we launched and grew this program in 2012, a terrific workshop given by chris kennedy for those who know her where she presented a program on housing

options and there were 50 or 60 women there. where did they come from? we realize there was a need for this so we created our program called the senior women's housing option which is a mouthful and we started to explore and figure out what we wanted to do and design and test this program. in your handout, we see a legal sized sample document, there is an enlargement on the back wall for those who have difficulty reading something so small. the purpose was to give our group in the bay area an idea what is available, what the advantages are and the disadvantages or challenges and gave them a jumpoff point for

thinking about what they want to do. this document is useful but when you go back to your area every community and every city and town is different. we don't have separate houses in new york city. we are thinking of apartment living. this is our guide, we figuring out, every month people keep coming, couldn't understand where they are coming from but every month we were getting 40 or 50 women in a room and sometimes men too believe it or not. what we did was just kept trying to figure it out. i had a little -- thank you.

by 2013 we entered a collaborative relationship with ashley village. how many of you do not know what the village movement is about? the village movement started several years back in beacon hill where a bunch of people said, until they take me out of the box. i want to age in place, a movement around the country and there are village movements around the country, there is a great village in berkeley that is very successful that we teamed up with. we said to ourselves there are a lot of people living alone in these huge homes because they lost their husbands or wives or partners and they are lonely and

isolated and they need help as they get older and we have people coming to our group whose resources are dwindling and they need a place to live. why don't we start educating the village people, maybe a good idea to bring somebody in to share their home with them. we partnered with ashley village in 2013. in 2014 they came from next village in san francisco and invited them, this year a chapter in new jersey asked us to come and show what they were doing so they could apply it in new jersey. tpn home, we see as a central hub that provides new ways to think of housing initiatives. a lot of us are very confused and a lot of us think when we start thinking about it, so much

going on it is hard to figure it out. by having a group of women or people who are in the same situation it allows them to connect with each other to talk about the situation and share and support each other in this uncharted territory because it is confusing. where are you in the process? how many of you know exactly where you are going to be living? one person in this whole room. those of you who don't know and even those who know, what do you need to know more about? what are your must haves? you received a little writing

exercise at the beginning. we won't talk about that now but i wanted to give it to you to make you think about it but take that writing exercise and i would like to give you a few minutes to mark down what you feel are your must haves and deal with it. if you are going to move what must you have, and what will you not put up with? i am looking for a larger place to live so i can bring someone in to live with me? when i move i must have a larger place instead of a downsized place and i want a view. that is a must-have. let's take a few minutes.

can write on a piece of paper. uk, so let's hear from you. someone like to share? you want to be near your children. okay. >> i would like to be near my children. >> that is important. anybody else? >> i would like to be -- i would

like to be in a peaceful scenic surrounding. be change the utility costs, solar power and other renewable energy sources. >> renewable energy, excellent. >> i want access to the outdoors. >> you two should meet. >> i want a well organized local exercise program in arlington county where i am from, has one of the best in the country. that is a hard one to duplicate. >> you are well situated. >> ability to have a dog and a cat. >> some people can't have pets so that is important to know. these are the must haves that we came up with in the area where

we were in the bay area. a lot of people can relate to these. annamarie is pet friendly. >> that is what i was going to -- >> i wanted sunny too, warm. so now we are going to see what we used to do in our workshops. every workshop had this kind of component. we would always have a panel of experts in the workshop. this panel when we say experts we were not talking experts who would come and sell you something. we are talking people who are actually living the option so talking about sharing housing we would have people coming and speaking about their experience in terms of sharing, or people

living in cohousing talking about their cohousing experience as opposed to someone selling you the idea of cohousing and brainstorming of some kind to maximize the group so for example i may be standing up here and you might think -- the reality is you know as much from your own experience so we make sure everybody has a chance to express themselves. another thing we do, this is important for building community, deep introduction. when you go around the room and say who you are it is not about your resume or just your name. we talk about what you like to do. i like to garden. i like to work out. i like to hike. things that are important to us the give people in the room an idea who they are sitting with

because you never know. you might find somebody there in that room who you can connect with. we also always have small group discussions. we only have an hour today so we can't do any of this but i did give you the reflective writing exercise at the beginning as a sample of what we do because we found that writing exercises are very important because it gives people who are introverts the opportunity to see what they are thinking about and makes them more comfortable speaking out and people coming to these workshops are very confused about what they want to this is a way of getting their thoughts down in a way that is more ordered and of course if you feed them they will come because this is important for

networking, building community. there has to be a socializing component. what are the housing options? there are three basic overarching themes, one of them is aging in place, those who do not want to leave home, aging in community and shared housing but all of these are interchangeable. they go one with the other. if you are aging, what do you need to think about? obviously what do we do about transportation, as they get older they will take away the keys to your car. who is going to pick us up at a colonoscopy come all the issues with transportation we need to think about that we are to -- thinking about all the time and don't think about. how are we going to do our meals

and groceries if we can't drive. another one is home safety. there are people here teaching us about how to adjust our homes, reconfigure our homes for those who want to stay where we are so it is safe. there is someone here who does that. no? i thought there was. could you just say your name? just say the name of your organization. the center for health. >> environment are aging conference and as it relates to people aging in place in the home but also in various other settings, long-term living. >> excellent, excellent. this is something we have to think about. how are we going to reconfigure

our homes if we are planning on staying where we are, or if we are not planning on staying where we are how are we going to reconfigure the home we are moving to if it is not fitted properly. are there any other things about aging in place you would like to add to this? >> isolation. the environment or bare necessities. >> that is why we are collaborating with villages. we have people coming to our group, need places to live and can no longer afford to live in nice places because of the craziness going on in the bay area so this is one of the ways we are combating the isolation factor. aging in communities.

here are some possibilities. pocket neighborhoods. do any of you know what a pocket neighborhood is? an area where people are living, they know each other, not necessarily best friends but they make sure they connect. they very often have social events. i remember being at a great party in mountain view in a pocket neighborhood and these people sort of watch out for each other. it is a great way to live. you get to live independently, you know there are people around you can call upon should you need it. another one is retirement communities. we all know about retirement communities. there are many ways of living in retirement communities. my issue with retirement communities is they are expensive in many cases, not

very diverse and not intergenerational. this is something to think about when you are looking at a retirement community. dwelling units when we moved to california i lived in a shed, and the toilet and a sink and a tiny desk with a fridge and it was great. i lived in that until i found a place to live. it is a great way to live if you are the kind of person who needs your own space and don't want to live with people, if you can find a little house on the property behind a big house it is a great way to live and very often families do switches, children take over the big house and elders -- if it is not a family situation, make good

friends with people in the big house. affordable senior housing is an issue, if you are in that category unaffordable senior housing where you can't find a place unless you are under certain income it is difficult, it is years long. i say you are turning anyway, just get on the list, just get on the list, you would be surprised how quickly it becomes your turn. part of that is people die. housing becomes available again. then we have cohousing. that is a wonderful opportunity for people to live together, yet own their own place. you see that guy over here?

he is the person to speak to about cohousing. it is a -- my thing just fell down. a way of living in your own private home but you are living in a community where you have shared common spaces like dining rooms, you eat together fairly often, although you have your own kitchens in your own home. you have meetings, it is run by consensus. please, i am giving you a quick overview. if you want to know about cohousing, this is the man to tell you about it. a lot of people when they hear about it really wanted. there is limited equity housing,

these are co-ops with limited equity, you can buy into this property at a relatively low price, they are owned by land trusts, when it is time to leave whether you are moving away or you die, the home gets sold back to the entity. in other words it is not yours to lead somebody else. it is for you to live in, like owning a share in a corporation and the corporation is the land trust but the land trust gets it back. shared housing. we all know what shared housing is, we also have the shared housing maven here, annamarie will be giving a workshop after this one on shared housing which

i recommend because i think as far as i am concerned this is the way to go. when we are -- yes. >> cohousing? >> do you want to talk about that? >> the context you are discussing, shared housing is under one roof, in a single home, cohousing is a neighborhood sharing the extent of the community. >> thank you. those of you who are interested in finding out more about share housing, i will say stay right here. in fact, on your resources page, there is a list of books to read. her book seems to be one of the favorites. my house our home is another one

about shared housing that is very much appreciated. how do we build our connections? in addition to having monthly workshops, we have a moderated list, 500 people on it, they can post what they are looking for, they can post if they have something available, there are housing related resources and articles, and housing focus support groups because we very often encourage people to make small peer groups to continue to look, help each other move forward on their housing on their journey. then there is the affordable housing group. a separate group for affordable housing very much focused on

that but because it is so complex and difficult they hold their feet to the fire and make sure they get what needs to be done in terms of affordable housing. and then we have this, a program we do quarterly, which is great. it happened when we were burning out of the monthly workshop because we couldn't get off the dime because we have these new people coming and all these people who kept repeating, we couldn't move forward so we started to think how do we do this differently, so the -- we were burning out, one of the women wanted to cancel it. we can't cancel it, let's do a home at home and it was interesting to see the difference in terms of when

people were meeting in someone's home as opposed to a room like this how much more got accomplished in terms of making the connection, so valuable so we are doing it every quarter. it is open to everyone who is a member of ttn homes. you never -- you might get 20 people. it is really comfortable. then there is the inner home workshop which is very valuable. this is not a therapy group but we have a gerontology social worker who comes to the group and lead the workshop that is getting down to figuring out what is it that is preventing me from moving forward?

because thinking about it here, we can't take that step. a lot of it is decluttering. when you walk around your house and say how can i think about moving, what am i going to do with this stuff? once you figure out what your problem is, what is keeping you from moving ahead, we all know, once we know the answer it is easier to take the action. so the workshop is becoming very popular. in addition to -- i'm having another blip. i wanted to talk about something else. there was an article in the washington post that i just found out about on august 15th. it is not on your resource list.

i highly recommend it. it is called solo aging. it talks about the issues we need to think about now. the word community keeps coming up over and over again. community can be a whole community of people like we have in berkeley, the cohousing community, it can be a community of two or three, you know there is a commitment you will watch out for each other. some of the outcomes we can talk about. we have an ongoing support group for women who are seeking affordable housing and some of them have signed up, gotten themselves on lists, make sure they get to know the people running the list, the people

think about them, in their face, they have home sharing rentals which annamarie will talk about, a viable thing and see this picture? this is a group of women who got up in one of our meeting this. the woman with the white hair said i'm interested in buying a place to live in with a group of other women whose interest in doing that. these people stepped forward and started to talk about it. now some of them are living together in a rental and are waiting for something to come up in the land trust so they can buy into it. and we have people in cohousing communities opened up recently in phoenix and some of our women went in there, a lot of people

relocated to be closer to the family. one of the people on my committee finally sold her house and moved to a rental unit across the street from her children and she is having such a good time. when she is on the phone with them and walks by her window they can see each other and her grandchildren wave at her when they see each other on the street and she is so happy. to be closer to your family if you have a group relationship with your family is a wonderful idea. some have actually found pocket neighborhoods in the berkeley area and these pocket neighborhoods very often form neighborhood associations and it is worth note. when they how to find out a houses going up for sale they

tell their friends. almost as if they get to choose who moves in. it is really neat. one of our people build -- redesigned her home and created a until unit in her home. her daughter was living in brazil and has just returned to berkeley. doesn't have a place to live, now living in the rental unit. might even be paying rent. >> i am pleased to introduce randy johnson, senior vice president of inflation and benefits and jamie foster, vice president of economic tax policy. without further a do, about 15 minutes presentation, randy will do the same at the top about issues with these players and send it over to you for

questions. >> good morning, everyone. thank you for coming, appreciate it. in years past we held this event, my predecessor would describe the economy with terms such as week, underperforming and anemic. economists have been struggling for years to find a more creative way to describe an economy that wasn't doing as well as it should. i think we need a new term because the economy has gone from whichever terms you prefer to something less. a story in the paper of record on sunday, very good story about the market's reaction to the prospects of the federal reserve tightening monetary policy and the author wrote the concern over raising rates was causing concern among liberal policy

experts and economists worried about a fragile economy. fragile is probably a very good term to describe the state of the us economy today. we were in the low 2s when the economy was underperforming and anemic and is now growing in the first half of the year at 1%, less than half of what it had been doing and that may be a little optimistic. a one dollar liberty coin, you notice the coin has two sides to it. a head and a tail. where one side goes the other side goes. similar phenomena happen in economic statistics, provides our estimate for gdp and that is what we focus on and provide an estimate on gross domestic income. in theory these numbers are

precisely equivalent in theory but they result from estimations and so forth so they don't transfer perfectly but they do track pretty well. the blue line is gdi, the redline is gdp and they are supposed to track each other very closely, an entire group of economists spend their lives studying why they don't track very closely. the reason i go through all of that is gdp for the first half of the year grew at 1% and i grew at 1/2%. it is just as valid as the gdp figure. what economists do is average the two to get a better estimate, you get 0.75, if you follow that procedure we have gone from the low 2s to 2.75. that is and anemic recovery.

one goal is to get the economy's potential to grow more rapidly and get the economy to approach its potential as rapidly as possible. you might think of that as being medium and long-term policy goal and short-term policy goal. we have not done well on either score. this is a useful turn. with these sorts of charts, reflect periods of recession. the redline reflect cbo estimate of potential gdp, where we could be if we are performing up to snuff and the blue line, historically we have a recession, the actual gdp dips below potential and comes back very quickly. in the deepest of recessions we come back very quickly every single time. we get above it and the fed will take away the punch bowl as they say raising interest rates. but they track very closely. that hasn't happened after the

last recession. we have no catch up to potential and as you extend the forecast, it is years before we get back to potential. the potential is not faring very well. the two lines were supposed to come together. instead they approach each other very slowly and you notice the main reason they are approaching each other very slowly is the measure of the economy's potential has slowed. this year potential gdp grew only 1.7% which is remarkably slow. the only reason the lines are coming together the economic policy has degraded long-term potential, potential is approaching action. that is not good economic policy. the most detectable reason the

economy is slowing, we shifted to this fragile economy, business investment, businesses have substantial capacity, not enough potential for growth or hope for future growth the business investment has fallen significantly. in the last three quarters, private domestic investment fell 2.3% annualized, 3.3% annualized, 9.7% annualized. all three are negative. businesses are not investing because they don't have a lot of hope for the future of the economy. they are investing as they need to but not enough to expand capacity or get the economy going and the trend is accelerating and that is why the economy is doing so poorly. that is why you have higher potential, you need more business investment. you can expect further

degradation of the estimate going forward. the potential side is productivity. labor productivity not growing, 1% is what you might think of as being baseball season is equivalent of the mendoza line. it is basically batting 200 or less and if you are batting at 200 your career is not long. that is the mendoza line for productivity, we have been well below it for quite some time. that is another expression, the outcome is more economic -- another expression of the fact that something is going wrong in our economy that our workers productivity is not expanding. you might think that is because there is another slot.

i don't think that is the case. we have something going on in government policy impeding the ability to operate properly, causing players to hire workers in producing expanding capacity, productive and dealing with that but doesn't expand the economy capacity to produce another explanation but productivity is not doing well at all. despite all of that, the fragile economy and labor productivity there is something of a conundrum going on. job gains are stronger than you would expect in that fragile economic environment. the economy tightening labor markets, strengthening labor markets, not strong by any means, not what you expect or what is necessary to get the economy to get some output but it is doing better than you

expect from any other indicator in the economy. we have job gains over the last 6 months averaging 186,000. over the last year, establishing surveys, 2 and a half million, the way you square that circle is in fact labor productivity. the unemployment rate is still very low at 4.9%, what economists normally considered full employment and yet, well into the eighth year of the recovery and expansion of federal reserve with normalized interest rates to the tune of 125 basis point, the fed is confirming the story that the economy is very fragile, very weak even despite the unemployment rate and job growth and a hint of that, the

alternative measure for unemployment which includes marginally attacked -- attached workers who want to work full-time and that is 9.7, well above normal, getting close to what you would normally expect for regular unemployment rate. the alternative was much higher. the gap is much greater than normal giving you a sense where the weakness in the economy is. you might think of us as being in an economy with two tracks in the labor market. working, sometimes leave voluntarily, able to find a job very quickly, folks being left behind, folks dropped out of the workforce and like to work in marginally attached to the workforce, want to work full-time and can't find a

full-time job, two populations, when is doing reasonably well in terms of employment and another being left behind and that is what our fragile economy is leaving us. the other aspect of this is labor compensation is finally growing after not growing for years or growing minimally. after growing 2.6%, inflation up 1% giving some real growth in labor compensation. we have an economy where labor markets are tightening some. the economy is too fragile as evidenced by the reluctance to trade on funds rate and normalize monetary policy but the labor markets are strengthening as the economy is quite fragile. this is an odd circumstance to be thankful for this kind of job growth. i wonder how much longer we can expect that to continue not just

because we don't have employees to draw from the unemployed pool but because their won't be enough strength to justify the hiring going forward. one or two things has to happen. he the economy has to pick up for reasons we could not now anticipate or job growth has to stop. now i will turn it over. >> in case you want to see it again. beginning to draw those.

>> the ab guy. a file on the computer. >> there is one kind of room. >> do it on my fax machine. in the past i have talked about a lot of the benefits employers have provided on labor day, spend a little more time on that. it tends not to be exciting news but in a time of election rhetoric when employers are not doing enough for their employees and more mandates etc. it is important to lay the case out.

it is perhaps not exciting headlines but the fact it is not exciting is not news employers are not doing so much so it is worth talking about. $9.7 trillion in total compensation, these are not chamber numbers. we are taking these from government sources, wages and salaries, $7.9 trillion on unemployed benefits, 20% total compensation. it is not trump change the drives the economy. in 2014, some might say a change, going with the best we've got, the older data is better, 175 million americans received health insurance, it does include states and local government employers but private sector is very impressive according to kaiser family foundation 150 million americans

received coverage from employer-sponsored health care. keep in mind this is not benefits mandated under the law, just employers are doing largely on a voluntary basis, it is something that needs to be recognized. $232.1 billion of retirement income benefits does include benefit and dc plans. dc contributions alone are $175 billion in employer contributions for plantlike 401(k) plans that you are familiar with. 142 million participants. defined contribution 92.5 million participants, that includes active participants and retirees, 80% of employees who have access to defined

contribution plans, 12% don't, we need to get 12% eliminated and get to 100% but overall 66% of all workers in the country have access to defined contribution plans. life insurance benefits another good example. paid leave, what is the big topic of the day in the residential campaign that you we need more paid leave in this country, over three quarters of employees in the private sector have paid time off, 91% are full-time. it is not all limited to each company, small and medium-sized businesses paid time off as a figure they indicate. you might say how much? these are not necessarily plans that are 12 weeks off or anything else. it doesn't cover plans like

informal arrangements between employer and employees need some time off, and you can make time off later. life insurance in the private sector. a little bit more in large employers but offered by smaller employers. that is what employers are doing for their workers. let's talk about charitable giving, 18 $.45 billion in 2014, at the chamber we have a foundation, we give awards to corporate citizens who step up to the plate in this area. those who are listening, don't mean to exclude anybody, they were picked out from united healthcare, 87% of executives, 430,000 hours, annually the company give $60 million to support charitable work around the world. walmart foundation, 500

together, a $2 billion commitment. this is important with so much talk about immigration. bilingual initiative to help children find success coupland life increasing 2 million charge and teachers and award 73 million nonprofit organizations. we are developing future and education programs that help ensure americans graduate career ready with a 10,000 educators with 1500 business leaders and 1.3 million students. i want to change gears and keep jd's comments in mind in terms of the slowing or lack of growth in this economy and ask yourself why. you might say no canard of employers have an effect to expand, it is true and i'm afraid we have seen this because

regulations have benefits to justify burdens but we see a disproportionate amount from this administration so let's look at what you have already, 178,000 pages of regulations. most of us in this room don't have to comply with regulations. this is one page out of 178,000 pages employers and businesses have to deal with. the cfr increased 20,000 pages, these are pages of regulations that doesn't even include preamble, and anyone who has to deal with this area knows you can't just read regulations. you have to read the entire preamble to a regulation which is 10 times as long as

regulation itself. if you think of the kind of stuff employers have to deal with, understand what they have to do. total cost, outside expertise, $1.9 trillion in 2015 up from one.2 trillion which is an increase of $700 billion. every administration wishes -- a lot of the added regulation is 600 new rules under the administration since 2009 which costs $100 million or more. i have got this, if you have a list of all these regulations, from here to the floor, 122, we took out, separated the wheat from the chaff on 88 affordable care act, 14 others by far, 14

does include poster which we challenged in court but took a lot of time and money to evaluate the ruling litigation to get it repealed. a lot of the angst in the employer community is overregulation but also case law. what i went through, calculating the case law out of the national labor relations board and solutions the deal with successor employment so when we look at the regulatory burden, that is just regulations. it doesn't include case law they have to deal with. and most of it, changing principles, doesn't have to go through any cost-cutting analysis. below this pyramid is all sorts

of guidance, that we don't have a chance to comment on but almost belies what regulatory burden is. we went through the new labor department regulations and added them up. are economists did. not a fun job but we added them up and according to the government's own calculations what they estimated these regulations cost, $9.5 million. that is not ours, that is there amount and of course in our view when we look at these things a lot of these costs are lowballed. to give you an example of what employers have to face, the government's own calculations,

$3.7 billion, $677.9 million, the initial year, 201 one, many of you are familiar with this, affirmative-action 272 million and affirmative-action, 200 million, i just picked these ten, government calculations, the kind of costs which does have an impact on growth and workers. i won't spend a lot of time on but the fact of the matter is the department of labor lowballed the cost of the regulation. the persuader rule, people who got to organizing campaigns have to worry about. everyone with any sort of hr

relationships with employees that are organizing have to comply with this but if you don't comply you have to read the regulations to comply. that costs money and lawyers and consultants have to supply regulations so we came up with $89 million, more than the department of labor but i can tell you the case came out of the federal district court in which they roundly trashed the department of labor calculations noting regulation was effective to its core. this regulation is held up with an injunction and we will see where that goes. the deck and being made on costs is an interesting decision of 150 pages but the judge looked at cost estimates and said they

were badly off. same with overtime regulations that came out. dol estimated $67.9 million, we estimate 6 billion and that is a big differentiation, dol estimates it will take a manager 5 minutes a week to manage those employees who are eligible for overtime, estimated that at 60 hours, $60 an hour salary. we looked at that and surveyed our members who are out there in the real world and found a better estimate 30 hours a week, because dol excludes things like overhead. the overhead concept we take out of standard procurement policy which this government has bought into. regulations have benefits and i talked about costs. we recognize you have to have

regulations, tailored the best way possible. the fact is in this area, the agency overestimates benefits and underestimates costs. if they measure them at all, it is interesting, 40 dol rules came out the didn't measure benefits. so turning to substance, benefits are in the eye of the beholder. many of you know the blacklisting regulation came out recently and this is the regulation that says if you are a federal contractor you have 2 report your so-called violations to the government and they will look at those as eligible for contract and you can find violations in a lowball way, initial indications by agency at

the end of this which is a violation even if the employer has another case in the quarter. we have long argued a similar regulation came out under clinton that unions are interested in this because they can use it as leverage to force companies to agree to other things by filing frivolous charges that threaten the companies for federal contracts. that can't be true. in the clinton version of this regulation it helped the units organize but the latest reiteration that came out of the teamsters, this came out, for many years this is a tactic recommended to teamsters in a collective-bargaining agreement, we are two agreements into this

strike with a fair labor agreement, that is your prerogative. and six charges over companies to provide information and interrogation on that line. they indicated you are recommending complaints on four charges. the nlrb is toothless but you are apparently unaware the of the game have been changed under a new order issued by the president, a federal contractor that incurred similar labor laws must report them to federal contracting agencies to face the prospect of losing these contracts. this federal contract in hundreds of millions, do you want to jeopardize the pot of gold to save a few hundred dollars in the union contract? the bottom line is this is an organizing tactic or in this case putting pressure on an employer at the collective-bargaining table borders on extortion by

threatening to jeopardize these cases, eligibility for federal contract. it is black and white, we have been saying it for years and there it is. closing on this part, i will say these regulations are incredibly complex giving an indication of 60 days to comment, the agencies develop these, why these agencies were not allowed private sector time. .. >> and healthcare labor, the labor area we have got-- you can

count on us come i think, 99.95. overtime is highly likely. the big eeo one compensation effort is over at omb and we are heavily involved in that pic let me turn to immigration since it's the hot topic of the day with mr. trump your kitchen or has long been involved in immigration reform. tougher border security, stronger mandatory and verification procedure for employers, legalization of the undocumented. provided certain procedures are going through and by the way that spending bill-- despite what mr. trump and others may say with amnesty bill. combined with expanded temporary worker programs, that important for employers to meet the needs

that they have when they can't find domestic workers, but also to take the pressure off the borders, so that that-- this is a platform that works together for both economic benefits of the country and also to augment a border security. i know mr. trump yesterday, we have it-- we have on her website we have a 60 page white paper on our position on immigration reform and we discuss about these overseers and we look forward to working with whoever will be in the white house and hopefully we can get a good regional bill through early next year. i'm glad to take questions on the issue. there are many permutations. i will leave it at that. i think on healthcare, we, of course, are involved with commenting on the ryan paper on the care reform and i think i big issue now is protecting the employer-based system. we have several priorities i

think given-- they will come back for three weeks and who knows what's happening. of course, we have several bites at the aca, which we think would approve the legislation overall. we don't believe outright repeal is in the cards, but we will try to work for improvement. on a pension reform, pension issues i will just mention that we were disappointed with the position of the treasury to deny relief of the teamsters central states fund, but we hope congress will not revisit the bipartisan reform act that congressman kline and congress and miller on a bipartisan basis develop two years ago in order to allow plans to seek relief when they are in extreme distress. if those plans can't get relief they will go bankrupt and probably the tax payers will be left holding the bag.

i think of about five minutes over, but-- questions? >> we will now open it up for questions. i just asked that we needed the microphone you announce your name and what organization you are with. i'll write. >> this is for randy. on the overregulation issue, i'm wondering how important it is for you guys to maintain republican majority in the senate to address that issue and no matter what happens, how difficult is it to address that issue on immigration issues with the divided government? >> well, that's a big question. both parts. i think it's safe to say that republicans by and large are more favorable to our position on the galatian then democrats but not exclusively.

it would be helpful for the senate to retain republican for various reasons and one is oversight hearings of agencies alone and the issue of misplaced regulations, but also in terms of trying to move things out of the congressional review with the whole majority leader position as a republican. now, he run up against the issues of relief, what happens if you have some in the white house that will veto that anyway, but my view of these things, you get then teed up and you move them along as far japan and if anything else you try to get a revision in the preparation still that the president or whoever can to veto their clots of things wind up on the cutting room floor, but you hope your issues remain in the bill. obviously the house staying republican is a backstop to many antibusiness initiatives that might arise out of a democrat white house-- i will just say it

so, its import price to maintain that. on immigration, i think we had more than most do understand we had votes in the house last time around on sound immigration package that was comprehensive. i think there is room to revisit that no matter what happens in the white house this time around. it is a bipartisan issue more so than people would think given what happened last year and the failure of the house to take up the senate bill. >> this is for randy. a couple of questions. dll recently-- i guess it was irs a way for more states or have state sponsored plans for small employers. do you think if clinton is elected he will see that become

a federal law and do you see a-- do you see this opening a move that will encourage more states to adapt these plans? >> you know, i think it's a tough issue because i think we recognize that we have a problem in this country with the inability of many people to save for their retirement, particularly low income and we have 4o1k plans and they are shrinking. in some ways the states are trying to fill that gap, though we are concerned about state activity along those lines that begins in eroding preemption. >> why? >> because preemption is important to our members who are in the pension and healthcare areas of states not getting into that area and so we have always been concerned about you wrote in that firewall. so, we are taking down i would

say that initial letter to the department of labor have expressed caution. the department of labor moves slowly in this area. on the other hand, i think were also pathetic at the chamber to the fact that we have to resolve this problem of people being able to save in the lower income areas for retirement because it's a huge crisis coming down the tracks at us. we have many internal discussions about that issue. >> next question. this will be shocking if we don't have a number of questions. all right. >> i was wondering if you could elaborate on the changes that you would support for the aca given as you said the chances for repeal are not the greatest for the next couple of years. >> it's no secret we support repeal and cadillac tax. we support repeal of the

employer mandate, but if repeal is not in the cards at least lowering the threshold from 30 to 40. we support repeal of the medical device tax in the healthcare tax. so, that's four of them right there for you. we have got a long list that we would be glad to share with you. we are concerned about some efforts by republicans and others to put a-- to attack the current exclusion of healthcare benefits from taxation. i think we have had-- we done a good job about negotiating with them on the hill and their recognition that they need to go slowly in that area. >> hello. i would like to shift of the text-- from texas for a minute. i saw the chamber of commerce put out a statement in relation

to that apple stated investigation, the 13 billion-dollar euro find and talked about how it gave the perception that american companies were being targeted, going on the hill for the last few months and treasury is also him down hard about the possibility of invoking section 891 to attack-- to respond to this commission against european companies in european citizens. on what the chamber's take on that is. >> we have not looked at the 891 issue to this point. we do have to look at what responses would be appropriate. with the eu has done with respect to apple is extraordinary. they are clearly targeting us companies although, they also

target european companies, but us multinationals operating in europe are particularly inept of sorting through complex tax laws and that as shareholders is something we should applaud, but there is such a thing is going too far in trying to address that and we think that's what the eu has infected on and in effect threatening to run roughshod over sovereign tax law and that in fact is what the irish are upset about and in fact, many in europe are upset about that from different finance ministries as they consider the implications of what that eu has done. is not a just about ireland and apple. it's about every sovereign tax authority in europe and they all know it and they have to imagine what the world will look like if this is allowed to continue. so, it's a very serious issue. we are going to have to respond. we do appreciate the administrations strong pushback on this matter.

is very helpful and rare that we are able to work with the admin's should only matter this and we appreciate it, but it's a very serious issue. it's not just about apple. it's about precedent, sovereignty of national tax authorities, so we take it very seriously. >> any other questions? one in the back right there. >> hello. i'm curious how you see the health sector they see a plane into economic growth over the next year or so and i'm also curious how the outcome of the presidential and congressional elections will affect how you lobby for the aca changes you want in the next couple of years. >> the aca and economic growth, let's face it we are facing a situation now where the way the insurance market is responding to the aca and the failure of young healthy people to sign up leading to losses in insurance

and insurance with pride, with ac market exchanges survive and if they don't how will that impact the economy. i think it would be a interruption and uncertainty in that answered he would be negative. our insurers decisions they have to make and if they cannot make a reasonable profit will withdraw. is the government really capable of stepping in any way are not that will make sense? not sure. it's one of those unknowns out there and does it really lead to a single-payer system or does it lead the opposite way which is a very deep rethinking of the aca entirely? i see could go either way. the whole thing goes to disruption and means maybe it should be repealed and start over. that would be huge and a lot of our members have adopted to the

aca in many ways-- ways. getaway is now let's go to single-payer. what to single-payer mean? doesn't really mean english type system where doctor themselves worked for the government, which i think a lot of people have in their head or more of a medicare type arrangement where the doctor still remain in the private sector, but are reimbursed by the government? all i am saying is it's 20 or 18% of the economy is driven by healthcare. anything that is a huge disruption that area will have a negative impact on the economy. as far as the election goes, a beasley who into the white house -- hillary will not sign massive changes to the aca. whatever gets through congress or mike it by a filibuster still has to get-- will get vetoed by her. i was in hash when she testified she is quite actually spent on issues. with charm, we actually moved for a repeal of the aca and disrupt the entire sort of existing process?

i guess we have to wait and see. i think there are plenty of things in the task force that the employer community supports and there are some things in there we don't support that if there is a willingness to move forward with improvements to the aca, there is bipartisan basis to do that. no matter who wins the senate, democrat or republican who keeps the house or who's in the white house-- i guess the big unknown is will trump feel he actually has to move to repeal because he said that on the campaign trail or something halfway in between. >> good morning. i would like to ask you about immigration. given the proposals from the two candidates we already know, wanted to ask you how optimistic you are that the next

administration will be able to pass a reform after so many years and why will you be optimistic or not? if you could please elaborate on your expectations see mike have to keep coming to a work-- to work with a smile, so i'm optimistic. i am optimistic. i'm an optimistic guy, but we have had conversations in the house and senate that i think the matter who wins the white house we can get things done and it wants just before security. i think the key is timing border security while of the things kick in dependent on a certain parts of border security being implemented. i know you have heard that before, probably, but the question is what are the triggers and are they the kind of triggers that can be ignored or at a definitive and other things kick in, but there are some things on the edges that deal with enforcement. nothing that is strictly related to enforcement-- well, over the

top enforcement or kicking people out of the country. by the way, the touch and release, the touchback and release we were negotiating that back in 2007. wish-- wish they would call it the greyhound solution also where everyone gets a greyhound down to mexico and they stay there three days and then they come back. there's a lot of reasons that's unworkable, but we will negotiate. i think despite the rhetoric that we saw last night i think there is room to get some decent legislation done. i'm not going to tell you what would be the senate bill. we will have to find something about these overseas and i'm proud to say in our chamber or a form we have a section in their about these overstays in recognizing the problem. we don't come up with any huge solutions, but we had suggestions. everyone recognizes status quo really can't be sustained, so we

have to move afford it has to be more than just enforcement. >> you don't have to get into specifics, but what would be the areas-- he said it would not only be border security, what other areas will be-- >> i've testified on the hill many times on employment verification and we support that. we negotiated that with chamber members, but we would need-- nothing will get out of the senate without steps to legalize the undocumented who are here now. it would be tight steps. through a probationary. i think the question-- i'm not an essay where the chamber is on citizenship versus the right to stay here and work is one that could break a long jam. of course, the children of those who are legalized here to work would be citizens. we would never cross that bridge