting vest evidence interests. they're also -- they are risk avoidance for a reason, probably because there's so little reward for them and probably because they're thinking, do no harm. >> well, this is a really stimulating, interesting discussion, covered a very wide range of ground, beginning with our initial discussion of use of the first amendment around data online and ending with some of the -- in between talking about some of the challenges facing both government and startups and navigating unfamiliar terrain, the challenges of these institutions all in the midst of different kinds of change, and i think maybe on that note i will let our cohost michael give us some closing thoughts.

>> yes, just wanted to first that maggie williams and the hard record iop and the staff for making this symposium happen and thank our moderators and participants. these are important issues and as the policy landscape changes and companies evolve probably next year if we have the same conversation there will be new companies and flu topics and that's exciting. i think this conversation helps move the ball forward on these important issues. i thank you all very much. [applause] >> coming up, governor's state of the state addresses. first, newly elected masts governor charlie baker. then goes dan malloy of connecticut, followed by north dakota governor in california governor jerry brown.

here's some of the features programs for theirs weekend on the c-span networks:

republican charlie baker has been sworn in as massachusetts'

'2 inside governor. in his inauguration speech he talks about education and economic development. this is a half hour. [applause] [applause] ...

>> [applause]

i have known and admired you both for may years i have always appreciated the joy e. and integrity throughout your public service there were lessons there for all of us. thank you for being there for that. [applause] i thanks to all of you to distinguished guests for being here it is with great humility and a high honor to take on an to the job is governor of the commonwealth of massachusetts. [cheers and applause] i am well aware of the authority of privileges that come with this office but there in consequence all compared to the responsibility of serving

and protecting the people of this great state. and the obligation to always live up to that trust. they have invested may with the title of governor for the next four years i've also the holder of lifelong titles and i am proud of a sudden, has been, father and neighbor. [applause] those titles had shaved to the values that i bring to that corner office a.m. that day boat -- that bible is the same one my mother held wed my father 46 years ago when he was awarded as assistant secretary under u.s. jews flirtatious and secretary of the former

massachusetts governor. [applause] at a moment like this there is no way to think your parents for what they have a dead end for you except to say i love you both i am who i am today because of you a of a wish mom could be here to see this. [applause] especially at what to thank my wife florid. [cheers and applause] -- loren for her love band council and her sense of humor and endless support i knew when we got married 27 years ago that i was a lucky guy. but after 27 years, three wonderful kids i know that i am truly blessed.

[applause] on behalf of the people of massachusetts and want to think mr. duval and godspeed. called for public safety officers corrections officers for the work that they do. [applause] the service is always challenging and at times can implicated with few exceptions these men and women do it every day. i also want to think canceling all those men and women from the commonwealth that are serving in the country's armed forces.

[applause] since 9/11 90 citizens have the answer the call to service and when men and women serve so do their families and we must never forget that. [applause] as governor these really so always be in my prayers. the queue for giving us this opportunity to for dissipated your city and we wish you nothing but the best of luck with the people of boston in the years ahead [cheers and applause]

>> during this difficult time the commonwealth inspiring people as the global leader of health care and biotechnology education finance energy efficiency and hideous manufacturing. leading the way for health care reform and marriage equality in knowing our full potential some challenges have been ignored or the equivalent of kicking the can down the road and then to of hotels and motels that

are frustrating for many and in some cases the devastating consequences. i know we can do better. the time has come to write the next great chapter in the history of this commonwealth. [applause] lieutenant governor and i have put together a talented drivers experienced bipartisan cabinets. [applause] and then to make massachusetts great they industry and the policy pronouncements that would amount to empty promises.

he believed government was about high ideals and also equally believed that basic services mattered in every detail counted. of people have to wait for hours for a simple transaction there now being served that we're not paying attention to the details those are two examples we will challenge the status quo. [applause] >> they recognize they may not always work but to try again.

of the loudest of these actions would have an immediate budget deficit with a job-creating economy closing the achievement gap and confronting opiate addiction to revitalize our urban centers. [applause] with respect to the state's budget nobody in the stands better than i do the constitution requires to be balanced. it is our responsibility history will half a billion dollars is being transferred to our administration. we cannot blame this deficit of a lack of revenue. we have to recognize there is a spending problem in

dealing with it now will make next year's budget that much easier. we will hold the line on taxes from our hard-working people. [applause] we will protect cities and towns. [applause] everything is on the table will afford to working with house speaker and though legislative branches to close the gap in my other structural changes to be vague no doubt we have to make difficult decisions and we will work collaborative lead to do so with great sensitivity and careful

judgment. it is the biggest solution to any budget problem. [applause] we have 5.8 percent unemployment rate in massachusetts. a cold hearted statistic was 200,000 people seeking work with those under employed in those two have dropped out altogether. there is no single initiative two-stage job-creating economy but those setter to slow to make decisions and this we can do better. [applause] our a penetration will work to streamline regulatory requirements to establish businesses and we will

report record of the on our progress. health care cost we will presume many paths on this one but the simplest to ensure price and performance and transparency is long overdue. this saves out looks as much as 300%. [applause] >> with the direct link of economic growth as we begin the new year families and businesses the you get with the unprecedented increases from the electric bill as energy prices are falling throughout the country this

is a large part of inadequate delivery system resulting incoordination afford to working with my colleagues in massachusetts with the governor of rhode island and other new england governors to reduce our carbon footprint. [applause] >> i am the proud product in to this day i remember every teacher i had growing up the movie and challenge me to make repeal that life really mattered. across massachusetts there are many talented legislators do with their

predecessors did for me. yesterday we witnessed the progress that had detonated just a few short years. despite the issues and they have many a renaissance is under way. attendance is up, dropout rates are down the school day is longer. exceptional schools of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods throughout the commonwealth proving they can get it done for kids a matter their circumstances. [applause] civic but other schools really do need to do step up for performance given that dramatic success that they

have demonstrated can no longer be tolerated. and traditional public schools are always in the background of our education system, we need more high performing public charter schools especially in underperforming school districts. [applause] kids are on waiting list for the school. 45,000. it is wrong for any of us to stand in a city neighborhood to sympathize with a mom or a dad saying they're not getting the education they deserve to lifted that charter school path to make the changes that are being made to insure that every school is great.

last year governor patrick called opiate addiction a public health crisis and he is right. he is right. it affects every community. several months ago i met john and stephanie. after a routine medical procedure there 18 year-old son was prescribed opiates for pain. slowly and unknowingly he became addicted. id with the prescription and did he turned to heroin. over a period of years shot and stephanie tried as hard as any parent to help their son. with an agonizing but all too familiar story. is sadly he overdosed almost a year ago to this day it

now as a parent when heart goes out to john and stephanie for their devastating loss but as governor i tend to tackle this problem head on. [applause] [applause] date you. to many families have gone through grief and pain that john and stephanie have gone through provide look forward to working with the attorney general electric because

without strong action many more individuals and families like the greens will have that same experience. now when the lieutenant governor and i campaigned based on results. [laughter] we campaigned hard in communities of color because we believe these neighborhoods have not benefited from economic success that is more commonplace in other parts of the commonwealth. because individual and economic development aid to the development and social service entrepreneurs call a lost cause into a definite winner. [applause]

>> the commonwealth secretary have worked with their neighbors to literally turn their neighborhood from a dangerous place into a community on the move. where people want to live. and scholarships for across the country those are designated for those that participate in our mentoring program. [applause] and the kids at the community center are turning gang members into productive citizens fled with their culinary institute.

when you talk to them about their success it is contagious. our problem is not knowing what works it is the opposite. the entreprenuers and leaders that i just mentioned have cracked the code. the government does not have the will or the foresight to support with there doing and do more of it. [applause] that even so ferguson speaks loudly in the message is simple when people lose hope bad things happen when every community to be a place that tomorrow will be better than today.

[applause] i say it's not just because i believe it put a great writer and philosopher once said the natural plights of the human mind hour from hope to help but in another way things are headed in the right direction if you believe it and cannot wait for tomorrow then no matter where you might be today than that faith needs to be based on something beyond. no offense to my friend. [laughter] the quality of the school's you send your kids to the main streets the job you have and to feed your family it is to avoid those tragedies like ferguson by

the awful shooting death of is imperative to redouble our efforts for those opportunities that exist in this commonwealth. [applause] >> as noted of the plaque, 54 years ago tomorrow jfk stood where i stand today when he delivered a farewell address

to said general court of massachusetts before traveling to washington d.c. to become our 35th president. [applause] >> success with public service should be measured against for historic qualities. courage, judgment, integrity and dedication. [applause] >> the president-elect use these for his time in office. it did in the years ahead to redefine for our time. but first we must have courage and embrace the best idea is the matter which side of the ideal day come from. [applause]

[applause] second, of the best make our government as efficient and responsive and innovative as it can be. third, that we must have integrity. because when we make honest mistakes they must be acknowledged and corrected. and finally with a moustache of dedication and to serve the best interest of the public with though made up public to have the ability of the responsibility to make a real difference in the lives of people with quality and affordable education for kids as well

as strong and safe communities lies within us. we have courage judge mitt integrity and dedication every day but only by working together will we make massachusetts great and with your help i know we will. god bless you. grabher plus the commonwealth of massachusetts. [cheers and applause]

[applause] [applause]

>> friends and colleagues infantryman and especially the people of ohio eighth congressional district thank you for sending me hear a and let's welcome all of the new members in all of their families to what we all though to be a truly historic day. [applause] today is important for our country 13 for the first time in a new republican and majority accepted its irresponsibility. we realize the task before us with hard work with

opportunities await as well. [applause] they key you very much. congratulations to all of you for being sworn in today. rehab work to do. thank you.

mr. president and mr. speaker my fellow state officials and ladies and gentlemen, of the general assembly honored members of the judiciary and all citizens they queue for the honor of inviting the into the people's house once again. my sincere congratulations is specifically to the president congratulations. said the majority leader, congratulations to you. and also the attorney general.

and house minority leader. [applause] congratulations as though to the freshmen members of the general assembly that were sworn in earlier today from the months and years ahead. let me think that connecticut's brave men and women you are serving in the armed services. also to the best attended governor in the united states of america. thank you nancy. [applause] and finally faq to my wife and our three boys. fate before your of love and support. four years ago a joint you in this chamber for the

first time as governor. it makes me wonder if there of how they changed the nation and the world coconut ticket drafted the first constitution we founded the first insurance company. our intention gave the can opener the bicycle and has always spent of birthplace of innovation. and for the issues of our time. committee to $10.10 per hour. we passed paid sickly first in the nation to do that as well.

and working with democrats and republicans we created the strongest gun prevention laws in the nation and to a crime is that a 40 year the. [applause] -- low. thanks to nancy wyman we cut the uninsured in half and became a national model for a new kind of health care system. thank you. we build better schools in raise test scores and make college more affordable to put us on a pass to universal prekindergarten. we did that together. we added more than $500 million to the reidy day fund in a cut long-term debt by $12 billion.

and finally because of the decisions we made together over the last four years our economy is gaining traction we help private employers have more than 75,000 new jobs. and aziz would have happened if we fail to face our problems. will lead down a stronger past because we did not take the easy way out so what is next? had three remark -- our tradition to fill or promise for a brighter tomorrow? how do we decide what type of kid netiquette we will leave our children? we do a with coverage to have the tough but necessary debates to push ahead even though it is not easy

especially when it is not easy to be prepared not just for the fiscal year but the next half century and in that spirit one of the largest challenges we face something that has held this back decades in for decades to, what to talk about two generations of transportation we know they are bound together states that make long-term investment can have a vibrant economies for generations it is that simple. of transportation can access to community to community and state to state and nation to nation with economic opportunities into one another. the good news thanks to the

efforts of so many here in this chamber we have increased support of jews rotation dramatically. it is up 60% with that special to is rotation fund than ever before with 1.2 billion dollars to make sure the receipt tax goes to transportation and on long overdue process to replace the bridge and have to do systems between new haven. to invest more in his rotation it is more progress that it has made in decades but it is still not enough. we have so much more to do we have more to do because traffic congestion has an

extra 42 hours away from your family each year so it is the equivalent of $97 million of lost time is wasted fuel each and every day. all told rode him bridges that our deficient or over the congested cost $2 billion annually. with the additional air pollution and smog our investments have not kept pace with our needs. is unacceptable and we needed a new approach. for our roads and bridges we need to change the ways that

we can view toward the way business is new-product it is time to establish a collective vision for the next 30 years for ages rotation system of what needs to happen to transform our infrastructure to meet the challenges and demands of the 21st century. we can to says this year. to make us more business friendly to improve our quality of life to make our states and even better place we can change can netiquette so 30 years from now here is what we will leave to our children a state with the safest highways and railways pedestrian systems in new england. [applause]

a state where people can move back and forth to their jobs in a reasonable and predictable amount of time to spend less time in traffic and more time with their family. [applause] the state to attract new businesses because they deliver goods to without delay because they have a choice to live and work with or without. [applause] with three vibrant deep water ports in state that serves as of hub for

transportation around the globe that the bus and rail system interconnect all of connecticut's taking us to cities up and down the east coast. crisscrossed by a pedestrian and bicycle trails to make our communities more sustainable and the town's more walkable and towns more livable. day our lofty goals. they seemed unattainable to some and i say we cannot afford not to. [applause] been to refuse to give been for what we must strive for how to best face these challenges head-on i will

come back next month with more details but in the meantime i want to offer to ideas as a good face. with their scope and geography. also fixing this state roads and exit ramps. [applause] it means building new rail stations to upgrade our branch line with rail service including the valley. [applause] to have a statewide 21st century bus service with real-time updates that they can check on their cell phones. [applause]

the bottom line is ready to approve transportation of all kinds in towns of all sizes across all of our state. we must make sure every penny that we raise for choose rotation will transform connecticut. to have the secure transportation walk -- lockbox that every single dollar raised is spent on transportation now and in the future. [applause] no gimmicks and in no diversions to have a

covenant with bondholders of all the people of connecticut's it to make sure money set aside for transportation projects is only used for the purpose. send me a bill that accomplishes these goals and i will sign it immediately. [applause] . .