believe is urgent meaning the ipad isn't getting reception if they can't do their video time. that is a crucial element that must be addressed by waking the parents up. and it begins our forever multi-15, 18 hour odyssey my wife and me panting in the morning and they have very different styles. my 11-year-old is a regulator in training. when we are at birthday parties and he gets a gift he will turn to me and say is this compliant witcompliancewith the federal t? [laughter] my six-year-old is that reese reason childproofing was invented and he runs the lab in the living room and can do things with products that i didn't think anybody thought was possible but it provides an incredible spectrum as i go into work each day and i framed a reference for how i do my job all throughout the day whenever we are talking about issues that the commission my first reaction

is how does this help parents and what does it mean if we are going to go out and say something are we providing parents with the type of information that is actionable for them. it's one thing to say that it's not safe but to me that isn't good enough. parents want to know what is safe and what should they do. and i think it is incumbent upon us to not only worn away from something that to guide towards something else and then they have gotten all of the information that they need. i am motivated as well of course, and i think we all are by the stories of other parents whether it be the children who have been hanged to death a window coverings, families that have been wiped out by carbon monoxide poisoning and portable generators, children who died on atvs. there are so many different consumer products. some of them more challenging. everyday i get the daily death report at the end of the day and

it is the hardest part of the day to read the descriptions of the children that are told by consumer products. and like any parent, of course i envision that being my children. and it is very difficult to force myself and i do force myself because it's important to read those reports and to understand what other families are going through. that motivates us everyda everyd i know it motivates you. we do not do this work alone. many of you are here because this is your life's work. you share the passion of trying to make a difference and make sure consumer products are not taking the lives of children, are not leading to serious injuries and that we are not going to have long-term changes to the lives of families because of something that shouldn't happen. please help us do better at our

jobs and please come even more work with rachel in particular on this even more submit comments to the proposed regulations. please provide even more data and research when we are trying to make a change. that makes a big difference to us. participate even more in the public workshops. we are going to be having one coming up on the recall effectiveness. we need to hear your voice. please make sure you have a robust presence. take our safety materials even more that's on the website. we have an excellent office of communications that puts out life-saving material. please take that material and disseminate it. it can make a difference. we are all in this together. and we have come a long way come a long long way since the work that rachel did on the consumer product safety improvement act to make a difference. we are now the world leaders on crib safety and other durable infant products. we have very strong third-party

testing for children's products. and again thanks to rachel we now have a publicly available database where you can not only search for reports of harm that have happened to other people, you can file your own reports. please use safer products stock of as an excellent resource and is an unfortunate way that we have had to work around the anti-consumer safety and anti-transparency provisions of this section of the consumer product safety act. the only agency that we know of that has these limitations. and thankfully because of the work of rachel and others, we at least have to work around. i still believe that this section needs to be repealed. i think the consumers are being harmed by its existence but we have the database to move us forward. so we have all this and we have a lot more but we are not done. we have so much more to do.

and even though i'm sleep deprived because my kids are waking me up early i do come in ancommendfired up every day to e more issues. so i want to talk about some of the things that we are working on right now. this is the year that i want to see progress on long-standing persistent hazards continue to take lives. this is the year that i expect to see finally, an effective standard for window coverings. [applause] >> 30 years. [applause] >> 30 years on average of a child being hanged to death once a month. that is just too much. it's got to stop. and thanks to the retailers, wal-mart, target, lowe's and home depot in particular, we are finally seeing a change. the status quo has ended and now this is the year to see it through.

this is the year i finally expect to see an effective standard for recreational off highway vehicles. again, enough is enough. you know the changes can be made to the vehicles and they can be made safer and this is the year that we expect to see it. and this is the year i expect to see a proposed mandatory standard by the staff for the portable generators. one of the leading killers of products under the jurisdiction. we believe that the design changes can significantly reduce the exposure to carbon monoxide. there is at least one company out there from south carolina that is already showing this is possible. we are calling on the industry while we are moving through the rulemaking to go ahead and make the changes, make a life-changing -- life-saving changes now before we have to be rulemaking. and this isn't a partisan issue. i have the commissioner here. they both share that view as well. the commission is behind trying to save lives of the products.

let's change that. >> this is also the year the agency will be an even greater force for the consumer safety. >> and this is not an easy task. many of the folks out there that we regulate our law-abiding and do the right thing. but not all do. we will continue to accountable those companies that break the law and puts consumers at risk. one of the area since i've been the chairman that i've called upon is the higher civil penalties. much, much higher civil penalties as the facts allow. prior to 2008 the highest penalty the agency could seek was a little bit under $2 million. congress raised the threshold up to $15 million it gets indexed for inflation. i have said repeatedly and thanks to the staff we are

starting to see a sic see if tht increase in civil penalties because the factors that we are seeing, the conduct that we are seeing were not much higher penalties. and i'm really pleased to announce today for the first time that we have approved a settlement with a civil penalty of $15.45 million. [applause] >> that is the highest penalty the agency has ever had by almost four times. the prior amount was 4.3 million. so we are now at 15.45 million. the company has agreed they produce dehumidifiers and you probably recognize them or under the names ofrigidaire and those types of names. it's totally unacceptable that a company would put out on the market and continue to keep on the market while delaying reporting to us and misleading

us being untruthful about these products that provide a completely unreasonable risk to human life and property from the buyer. that conduct is not to be tolerated. and if there is any confusion about what the civil penalty means, let's be very clear about it. it's not okay anymore. u cannot write these penalties off as a cost of doing business. we are going to continue to try to drive the change in the way that a certain segment, i'm talking about the bad actors, i'm not talking about the good actors. they were serious about these civil penalties. i also want to mention nobody just because we are talking civil penalties, nobody should assume that criminal referrals to the department of justice were off the table. we will refer to criminal conduct investigations to the department of justice every case

that we think is warranted. i'm so proud in particular, and i want to mention this because it's important as there are people behind the work on the agreed settlement. the work of the office of general counsel and the staff and in particular i want to mention one of the trial attorneys. it's because of his work that this case was seen the way that it was. he picked up that happens all the time, work changes come as a movie that had been working on the file didn't have the chance to get to the bottom before she had to leave the agency. he picked it up and dusted it off and he went through all the paperwork, he did the hard work and he found what much of the trail that led to the civil penalties and i'm proud of the work that daniel did and the support that he got in the support of the genera general cl and it just typifies the work that goes on every day. test te

>> it made be angry as a parent i could not allow him to play with this truck. that i had to be concerned that he would ingest some type of chemical. it should not be that way.

a couch, which is an important object, we should not have to be concerned the flame retardant that are on the foam might get into the bust and children are ingesting that. that is not okay in my mind. i don't think parents should have to bear the brunt of wondering whether or not their children are being poisoned by chemicals in the house. it is one thing if you are talking about a knife which is obviously. we can all appreciate that. but when it is a hidden hazard and we are talking about chronic exposure i am not okay with that. i have spent every day i have been at the agency to push us forward to getting the answers to the question. i am not talking about any particular chemical and any particular reaction. i know these public policy questions shouldn't be left to parents to have to struggle with. they should not have to look at

tiny font on a product to see if there is a chemical in there. and they should not have to wonder if what is replacing bpa is safe. that is a burden public policymakers should bear. congress needs to jump in, too. with artificial turf and play' grounds we worked with the epa and the cdc to look and get answers and that is a good model but not the way it should be. we should be coming together with congress and getting the right of amount of funding and authorities to make sure we can really answer these questions and parents don't have to sit up and say it is safe for my child to play on that field or not. it is not okay for parents to

wonder if kids are getting brain injuries while playing sports. kids play sports and they should and we put them into sports and we should because they are supposed to come out of it on the back end as better people. they are supposed to develop character traits, physical fitness. they are not supposed to develop degenerative brain conditions. i don't know if they are or not but there is enough science out there that is causing pea concern and changing the way i let my kids play sports and parents all across the country. we have been working toward this with the five professional sports leagues. they have a role to play. they move people. we sat down with all five commissioners and said you have a role to play especially at the

youth level to change the way parents approach sports. we should have certainty when our kids play sports they will come out on the back end as better people. products are not the answer. there is no super helmet out there. there just isn't. i had parents coming up to me saying i bought this $400 hockey helmet. my son is okay, isn't he? and i have to break the news there is probably no difference between that helmet and the $201. the marketing is influencing behavior and it is all off base. the answer is less trauma to the brain and changing the way the games are played. no games' rules and the way it is played is more important than the safety of our children. if somebody thinks that it is more important to preserve the way a specific sport is played regardless of how the children come out of that i think we need

to sit down and have a conversation about our priorities. [applause] >> there is a lot to do. we can thought do it without you. rachel needs your help. we need your help. please, please, have a voice. please, follow the work at the cdc, epa, and all of the agencies. there is great people on the inside that are trying to do what you want us to do and are trying to make the changes you want us to make and we believe in will be for a better society but we need your help to do it together. i am hopeful after this presentation you will be inspired to go to saferproducts.gov and let's hear your voices even more. thank you again. >> i think we have time for one question.

>> better be a good one. >> if you are fast you can get to am microphone. go to the mike and identify yourself. >> richard hall with the consumer federation of california. you mentioned the flame-retardant chemicals. we are fought for ten years with the coalition of health, labor, consumer, firefighters and others to change a very bad rule that california adopted in the '70s that has become the de facto rule. every piece of furniture we are sitting on is loaded with toxic and ineffective chemicals. we made a lot of progress to allow for non-toxic options for furniture. i know we have tried over many years. going back many many years to get involved in developing a standard. has anything happened?

>> i am going to do something unprecedented. i am going to ask the commissioner to step up to the mike because he is leading on this and i don't want to steal his thunder. >> i think a good question before the agency and this isn't my issue but one we have been wregs wrestling. there is a great concern about the chemistry in flame retardants. i am calling for a national standard that would cut out the demand driver for many of the chemicals that are questioned and i think it provides an adequate level of safety for the american consumer. there is a lot of different opinions on that. i think it is time to adopt qb-117 as the national standard.

>> the commissioner led the plan for the staff to take a look and report to the commission as to whether what you are talking about and if it makes sense to move forward in that direction. the comfort i have taken because of feedback from rachel and others and while we are examining that companies are changing. that is a positive. after years of everyone following california it is encouraging to know they are moving to phase out these chemicals because it is not acceptable they are in there especially, as you mentioned, they don't do know good. >> please join me in thanking our guest. [applause] >> please stay in your seat we have a fast transition to the next panel on the sharing economy; benefits and risks to

consume consumers.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning and welcome to the next panel.

welcome to the sharing economy, benefits and risks to the consumers and we will stick to the theme changing the way the game and played and the shared economy is doing that. i am pleased to be joined. i am the director of financial resilience at aarp and i will thrilled to have a panel here experts who will share what is the growing economy? what does it mean as consumer advocates? what it are the benefits? what are the risks? what questions do we need to ask at the state, local and federal level to ensure we don't get swept away by the tosunami of te shared economy. we have brooks waters here. brooks will start us off with an overview of the shared economy.

brooks is the director at the city solutions and applied center and oversees research, partnerships and community engagement efforts to strengthen the capacity of municipal leaders to create safe neighborhoods, world class infrastructure and a sustainable environment. he is an advocate for successful cities and speaks and writes on shared economy, sustainability, and livable communities. he was director of the public policy for the american institute of arctitects. he spear headed the city is a lab project that focused on the key role of cities leading the economy forward. we are pleased to have brooks joining us. then we will hear from two different perspectives on the

shared economy. we will start with christopher coopman the research fellow who specializes in regulation, competition and innovation with a particular focus on public choice and the economics of government favortism. she h -- his comments have appeared in many publications. we will then talk to dean baker, codirector for the economic and policy research. he founded the foundation in 1999 and areas of research include housing, intellectual property, social security, medicare, and european markets. he has authored many books such as getting back to employment, the end of looser liberalism,

and he as a blog "meet the press" that provides commentary reporting. we will open up with brooks rainwater to talk about what is the shared economy and what do we as advocates need to know about it. >> thank you, ramsey and good morning everyone. it is great to join you here today. i have the opportunity to talk about what is happening in the sharing economy and the work we are doing in this space. i want to start and talk about how we are in this age of disruption and that might be a buzz word but it encapsulated

this moment of time. from economics to politics -- sorry. so much change is happening and happening more and more rapidly. what i am saying here, somebody else might have a different definition, but i would say the sharing economy is an economic model in which individuals are able to borrow or rent assets owned by others. it is precipitated by technology to better utilize under utilized resources. we have been thinking about this around the economy and providing cities with resources that will address issues near and long-term while helping them anticipate the game changing trends of the decades to come. we really came to this looking at the regulations that we had mayors and council members coming to us and talking about uber and air b and b saying the

companies are coming in, disrupting existing regulations and what should we do. what are the best practices out there? what we wanted to do was think about what was it that created this environment and why are we here now. three things jumped out. urbanization, economics, and user preferences and lifestyles. as we are urbanizing more and more, 70% of people live in cities by 2050 and this creates dynamic where people are looking for services and experiences in different ways. the cost of living in major cities is high and the great recession made people have less money so people are trying to find new ways to bring in income and utilize experiments they way and the peer to peer economy is one way to do this. on user preference and lifestyles. five years ago uber wasn't a

verb and smart phones were not poplar. so many of these platforms helped make the sharing economy mainstream. we are firmly entrenched and data is the currency of now and going forward into the future. so it is worth putting it into the context people crave connections through collaborative consumption and expect on-demand service at their beck and call. that is what it is put in the context of the shared economy thrivering and disrupting regulatory environments and something that was close to home for us and sharing for innovation and growth. this is coming together in a way that is affecting cities in many ways. we decided to create a research agenda on it. we dove into what was happening in the 30 largest cities specifically on ride and home sharing and wanted to find out if there was a negative or

positive sentiment to the serves. what we found at the time, which is a rapidly changing field and shifted sense then, is the majority of cities had a mixed sentiments. some saw uber positive and air b and b more negative reflecting on the different regular environments and the zoning situation was one we heard a lot from short-term rentals. hat gave us the first understanding from the national level within the city context. we wanted to dig in and did a best practice research study looking at a dozen cities doing in-depth leaders and brought it together with other research out at the time. within that context we found five key areas that cities were looking at and thinking about.

that was innovation, equitty and access, economic development, process and implementation and safety. safety was the big one. how do we keep our citizens safe was important. building off that research, we decided to do a national survey on the shared economy finding out what were the critical issues. once again, safety came up. safety was the primary concern. 61% of cities saw public safety, lack of insurance, and general safety concerns as that concern. you know, the other two lagging were 10% protection of traditional providers and industry participants and 9% saw non-compliance with standards. 22% saw improved services, 20%

increase in economic activity, and 16% on increased entrepreneur activity. so those benefits are more equally disbursed. we saw the concern of elected officials as it relates to this as public safety. building on the research we had already done this gave us that picture. we wanted to find out what kind of growth we were seeing. a clear majority of cities saw growth happening in the sharing economy with 19% of them seeing it as rapid growth. there was more growth happening on the ride sharing side than the home sharing sideism 71% of cities were supportive of the overall sharing economy growth but where it is interesting is how they tease it out. they like the overall concept. ride sharing is 66% and home sharing is 44%. follow-up interviews get the zoning and neighborhood issues and the issues with kind of commercial district and hotels

having conversations about this as well. so, we wanted to ask the question on regulatory approaches. what were cities doing to regulate this? what kind of laws had been passing? a clear majority had not passed new laws. while they had not passed new laws a clear majority saw it as important to do so. that led to the current environment of more and more laws and more push at the state level which is something we think local control and this happening locally is a place where a lot of this should take place. from a research perspective, where we are building and going next is looking at the labor challenges. it is not the sharing economy. there is a lot of issues coming together as the future of work. this is one pushing us in those directions. we are hopeful we can see the jobs become better because we

want better jobs. that research will be continuing ahead this year. the sharing economy is a game changer for cities. we see clear benefits and clear challen challenges. it is the urban environment that creates the platform for the growth of space and provides groundwork for the new ideas to generate and flourish. with that, i thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the invitation. and thank you all for listening to me talk for a few minutes and letting me a part of this panel. can you hear me better now? so i want to talk about three things specifically but i do want to mention something. the sharing economy is much broader than uber, lyft and b and b. but if you read in the news you would think it is ride and home sharing.

but it extends into all sorts of things. there are services that provide on-demand chef experiences where someone comes to cook for you. you can go to someone's house and eat there. a thousand tools -- basically any under utilized resource the sharing economy is allowing people to put that to productive use. what does that mean for traditional industries and consumers in those industries? i want to start by noting the competitive benefits effects the sharing economy has on incumbants and consumers. i will talk specifically about ride sharing. many taxi regulations shared a beneficial purposet at one time and produced a beneficial outcome it is becoming

increasingly clear these regulations are out taeted and not achieving intended consequences. how many of you have ever been to las vegas? quick show of hands. okay. how many of you took a taxi from the airport to the las vegas strip? okay. how many know if you were long hauled? blank shares? a -- the taxi driver is more particular with the area he or she is driving in than the rider. and not all riders, but some, can take advantage of this and drive you longer to run up the fare. this problem has been in las vegas and other places as well in new york and chicago. but the nevada taxi commission

has been trying to combat this issue for 40 years. they have been aggressively going after this doing everything from giant signs in the airport to giant signs along the road to undercover sting operations to all sorts of attempted solutions to overcome the problem. enter uber and lyft. with the smart phone, the gps mapping system and a way to monitor you, yourself as the primary principle in this instant being able to monitor the agent that is the driver and the platforms monitor them to see if you have been taken the right or wrong way. it is putting consumers in a position where they are empowered to know on a moments notice if they are being taken advantage of it. add the reputational feedback, the five-star rating system,

that allows you if something goes wrong in a ride sharing case you can notify the platform and some response can be taken, usually within minutes or longer for the platform to resolve that issue in some way. compare that to some jurisdictions and their attempt to overcome issues in non-compliance you have the dctc at one point i think had a backlog of 18 months. compare a problem in uber it is typically resolved in 30 minutes to on hour. times a little longer. compared to the traditional regulatory environment which requires you to wait a year and a half to know whether or not you have been overcharged perhaps five or six dollars. it is putting consumers in a position where they are empowered in a way they have never been before in

particularly in taxis. i mentioned chicago and new york city. there was a study done by georgetown look at the publically available data from the new york city taxi and lim sween and chicago as well. he found the number of complaints decreased in uber and lyft entered the market. these were not just long hall but broken air conditioning, radio too loud, rudeness. if you have ridden in a taxi in washington, d.c. they have the taxi cab driver bill of rights. whether they are being achieved is less up tody. but the entry of the new competitors is forcing the current drivers to become better but providing an alternative for consumers who chose not to ride

in a taxi and it gives them something different and more. the second point is there are real issues of fairness. i know dean will speak about that but when it comes to state and local regulators there is essential essentially one of three options available for fairness in the market and incumbants. you could treat all ride sharing companies as taxis and extend the taxi regulations to include everyone. there is a real fairness issue in that in so far as are these even taxis? they seem somewhat beyond. they are on-demand but taxies per se? extending that model to these new services just extepped --

extends the barriers for making it hard to tap into the taxi market. you could create new classifications and this is what most states and localities are leaning toward creating a model with regulations specific to ride sharing. this leaves the taxis hamstrung with these outmoted and outdated regulations and low as new competitors to compete on a broader, let's say, wider bases than the taxies can. in virginia, it is $100,000 to get a license to be a tnc. you will not see a startup company popping up because it is a huge break. >> the senate is on easter break but coming in for a brief session with no legislative business scheduled.

the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c, march 31, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable lamar alexander, a senator from the state of tennessee, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 3:00 p.m. on monday, april 4, 2016.

>> the senate reconvenes to d discuss this on monday. >> a new approach for the future that empowers both consumers and enables innovators to provide a better service, today, tomorrow and nathaniel philbrick -- into the future. >> thank you for having me here. i appreciate christopher's remarks and i will agree with much of the spirit. i don't know if we hammered details we would be on the same page but this as a question you see where clearly there is a great innovation. and uber, lyft and the other sharing economy companies are about that. they are innovative. there is a big question of regulatory arbitration .

and we don't want companies profiting from tax arbitrary. amazon is a great example. i use amazon. they are wonderful. but they still don't collect sales taxes and somewhere half to close the states. i can think of no argument that says if i get a tv at my neighborhood store i pay sales tax but get it from amazon and don't. that makes zero sense. that should have been dealt with a long time ago but hasn't. the amount of money amazon hasn't collected because of avoiding the taxes exceeds its profits. we can argue what you think of amazon but it doesn't make sense to have a mom and pop retail store collecting sales tax and amazon says you don't have to you ordered it over the web. that is the issue i see with uber and lyft and other sharing

economies. we want symmetric regulations. i do a lot of stuff on labor. what about the drivers? are they entitled to be treated as workers? overtime laws? workers comp? covered by insurance whether driving? the traditional taxi federation isn't treated much better. but this can be dealt with. one of my points is i think there is a lot of bad faith and i will beat up on someone i like, alan krueger, he did a study looking at what uber drivers make on average and he got the data. he was presumed paid to do it. i don't know. he calculated the gross pay per hour and says we cannot calculate net pay because we don't have mild onidat data dri

and i said wait a second, uber has it. he was look at the gross pay. what do they hand to me then i have to pay for gas, and tols and deprecation on the car. that is telling you zero because uber chose not to share the data. there are issues that could be dealt with if you deal with it honestly. the issue of consumer protection, again, we want to make sure consumers have insurance. when you are in the cab you are protected. uber has a policy but it is adequate? might well be. but there needs to be regulations. it might be do this, look it over, that is fine. is it a good driver? i pull out my 84 year old mother for this one. she should not be driving an uber but does have a washington state drivers license. cab drivers have to get special

licenses. criminal records? they have to go through fbi checks and maybe that is too much but the point is there should be something. someone should have reasonably good protection. nothing is foul proof but the person driving your cab didn't just get out of jail yesterday. uber may do that but there should be assurance they are doing it. mark cline, a friend, did an analysis of the time it takes, and there is a known direction of discrimination. african-americans have a hard time getting picked up and uber doesn't know. he looked at how quickly people got back and forth to under served minority communities and found uber was better. i said what about if you don't have a smart phone and a credit card and he got angry at me. that is a serious question.

a lot of people don't have smart phones and credit cards and do take cabs. older people, poor people, doing their shopping once a month and go see a friend in the hospital. if they don't have a smart phone or credit card we have to make sure they have a way to get it. if you say uber is driving out the traditional service or downsizes it enough it is difficult to get a traditional cab that is an issue. the medallion issue. i am not super sensitive to this but two points. there a lot of cities that auctioned off medallions and i don't think it is good practice for the government to take money from people on a false pretext. so the idea of a medallion having value because you limit the number and then the next week say uber can do whatever it

wants. if you bought the thing 30-60 years ago less concerned. the other point about the medallions there is a logic to limiting the number of vehicles. there are places, downtown manhattan, that are seriously congested. michael bloomberg had the right strategy. you charge a congestion fee but he was limited from doing that. limiting taxi vehicles may be a best. i am not defending the medallion system but i think it is a reasonable question to ask due to how much backup is because of cabs. those are reasonable questions. the point in general are uber is we want a standard set of rules to lower the playing field between the incumbant and uber

and we want someone to come in and compete with uber. we should have clear rules. here is what you have to do and don't have to be politically connected to compete. let me run through issues are air b and b. safety issues. we have extensive regulations the hotel has to comply with to make sure there is a fire. what about the units rented through air b and b? air b and b is not inspecting them so there has to be some indication of is this a fire trap? is it safe? that is in principle doable but they don't do that now. a lot of people renting out are many cases violating their leases. a lot of apartments have a lease you cannot sublet. so i am in an apartment building and i cannot let out my bedroom five days a week. neighbors have a right.

they didn't pay to live in a hotel. same thing with condo associations. these are real issues. i think it is appropriate to say air b and b has to be held responsible. and rent control. you may not like it. but it is crazy to say we will let you charge $1,000 for the unit but if you want to rent it on air b and b you can charge a $1,000 a night. you have to have a uniform set of regulations. taxes. originally air b and b took no responsibility to insure people paid income taxes and in many areas there is an airport tax. that is the sort of thing they should be held responsible for. are they handicapped accessible? you don't expect someone renting out their apartment two weeks a year if it isn't otherwise handicapped accessible they will not make it that way.

that is a legit concern to make sure people in wheelchairs could get access to hotels. hotels are subject to all sorts of rules. if air b and b, and this isn't hard to do, can know what percentage of units are handicapped accessible and if they don't meet that you tax them. the last point discrimination, race, other issues, it may be the case, i don't know, i think there was some studies the other way, people were less likely to rent from an african-american household but do african-americans have a harder time finding an air b and b because it is optional. we will not have someone in a home they don't want. we don't have an easy way to tell it is because they are african-american or something but on the other hand we can know what percent of the people who are getting rooms through the website are african-american. we can do that.

if african-american turn out having a difficult time we could pay a discrimination tax. there are ways to deal with it. we could find ways to deal with these issues. i was on a panel a couple months back on the sharing economy and there was a representative of the industry group and what they said was we are just like the yellow pages on the internet. i wanted to strangle her. not really. but that is not honest. we have the yellow pages on the internet. it is called craigslist. you post on craigslist. they don't have a reputation we are guaranteeing the quality. you post and people look at it and understand. air b and b is trying to prevent itself as a brand. uber is trying to present itself as a broadband. take advantage of the innovations when are real, but ensure the protections we are trying to have with the existing

regulatory structure apply. and that would be a win-win situation. thank you. [applause] >> thanks to our panel for laying out some of the benefits and some of the risks. we will open it up in just a moment to hear questions or insight you may have. but i wanted to take a moment to drill down a little bit more on one of the benefits and risks that surfaced n conversation. the idea of representational feedback and the gadgeted we have access to. they are convenient and low-cost and have an opportunity to provide feedback. what does representational feedback mean in the world of consumer protection. i would love to hear from the panel. >> i think representational feedback programs are useful but

not the best thing for now. in the future i can see a partnership with the public sector where you could create a system reinforcing the existing regulatory system and creating the extra over layer. but i think with the concern about safety that has been voiced from city leaders throughout the country, and the fact these are new companies, they are in growth mode and hiring thousands of people and bringing the whole system online so you need to be thur sure to have a strong regulatory process in place. >> i am a little more optimistic. i think just in the context of ride sharing. reputational feedback mechanisms in the ride sharing concept. it is a two-sided market. it is producers and consumers.

they are both a diffuseed -- diffused network. every time you rate a driver the driver is rating you. you can get your scores from the ride sharing companies you just have to ask. it is making drivers better. drivers know they are being watched very closely by the person in the car. but also the reputational feedback mechanisms tied to the other pieces of the platform. that is when you get into the car you know the driver's name, you know the drivers' descripti description, you know the car they were driving, where they picked you up and dropped you off. if you were mistreated in your ride sharing car you can use the reputational feedback mechanisms

to make it clear to the platform something went wrong and everyone who interacts with that driver after you knows that to a certain degree because their score reflects that. imagine, or compare it to the traditional taxi system here in washington, d.c. have any of you ridden in a taxi in washington, d.c.? can you tell the difference between the companies? all of the cars are painted the same. you cannot tell the difference between any company. so if you have a problem, you better hope you have a receipt, got the driver's name, looked on the side of the car. let's say something happens, you a little frazzled at this point and you leave and walk away and say, oh, i forgot to get his or her name. all of this information is lost to you and the world. you have no idea unless you paid with a credit card. the reputational feedback mechanisms is tied to everything else that is the hallmark of the

consumer sharing platforms. it protects consumers in a way there were dark spots or dark corners and allies if you will in these industries, in particularly ride sharing, and i think the economy is brightening up those darker spots. >> i guess i would be skeptical of the consumer feedback. you are talking about a one-time rare bad event. someone gets assaulted and odds are he would not do again and hasn't done it before. what does uber do? maybe what they do is fine but i want to know they what they are doing to make it likely someone isn't driving an uber driver

isn't going to commit an assault. same thing with a bad driver. they are not in anstaan acciden day. you like the driver give them five stars. but maybe they are a bad driver and the next person gets in there is an accident and injured. that could happen with the traditional taxi services but they get a special license. my mother wouldn't get that license. i don't know if she could be an uber driver. but i want to know uber is doing something to make sure my mother doesn't drive an uber. good thing my mother isn't going to watch this. same thing with air b and b. you go into a unit on air b and b, have a good time, the >> hoshost is

and everything, but if turns out if there is a fire there is no way out. air b and b could say is there multiple ways out from this room if there is a fire. people could lie and you could figure out details of how you do that. but it will not be captured by consumer feedback unless i was trapped in a fire and that is too late. >> i would like to invite the audience to go ahead and share questions or insights you may have. go ahead and use those mikes, please. >> thank you. i appreciate hearing the regulatory and research side. i am not sure if i have a question or comment. i will throw it out there. that is yes, smart technology made a lot of this possible, but what seems different about things like uber and sharing economy systems is there is a real consumer need.

i mean we have got a lot of young adults here who don't have regular jobs, who end up homesharing, home sitting, sharing cars, etc, and it seems like these newer disrupt five cyscys syst systems are addressing those needs. so i appreciate the regulations but i see the need for this because there is a changing world out there. how would address this? >> this is where it is exciting to see the differences happening on the ground because to your point, i will talk about ride sharing, i was in fort collins talking to the mayor and city council patience there and they were saying they didn't have taxis on the ground. uber created a new service. indianapolis was another area where uber and air b and b is a

real economic tool. you have those examples and cities who for a long time have had very strong hotel industries. they have existing services where it is creating an environment where it isn't an even playing field. that gets to the dynamic that mares and council members overall welcome this innovation. but there is a need to make sure we are creating a level playing field where it is necessary. but that nature be necessary everywhere in the same way. >> your question was about work as well. so when you look at the data, recently we got numbers from the irs in terms of what has the growth in 1099s versus w2s between 2000 and 2014 the number of w2 issues stagnated or declid

declined by 4%. the number of 1099's increased by about 22-23%. granted if you are worried about the future of work, 1099s are set to surpass w2 as the primary work it will be like 2085. we are a long way off until traditional employment goes away. but when you look at who is working in the sharing economy and a recent survey found roughly 2/3rds of sharing economy participants and this is outside of uber and lyft so if you only experience uber, lyft and air b and b you would think participants are older because they are capital expenses you need to start up. own or lease a home, own a car. they are reducing the barriers are lyft and uber doing rent to

own. but other sharing economies you find 2/3rds of people are college age or recent college graduates working in a shared economy. a stagnating economy for a bunch of millennial who are graduating with a lot of hope and little opportunity this is an outlet for them. there is a story here of people finding opportunity beyond the consumer side and finding opportunity that otherwise wouldn't exist in the traditional environment. >> this is incredible bad economic policy that allowed for the housing bubble to grow, all allowed for the crash, and cut off the recovery. we got people in washington to decided the federal budget is like the family budget. it is not. nonetheless, they go around.

it is bipartisan and i will beat up on president obama. he is boasting about reducing the budget and boasting about slowing growth and keeping people from having jobs. i don't think, you know, if you can't fit anything else. if you can work for cash, grab it. we don't have to have a really bad economy. that is a policy decision. i would hate to see laws and regulations made around the idea we will permanently have a really bad economy where large segments of the workforce can't have formal employment. >> charlie with travelers united. we are involved a lot in this whole sharing economy side right now. i think dean said it is sort of like a bulletin board. it is a bulletin board in a lot of cases. vrbo, and the home away, they

were setup as online bulletin boards. you pay to put your name up there and then the transaction comes along and you get to work with someone. it is exactly like a bulletin board. so what air b and b and uber have done is they have added or features to that to make it easier for transactions to make place. so, as we follow that through, what we are running into it is areas where the cities and states are going to have to come up with new ways of collecting their own taxes because what we are finding is we used to have this whole economy of people renting out their homes -- their condos and vacation rentals. now that is coming online and it is becoming easier and easier. big companies like priceline booking, expedia, are starting to get into the act. they are willing to collect taxes in mass and hand them down to the states and let the states

decide how it will get divvied up. but whether or not the states and the localities are going to be able to handle this money coming in is another question. what do you see in terms of the benefits to the state and local economies from all of these additional tax collections and what they are looking at in terms of ways to use it to help make the sharing economy even better? there is going to be a big growth in income that we didn't used to have. >> i think this is one the data still needs to be collected and research needs to be better done on substitution versus new creation of a service. i think we do see that somewhat. you definitely hear it anadotally they would not travel if they could not use home away or air b and b but i don't think we know how many people are choosing to use those rather

than stay in hotel rooms. from a tax collection standpoint i would credit air b and b with the way the platform is put together and they are working with some cities to collect taxes. i understand that home away and vrbo have created a different type of platform historically but it might be a good business decision to figure out how they could do something similar. it is pretty hard for a city to really figure out number one which houses are put up on that marketplace and therefore collected taxes. as we move forward, i think these dynamic systems will work themselves out and we will see the additional tax collection. >> so i have a comment but i think i am going to tie it to something dean was saying before.

the example of air b and b and vrbo and what have you. some people say i would not travel but for having these services. they make life more efficient and cost effective. i think 90% of people polled in a recent survey said that is why they use the sharing economy. more efficient and cost effective. that shines a spotlight on the way hospitality taxes are applied to tourist. if i went to atlanta, georgia and stayed in a hotel i am paying a huge tax to fund the stadium. or i can go through vrbo and it is 15% cheaper because i don't have to pay the taxes. as a consumer, i'm going to go with the cheaper product. it is up to the producer to know if they are compliant with the taxes. even with the transportation,

the sharing economy is providing opportunities for individuals to find now, innovative, and efficient means to overcome things that have become inefficient and anti-competitive in some instances. in terms of making cities better, i think air b and b and forcing cities to think about how they go about tax policy and how important the policy is because they are pushing people away from hotels and toward other options because they are artificially raising the price. >> i would say you want to try to set reasonable hotel taxes and i am not a fan of paying for the atlanta falcons' stadium. but you do want to make sure it is fair across the board. it is obviously more difficult. air b and b with their platform i don't think it is difficult but if is more like craigslist where you post here, pay a fee,

and that is the end of the dealing it is hard to hold them liable and the city is left with how can we collect taxes which is difficult on a case-by-case basis. >> i am the president of auto reliability. we spend a lot of time trying to keep the auto industry from killing its customers. i want to throw it out there in connection with the ride sharing economy. that is there is already now an uneven playing field when it comes to safety and safety recalls. last year, we succeeded in getting legislation passed in the republican congress to prohibit rental car companies from renting out cars under safety recalls. if you have a rental car company with a fleet of over 35 vehicles, starting in june, it will be a federal crime to rent out a crime with an open safety recall, but taxi cabs and limos are regulated at the local level. and i don't think they check

when they do the annual inspection to see if the safety recall work has been done. we have been looking into this and asking reporters to ask and we have asked uber and lyft what do you do about safety recalls? from what i can tell they require the owners to be self certified. they can check the vin number. or we don't want our customers in cars where the wheels fall off, catch on fire, seatbelts don't work. they don't assert that. they don't take that one step and say this is a car that the

manufacture said it is unsafe to operate. ... then made do what we want them to do, but i want that on record. taxes to manual inspections, some principle, making sure there are say principles and a very city by city. again, i would like to see who were doing this. you would like to have that be symmetrical taxes.

>> it is important to keep in mind reputational mechanism does not exist in a vacuum. there is tort, civil law, criminal law that already exists and to be applied to everyone. it can be easily argue that a driver using a uber or lyft platform has a duty to not drive around. they have a duty to know or have known that the car was subject to an open recall, and did it anyway.anyway. if something occurs they should i not to be held liable. >> but uber is allowing them to do that. >> there is a certain question as to who the onus is on, the individual or the platform itself. they could be easy ways to overcome. if it is as simple as checking the vin number then

that could be easy. it is certainly important to keep in mind all of these things are not unregulated. they are clearly regulated by all tort, civil and others. >> don't kick in until after your injured. we are trying to be proactive. >> and i would say that tort and criminal law has a deterrent effect as well. >> given time, we will do rapidfire and let them respond before close. >> i would just respond. this is one of those situations where they should be equality and how this is

regulated. this is a safety issue. >> thank you. go ahead with your question. then we will go right back here. >> it was more of an observation. richard oliver, we are grappling with what we call the sharecropping economy. we must put this into context. all the wealth was going to the top. people are doing coping mechanisms to try to figure how to survive in an economy where they are falling apart which is what a lot of the shift to what folks who have -- you have a smart phone and the rules of gravity do not apply. the amnesia, the failure to recognize the lessons our

grandparents had to learn a century ago when they established regulation for safety has to be relearned just like after re- firing led to the collapse of the banking system command we are seeing it all over again, arrogance, wealth, companies like uber, $50 billion valuation, folks you, folks who made a fortune without ever having to learn the rules the hard way, concerned about how to treat people. let's just call it what it is. sharecropping. [applause] >> i appreciate you raising these concerns. it is hard because you get painted as a luddite, a

dishonest economy where you are for technology or fairness. i am wondering if you have strategies for coping with that. >> this is mine -- i have a problem with the idea of allowing companies to discriminate and pay someone off so that it is okay because the government is not the people that they harm. if you have a fair housing right you do for air b&b. if you have a right to get a cab you should expect that driver will not drive away when you are halfway out of the car and injure you

because they figured out that you have a disability. that kind of behavior is not just about whether or not there is wheelchair accessible the top uber believes that it is not responsible for complying with federal law and state law. some kind of tort mechanism you can get a liability but never compensated. >> closing remarks, the discrimination tax, is it enough, new rules and not just allowing this shared economy to get by.

>> sure. we have seen good and bad.÷÷ it is one of those things where we want to welcome innovation. let's grasp and make sure there is a strong regulatory environment that promotes innovation for the country. >> it is important to keep in mind the nature of technology is that it will always outpace regulation. it is always responsive. if you try to for c every outcome often times you will end up with a world where nothing good ever comes from

the greatest things never come about. it is important to keep in mind that you want to correct on the margin. is a sharing economy perfect? no. there are things that can be improved upon. will they be improved upon by continued competition or regulation? probably some mix of both and it is important to keep in mind what can be achieved and keep that in mind to create an environment that is open, fair, flexible, consumers are protected and empowered to my competitors freely compete on merit and that the world gets better as knew people get better products and services in more efficient and affordable ways. >> a lot of good points raised. -- [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> i'm supposed introduce them. okay. i love you. [applause] i am hearing the love and i have to throw it right back at you. all right. bear with me. i have a lot to say. okay. so, today i heard some obfuscating of fact,

information being misconstrued, very misleading and very divisive. today a lot of news outlets and the other democratic candidate -- no, no, no. we are better than that. [applause] now, there is a rumor being perpetuated that trump is talking about abortion and punishing women and doctors than for it. that somehow bernie sanders was saying that that was not an important issue. regardless of the fact that he has always stood up for woman's rights, equal pay -- [applause] pro-choice. [applause] what's the other democratic

candidate very well knows. because he is saying that we are giving trump too much time on airways and we need to stop feeding into hate and talking about the issue somehow that men he does not care about women's issues. shame on you, hillary. [applause] let me watch my town. because we very, very much want a debate which she already agreed to. and considering that there were 26 debates in 2008 and she2,008 and she held obama's feet to the fire saying that she would debate anytime anywhere, because that is what you should do when you are trying to run the country, was very much

hope that she does come. i will say with a smile on my face i am excited about the fact i don't have to vote against someone, i get to vote for someone. who has not called undocumented people illegal, like the other democratic candidate, or called our children who need care predators that needed to be brought to you, call people on welfare deadbeats. no.÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷ well, yes, she is under fbi investigation. thank you. that is not getting promoted very much, but she will be interviewed. but the reality when you are saying the type of things

that have been said and trying to misconstrue and obfuscate facts, you are trying to divide people. i appreciate gloria steinem saying i'm sorry for saying that us women bernie supporters are only here because the boys are here. i am glad to see quite a lot of females and men here. and also this push and idea that you are only white. my daddy, irish., irish. apparently all of y'all are white. that's crazy. i must be having issues with my eyes. when they are talking about that stuff there trying to divide us. they are trying to say only trump supporters of racist, which they're are a lot, but they are not all racist. all followers of bernier white male, but that is not true either.

and i think it is pretty amazing that when you are seeing in large populations of white males and females in certain states that have been poorly talked about their they're cheering for justice and equality, specifically racial and environmental and beyond. that is something to celebrate, a beautiful thing. this is what he meant when he was talking about trump getting too much attention. he is getting 1.9 billion worth of free media. bernie has gotten about 321 million.

and the general election, we are in a primary and everyone should have their say. so i do not have to vote against somebody because i get to vote for someone who is on our side. who marched with martin luther king. and who controls a crowd that makes me dizzy with happiness and love and excitement. a fraction of that many people yesterday at the apollo and failed to mention that when she was a senator 2 million people are stopped because of stopping frisk her she said nothing about. in 2,006 alone 506,000

people were stopped and frist, 90 percent of which were innocent. because shockingly you cannot judge a criminal by the color of their skin. and racial profiling is not okay. it is unjust and unnecessary , and we need to end it. i just want to say something because i love you. and i am a new yorker. my mom was raised on 130 7th street in the bronx. [applause] and i want to say that we don't need to be divided.

we need to be reaching on talking to folks who are supporting trump. why? because they are supporting them for reason, standing up behind him because he is against the establishment and i standing behind a guy who will go into the oval office and go, you're fired. i can understand that, but i'm supporting the guy who is looking at all of us and saying, your hired. [applause] and i know that means a lot to you because i know new yorkers and we are not interested in being bamboozled. or duped were divided by race, gender, age. that is the past.

the reality is when september 11 and people came together. we celebrated there was a blackout for three days because they were not attacked. share the perishables. dancing with drum circles make it. making sure our neighbors

had medicine and food. charges, generators. marched against the bailout because they knew the people needed the bailout, not the banks. they are still getting bailed out. what does that look like rust the future? this is a community i love you can go anywhere people no new york. a tiny food role, a slice of pizza, jump on a train and go to philly and get a philly cheesesteak. coney island.

we get a new jersey. bigelow state so that we can go and we have seen what gentrification does to our community. broadway is an old native indian trail. for the 1st time it has been disturbed and interrupted. we get that. [applause] i love seeing you all here. but complained to me if you

in making your business reality five people you to vote. we knew we were not supposed to go to a rack and invade that country. we were not. that had nothing to do with september 11. the mass media has sold us that is the mass media trying to tell us who to vote for.÷÷÷÷÷÷ cnn headquarters. noon. they are working against us right now. understand the bernie does not when that neutrality will be a big issue.

there is a lot at stake. so vote for the person who voted no for the patriot act twice. low for the person who said no to the iraqi war that started isi s and the destabilization of the middle east that we are still feeling the repercussions of today. someone it is not think. [applause] someone who is telling us to vote together my going to go into the oval office and keep the door open and open up the blinds and windows

and say let's get to work. [applause] i am excited. excited to work for bernie sanders. all right, obama. i wish that this time i was introducing him, but i am introducing. i just wanti just want to say thank you so, so, so, so much for being here and showing what new york is really about. coming together. an understandingand understanding e real change comes from the bottom up. [applause]

remember, when martin luther king was killed it was because he was coming together and asking for poor man's march on washington what that has done the devastate and destabilize so many places. spike lee is going to come to the stage and toss the mic. love you. we can do this. [applause] >> rosario dawson, give it up. [applause] that is a hard act to follow.

was rosario dropping science? she was dropping science. the boogie down. glad to be here. brooklyn, bk, where you at? [applause] is brooklyn in the house? no hate. it's all love. it's all love. look, we all know, the senate just talked about it many times. they don't want to see us together. say it again. where is obama? obama? turn and speak to the crowd. dead ringer, i thought that was him for sure. but we cannot let that

separate us. look around. this is what makes us the greatest city on this earth and the bronx, home of the 27 times world champion new york yankees. those mets fans booing? unified. unified. anyway. have you ever seen the three card monte? you can't win. you cannot win with the three card mollie. it is this flimflam, okey-dokey, 32, hijinks, shenanigans. we can't go for that. we have to vote. and we have to talk to our

parents because the whole generation, this clinton thing, we have got to talk to our older parents and get their mind right. it is great to be here. i am not a public speaker. new york city is the greatest city on earth. and bernie has to when new york city. bernie has to when. even staten island. all right.

.. ♪ ♪ >> folks, it's going to be difficult for me because i speak spanish, but i'm going to try to speak in english so you can understand. tonight, i not here to talk about economic issues because i'm not an economist. i'm not here to talk about our right to free quality education or free and accessible health care.

i'm not here to talk of the commitment needed to save our environment from pollution in order to save ourselves. i could speak of the racial injustice that people are suffering in this country, and in the rest of the world, and of the need for comprehensive immigration reform. all of these are serious issues in america, but today, i came to speak briefly about the history of puerto rico. [cheering] and a little bit about the history of latin america. and why i am here tonight in support of bernie sanders. [cheering] >> i have traveled the world, thanks to my music, and in traveling have learned more about the world than i ever learned in college. my name is rene, many also know me as residente, and i am from puerto rico.

puerto rico is a colony of the united states. we are the oldest colony in the world. for years, we have been used as an experimental island, for the medical experiments on our people, through chemical experiments on our land. from 1941 until 2003, on the island, the united states navy undertook a seize've experiments before different biological and chemical weapons while using the island as a bombing range. to this dale the land and people of the island have not fully recovered from this devastation. there is a puerto ricoan -- a political prisoner who has been incarcerated for over 34 years, longer than nelson mandela. his name, oscar lopez rivera. and he deserve to be free,

today. more than 2,000 -- more than 200,000 puerto ricans have serve in the u.s. military. in our schools, children are taught more about u.s. history than of their -- of the history of their own country. that is colonial education. without giving you exact numbers i can tell you that the u.s. gets more out of puerto rico economically than puerto rico receives fm the u.s. we are currently living in a present economic crisis and have the highest rate of unemployment and poverty than any other place in the u.s., yet the u.s. government does not allow to us restructure our debt. and this is the best one. people in puerto rico cannot vote for the president of the united states.

in other words, we are not allowed to choose the person who makes crucial decisions regarding our country. i did not come here to complain but, rather to put things in proper context. you might wonder what i'm doing here, a person like me with all this information has come to support a candidate for the u.s. presidency. i will explain. i support bernie sanders because he has been the only candidate who has logical proposals and has expressed support with my country's debt relief. he did not come up to support this now in the middle of an election cycle to win votes but he spoke out from the moment that the economic crisis began. i support bernie sanders because i think he is the most honest candidate there is.

[cheering] i support bernie sanders because he is the only candidate who stand up and defend human rights and the rights of the lgbt community. [cheering] >> i support bernie sanders because he has spoken out against those latin american dictatorships supported be the united states, this means being opposed to chile, -- just to name a few. i support bernie sanders because someone like hillary clinton does not deserve my vote. the thought of hillary clinton, who have dared to praise the rights of henry kissinger, the

author of the most despicable latin american genocide, and the support of latin american dictatorships von for all those who disa in the '60s, '7s7s so, 0 and '8's is enough for me not vote with her. i am not with her. it will represent an insult to consider yourself latin american and vote for her. not such an insult to ones self but for the many victims who still suffer from this history and also to the countless children who have lost their parents and grandparents. i support bernie sanders because i know there are still good people like him in this country. and when senator sanders wins the upcoming election, people will see the united states in a different light.

it will no longer be a country that invades, that provokes wars, that fights people. it will not be a country that tortures or believes in colonies instead. the united states will be a country that strives for unity, equality, and peace. [cheering] if bernie sanders were puerto rican, i'm certain he would fight with all his might and all his heart as many puerto ricans have done to bring freedom self-determination to his country. i am here like all of you to support bernie sanders because we all support change in the world. thank you, and now, here -- [cheering]

♪ ♪ >> feel the bern! ♪ ♪ [cheering] >> thank you!

>> thank you all. [cheering] [chanting] >> thank you, south bronx! let me thank nigel stevens, erica, and louis, judy, let me

give a special thanks to rosario dawson. [cheering] >> to spike lee. [cheering] and to residente. [cheering] i am, as you know, the very proud united states senator from vermont. [cheering] but i am very proud that i was born here in new york city. [cheering] that my wife was born in brooklyn, new york. [cheering] my father came to this country

at the age of 17 from poland, without a nickel in his pocket. he never made much money. we lived in a three and a half room, rent-controlled apartment in brooklyn. so i learned a little bit about what it means to grow up in a family that has no money, and i also learned a little bit about the immigrant experience. [cheering] those lessons i will never forget. what this campaign is about is creating a political revolution.

and the 15,000 people who are here this evening, you are the heart and soul of this revolution. [cheering] and what we are saying, loudly and clearly, is enough is enough. [cheering] we want a government that represents all of us, not wealthy campaign contributors. we want a campaign finance system that is not corrupt. we want an economy that is not

rigged. we want a criminal justice system that is not broken. [cheering] we are determined that instead of spending trillions of dollars on a war in iraq that we never should have gotten into, we are going to re-invest in the south bronx and the communities all over the country. [cheering] [chanting] bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie, bernie. there is no reason in this country why people should be

paying 40 or 50% of their limited incomes in housing. there is no reason why people should not have access to the healthcare they need. [cheering] >> there is no reason why in this country we should not have the best educational system in the world for all of our people. there is no reason why we should have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. there is no reason why we should have more income and wealth inequality than any other major country. what this campaign is about is telling wall street and the

billionaire class that they cannot, they will not, have it all. we are going to create a nation in which our people have decent-paying jobs, where our children are not unemployed, where our parents and grandparents can live with dignity on social security. [cheering] and that is why we're going to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. it is why we are going to have pay equity for women. [cheering] it is why we are not going to

accept deteriorating inner cities, why why we are going to build affordable housing, why we are going to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our water systems and our wastewater plants. and when we do that, we create 13 million decent-paying jobs. [cheering] in america today, we will not accept a situation where the top one-tenth of one percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. we will not accept a situation where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom

half of america. we are going to create an economy that works for all of us, not just the people on top. in america, people should not have to work two or three jobs just to get by. and that after all of that, 58% of all new income goes to the top one percent. that's wrong. in this country, we can and will create a first-class public school educational system. [cheering] bernie! bernie! bernie! bernie! bernie!

bernie! bernie! bernie! bernie! bernie! >> i am -- i went to public schools in brooklyn, new york. i had a good education and i want every kid in this city and in this state have a quality, good, public education. and that means that instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires or fighting wars we should not be fighting, we're going to be investing in housing and education and health care. in this country, we should not be the only major nation on earth that does not guarantee paid family and medical leave.

when a woman has a baby, she has the right to stay home with that baby, not have to go back to work. [cheering] and when we are talking about women's rights, we are going to stand and make certain that every woman in this country has the right to control her own body. [cheering] and we are going to stand with our gay brothers and sisters. [cheering] and we are going to defend their right to be married. [cheering]

you know, a great nation is judged not by how many millionaires and billionaires it has. it is judged by how it treats the most vulnerable people in that country. i will not accept, and you will not accept, children in this country sleeping out on the streets. i will not accept, and you will not accept, senior citizens trying to get by on 11 or $12,000 a year social security. instead of having a congress that works for the benefit of the few, we are going to have a government that works for all of us.