efficient, people tend to use them more. case ofnk that in the what we're doing, specifically with bright, there is an opportunity to reduce emissions and reduce congestion. thats to do withit has to do wy we do it. passengers must enter their destination and drivers can see what that destination is. we like to say the good of the nation requires destination. that is -- basically conveying if you can make the ride shared then you can have reductions in emissions, you can have reductions in congestion. if you can't have that kind of sharing you're not going to get those benefits. >> is this someone commuting from san francisco to the east bay? is this the daily routine? if this is someone going down the 101 and wants to get into

the car pool lane? >> we have a number of different people. we have a platform so people can indicate here is where i am and this is where i want to go. drivers can see where the pick up and destination is. if that is convent for them they will accept it. we have a guy in our system named nick, he works in mountain view, he lives in the city. he turns on the app in the morning, he looks for somebody going south and they drop him off and he goes on to his job. that is one case. there are other times people turn it on to get out of the house and give rides to people because they like meeting people and it is a way to make extra money to offset their car costs. >> i take that as motivation for lists that have the distinctive banner --

>> the car stashs. >> is it the extra money that is a big motivater? >> i think there are a number of motivaters. one is the opportunity to make a little extra to offset your car costs. i think people believe in the long-term vision of the company, which would have an effect in miles traveled and greenhouse gas and emission reduction as well. >> how does that work? if i hop in and that car might be sitting in the garage, i might have taken a taxi and the taxi would be out there driving around. it could increase the greenhouse. >> that's a great question. this is something we've talked a lot about with susan in the past. i believe, officially with car sharing that was the problem.

you had vehicles available to people who were did not have vehicles available. you are putting more cars on the road but which n the long term, you're having an overall positive benefit. that is our long-term vision as well. >> would that happen, susan? >> yes. a lot of times the early adopters of car sharing in a city are people who never had access to a car. it is not surprising tow see an increase in miles traveled. the real gain is reduction for the miles traveled is to get people to sell cars or postpone car purchases. one of our studies revealed that one car sharing vehicle takes nine to 13 vehicles off the road and causes people to six vehicles.

the is where we're seeing net effect. actualal net effect is positive towards the environment. this study showed about 43% reduction in co2 emissions from those postponed and those car purchases. >> you also have data on the impact and what it displaces in carbon and vehicles and miles traveled. >> in the bay area, we're ground central for car sharing, peer-to-peer sharing. there's more companies offering services to allow people not to have to own a car, or to get rid of a car. we've been experiencing that for years. 2/3 of our members say they

have sold the car or delayed buying a car once they join us. a study done back in the early 2006, it is the only longitude study that i know of and it shows cars take off the road. it showed that a greener ride could have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions. work on the report and that susan shaheen has done, we saved about 80 million pounds of co2 emissions. 80,000 fewer miles are driven on bay area roads. you asked a question about growth. there has been tremendous growth. when i joined in 2005, i had a

number of 3205. last year, we issued number 40,000. there's been tremendous growth in car sharing. every single one those members is likely to have gotten rid of a car, not buying a car, or is thinking about getting rid of another car. you have reduction in greenhouse gas emissions but in all the co2 that is released in the production of those vehicles that would have been purchased. >> you claim your non-profit car sharing service is greener than four car sharing services. how? >> i'm using information that came out of a study back in 2008 that showed non-profit car sharing organizations do save more greenhouse gas emissions. what is the reason for that? i think there are several reasons and the main one is we

have the greenest fleet in the industry. 45% of our cars are hybrid or electric vehicles. when we look at -- just based on e.p.a. standards, our fleet is about 35%-40% more fuel efficient than the standard car on the road today. >> i would say the former car share member i drove around -- i wouldn't buy those car bus drie around in. is that true that for profit companies are looking to maximize their profit? >> what i would say is the data showed for profit and non- profit had a negative effect of redoesing co2 emissions or a positive effect for the environment. we did see that this effect was higher for the non-profits. i have another hypothesis for

the dynamics of the fleet. i also think the pricing of how city car share prices have an impact. they do charge by mile. i think that has an impact on the total number of miles driven by a city car share vehicle. it is contained more inside the pricing of a for profit company. does that make sense? >> sure. theersrelay rides and models where people are using their own car, they may not be the cleanest or a hybrid. is there an incentive to be clean and green in the model? >> you know as far as not with

respect to the way city car share is doing it but what is clean and green about it, you have less vehicles on the road. less vehicles total, more using their vehicles in an efficient way. even if you're not driving a prius you maybe are taking another car off the road. 80% read a statistic that of the car seat miles are empty. you think of a five-passenger car and during rush hour -- so we're talk aboutal pretty big cultural change here prp for all those people who are used to listening to n.t.r., we love them, or sports radio and picking up a stranger, do i want to talk to you all the way to san jose? really? how is this working culturally to ride with strangers and make that commitment? >> i think it is working

remarkably well. i think there's this whole culture that -- i'm old enough to remember texas chainsaw massacre. there is -- one thing that surprised me was that we put all these safety measures in into place and people have taken to it. the background check of the driver, the rating systems, all of these systems have, i think built confidence that this is a safe system. enough so when we surveyed the users, 71% think it's safer, they feel safer in a ride they matched through us than a taxi. we've been around for less than a year of offering this service. >> someone who recently took my first thrilling ride in another

company that is a real time dynamic, basically, replace taxi. i like the fact i can see the guy's face before he picks me up, eni have his information afterwards. that moderates the drivers and i get to check one or five stars, that has an effect on the person's behavior. i think trust seems to be a big part of this. user confidence or accountability in both directions to making this work. >> we have this new model of trust that is now possible. it is because of social media, just the ability of feedback. there is little accountability before. casual car pool here in the bay area transports 5,000 people a

day with no accountable. >> that is where you wait on the side of the road and a carpals up and you don't know who they are. >> that's right. so we took that model and was like, gee, can we take that and make it work across the entire bay area and around the country? and the answer is yes, it's working and it is spreading rapidly. >> it is spreading rapidly and it is causing resistance with regulators. >> let's talk about the yellow cabs, who is being disrupted by this innovation? let's talk about the incumbent defending their territory and how that is playing out. >> it is a battle that happens a lot. the industries that -- the new envow vacation want to resist it and they use every enmeans they can. i think another example of this is what happened with voice over i.p. and things like skype.

they offer this amazing service and amazing advantage for consumers and at&t and the rest really resisted it. they used other systems to help resist that change. i think a similar dynamic is at work right now. we've got objections that are made against us don't come from the public, they come from people who have a lot to lose by having innovation happen in the marketplace. >> you've been fined what $20,000 -- the regulatory issues cost you half a million dollars fighting this. >> just to recap, the california regulators have sent notices to us fines three of us. while there are those fines out there to be honest, what is expensive, we haven't paid the

fines. what is exspebsive is engaging with regulators. -- expensive is engaging with regulators. expensivehat is the part. we're innovators and we're looking for new ways to make the systems better and transform transportation. we estimate about $500,000 that have gone towards these regulatory engagements. >> what is their beef? you're not regulated? what is the problem? >> well, i think -- toyou don't have a license do what you're doing. >> we had a note saying that we should stop operating because

we don't have a license for a regulatory code saying we don't have a license for another company. we don't have car, we don't have drivers. we are information provider, we provide matching of riders and drivers. so i think there has been a fundamental -- this is a new median and it needs new rules. that viewpoint is one that regulators in the beginning don't understand. we see the same thing in philadelphia, austin. >> are they trying to make it illegal? in philadelphia they did a sting operation on your company. >> yes, a week before last there was a sting operation -- against our company but they impounded the vehicles of three drivers, they fined each of them $1,000 -- sorry one of them was fined $2,000.

they sent us fines as well. in austin, they sent us a cease and desist and the city council has made it impossible for them to impound vehicles as well. i think what happened in california is we went from an attitude of the regulators to hey, you can't do that we're going to shut you down to, ok, we get it. we need new rules, let's have a conversation about what this new median is like, what the right rules should be for it, and how do we benefit california through this new capability? that is the approach we want. we want to talk to these folks. we're not saying there is no role for government. we think there needs to be a way to encourage eninnovation. >> your company reached an

agreement with regulators and so what was the deal to get them off your back? >> right. we had a number of trust issues in place background checks, rating system, etc. the public utilities commission's number one concern is public safety. i think they're not as focused on the entrenched interest like the taxi cab, they are interested in protecting consumerss. once we were able to show them what we do we were able to come to a settlement agreement. >> but that was not ok with you? finess was to stay the and cease and desist.

those conversations, we've agreed to keep confidential so i'm not going into details. i will say, we obviously, have not agreed to what they proposed. we have principle disagreements with what they have so far. we may end up signing it but only after we get an agreement on those principles. >> where is this going? innovation is ahead of policy as often is the case. there's industries fighting to protect -- susan sha sheen, how is going this going to shake out? where is this going? >> i think we have to work through these policy issues for the entire space. the ride sharing space are hitting it first. i think a lot of questions about liability, new insurance models, no ways of doing pricing, a lost things need to be worked out. >> those are built around

ownership. >> access. yeah, they are not based around principles of access. so i think we really need to work across the industry so there's many different players in this beside car sharing and ride sharing. we've got public bikesharing in it, we have new models of ownership being developmented that fits into this space. there's a range that could be represented and collectively, i think they have a voice. it's difficult when you're an entrepreneurial and trying to run a business. we need a new policy framework and we need a new dialogue. i've seen a lot of promise in regulators wanting to have that dialogue but it is this immediate reaction that i think is really tough and difficult for the small companies. this could stomp out innovation.

>> by the time rules get made. >> can i just add? >> sure. >> we're seeing this not just in transportation, we're seeing it with challenges in sharing. it across the board. sharing is not crime. weis good for society and need to figure out a way to encourage innovation. >> hashtag defending sharing? good access on twitter, the hashtag is our hand. >> we should get people to sign our petition. we have people helping us with south by southwest coming up in austin. the timing with austin is really unfortunate. we were planning on providing these shared rides for south by southwest and along came all

these actions. we would love support on our petition on change.org. just search it and you will find it. >> i want to reference quickly, a company not up here but relay ride had a person -- quite a tragic case. an m.i.t. student and going her -- googler es leased out her honda, several people were injured, someone was killed. that looks like it would be exceeded. she could be on the hook financially. this ask a case that no one thought would happen but lending out your car than leasing out your couch. >> i would say this goes back to the public policy issue. he talked about his work to develop peer-to-peer legislation and it would help to protect consumers as well as

protect their right to make money off the use of their car. only two other states have adopted that legislation thus far. in that particular state, massachusetts, there was no protective legislation in place. you can see, are these small companies expected to go state by state by state to develop legislation? it is going to be impossible for them to do that. we need to elevate this to a national dialogue if not a higher dialogue. the liability issues need to be addressed. is the current insurance model the proper model? probably not. we need to look at insurance vehicles and, you know, do we need new insurance approaches, new insurance products to help promote the service? >> is this market driven? the insurance companies are saying we have different clients and they are protecting

different interests so it is hard to see the market doing this. >> god help us if the regulators are in charge of innovation. can you imagine if they ran twit center \[laughter] i have nothing against them but their institution is not set up to do that. their job is to protect public safety, not to encourage innovation. i'm sorry, that is not their charge. there has to be a way to -- the role of public policy, to uphold the role of people is to encourage innovation. the role of our government is to encourage innovation. >> you think insurance companies innovate? >> yes.

yes. >> they are going to have to. in insurance, you have the commercial and the personal side and they do not meet. they don't talk the same language sometimes. when you have cars involved with different regulatoryle environments in different states, you have a mess. right now, as typical of any business that has been relatively successful over a long time you're going to get inertia and they are going to do everything they can to protect themselves. it is not working as far as promoting and helping new ideas get accomplished at a cost that is practical. in the peer-to-peer car sharing model right now, it is a great model but one of the key issues they have is they cannot make any money with the insurance costs at the level they are at. i think she can talk a this. yearse penciled it out

ago, we went great idea. is it scaleable? is it going make money? it's not going to make money if insurance companies don't get -- become more innovative and choose to create a new product, quite frankly. fort took a lot of work people to take their health insurance different places. that was hard. >> do you think there is going to be innovation in insurance? there's going of to be large companies that will be more resistant before there's smaller companies that might be more nimble and pencil out the risk. car sharing, you can speak to this. tremendous history of wonderful, safety, good driving records. there's not a lot of accidents in the shared space, with respect to car sharing. i know this for a fact. there's money to be made by the insurance industry by

understanding that data, that risk data. >> if you're just joining us we're talk about car sharing. our guests is susan shaheen, sunil paul. before we go to audience questions, i want to talk a how this is going to affect buildings and cities in the way that we build new spaces to accommodate growth? there's going to be new people in the bay area in the coming years and we if we build parking one to one that has imply cakeses. do you get special parking spaces if you're driving a shared ride? how is the land use going to connect with mobility as a shared service?

>> san francisco actually has been somewhat innovative in this air ya. back in 2006, the planning code was changed. now in san francisco, any billing, commercial or residential that is built, is required to have car sharing if they have above a certain amount of units. that kind of legislation is being studied and looked at in other venues as well. we did a pilot test on on streetcar sharing parking last year with the city of san francisco. this is a very interesting subject because what we're talking about is using the public right away and the public good and making it available to private companies. so it shouldn't be taken lightly. the fact is there are many

benefits to allowing shared vehicles of any kind to be parked in areas where we might have equity issues, where car sharing or car ownership is not financially viable. therefore, being able to have on street parking or parking that is somehow either subsidized or permitted is going to help expand car sharing and i believe some other models greatly. in the bay area, parking is the key aspects that causes costs challenges for almost every model and is difficult to find. >> anyone else? >> i think sharing models have a tremendous opportunity to reduce challenges for cities. it takes so much money, it costs $1 million a mile to build a sidewalk. not the mention a freeway. it is incredibly expensive to build these things in public

infrastructure. having shared use, we already have h.o.v. lanes, having use through an apartment, through a side car the full having shared use of public infrastructure for parking spaces, through car sharing. all of these things make our public dollars go further than they would otherwise. i think it is fundamental, special to a money constrained environment that we're living in for the foreseeable future, sharing has to be part of the solution. >> building developers don't like what they see as a government mandate. it messes with their economics. >> there's a lot of developers who buy into this. many developers, at least in the bay area, we're local community buzz many developers get this. they look at sharing as an amenity for their projects. they see it as an opportunity to also build less parking.

parking cost $30,000-$40,000 per space. if you can not build those spaces and put in a few other units or even some open space, that makes it a better project. many developers are very supportive of what we're doing. >> we're talking about car sharing and climate one. we would like to invite your participation. don't be shy and come up here and come to the microphone. who is going to be the first brave soul? if you're on this side i would encourage you to start on that side. our line starts with our producer who will invite you up to invite your question. while that line is forming, let's talk about the jobs impact. how many people -- we talked a little bit about extra income.

are these companies significant job creators? let's get a sense of new jobs as well as, sort of part time jobs? how many employees? >> side car has 50 employees around the country but if you look at the extra income or offsetting of vehicle cost we're closing in on 1,000 people around the country. >> we heard a member members of the car sharing services. how about jobs? >> our numbers are similar to sidecar's. i think we have 40-45 full-time employees now. hundreds more receiving incremental income because being able to ride share. >> part of the economy. localm wondering if developments have partnered with the car sharing and marketed that as a benefit? >> absolutely.

builde several information san francisco and also in the east bay. patrick kennedy who -- maybe you have heard of these microunit developments going up. >> super small housing. >> patrick that is been a leader in that space and one of the things he pitched to the city here is i won't build any parking, we'll use car sharing so we'll have microspaces. >> these are housing that might fit into a parking space. >> true. we don't want people living in the car necessarily but it would be bigger than some those spaces. >> anything to add to that? >> i've been tracking this for a long time and i see developers getting on board with this because they can make better use of the space. >> parking is a selling point.

when you go to a condo the owner is like what if there is not a place to park when i come home with my christmas tree or bhaffer. so this is one step further, right? >> in my cities and locally here, you have unbundled parking. so a condo must separate parking and you pay a separate amount for that. if you choose to go car free, you don't have to pay for that spot or even buy it. at least in urban environments that seems to be more popular with sharing mobility services, whether you can use sidecar lift and gate car immediately or being b a member and share a car for more common needs. you don't need to have a car in the city. >> how about the impact on transit? is this taking people off bus

>> this is where model matters and different models of car sharing, ride sharing and peer- to-peer car sharing, we know through studies that when people join city car share, they decrease their drive big 45%. how many miles they drive and they increase their use of walking and biking over 50%. we've done studies with the san francisco m.t.a. over the years and it shows we're pushing more people on to public transit quite a bit actually. locally last year, we had more people taking a car across the bay to use a dart station than people using it who lived there. >> dart u.s.n't do go wherever and use a car sharing to get that final mile.

>> thanks for a great panel so far. the social car sharing is impressive. we talked about insurance liability. if you look at zipcar stock's performance was underwhelming until it got bought. my question is what can you tell us about how compeling this market is for companies that are in it financially? if we had this panel 10 years from now are these companies still going to be in here? >> start with your background and i will plan. >> we should -- before you start ride sharing from car sharing, the differences. >> zipcar was about car sharing. >> as far as car sharing is concerned, we're non-profit. we've made money for many years. we take all that money and put it back into the communi

through a low-income that we call community share. we developped the first wheelchair accessible vans that we've shared. we're going to initiate a local bike program. arewn other companies making money. not a lot but enough to create some social program that we think are important and to help expand car sharing. ride sharing, a new model here, my opinion, is that people like sunil would not be in it if there was not money to be made somewhere down the line, as well as social good that is produced. >> google ventures is a -- an investor.

>> google ventures is the institutional investor in it. this is my third company i've started and ran and invested in many. the last company was very successful. i made a lot of money already. so i am a capitalist so i expect to make money on this company and it's a big reason why i did this. i did this -- i'm doing this company not just because i think i can make money but because i think i can make a big difference and i can make history. i believe there is an opportunity to build a big company that fundamentally changes transportation. lookars from now, we'll back and say, wow, that -- not just sidecar but other companies in the space ended up transforming the way we think

about transportation. in the same way we look back in material days of electric cars. we say wow, ok, amazon, they were not just selling books and ebay, was not just handling collectibles and allowing people to trade collectibles. commerce whole bit of has changed because of those companies. i think we're in a similar stage. i think the smartphone is going to unlock mobility in a different way, it is not just your mobile phone, it is going to be your mobility phone. >> so you may never buy a car for the young child that grows up and hits 16 like you and i wanted so bad. it may not happen. >> the trend is heading downward. the number of people who get drivers licenses at age -- i think it is under 21.

that population has been declining since the 1970's. in part because of -- for a different reason. in the past, your automobile was your key to freedom. you got the keys and you can go out and do stuff in the world. olday, my almost 12-year- they have freedom already. they can talk to their friends, they don't have to be stuck with their dad all the time because they have a smartphone. that kind of -- it's already unlook different kind of freedom and mobility. i think when you take it to the point that i need to be able to move around in the city and i do need to look into a job. all of those things will be possibly through their phone. >> would you call up a ride share, sidecar and put those kids and send them somewhere? >> sidecar. but are only 11 and a half when they are older i would.

>> next question. >> you were talking about or thinking about it for 10-plus years. based on stuff that is floating around they are saying that we will have self driving cars. inanother reason why i jump is because of self driving cars. we make -- we think that it is a fundamental change to transportation it will occur, that having a network where you can get access to our ride plays very well to self driving cars. >> i would add that many people in the industry are arguing that good platforms for autonomous vehicles are actually

these. >> the idea of buying a self driving car might be a little scary, but going to a city car share, which can be a factor, maybe they'll want to buy because of range anxiety, but that could be a good place to sort of prime the market for electric vehicles. >> we have the largest program going. currently only have 20 vehicles. i believe we will double it. the first six months that we had our initial 10 vehicles out our fleet, some are fully electric vehicles, we had over 3000 unique individuals trying those cars. wethink that car sharing,

are also putting in charging stations for public use and car share use in locations that will allow us to do that. becomethey go on to buyers? >> we suspect that we have had some short-term membership that we're looking to try out. we are happy that way. >> we have found in our research that individuals who have a life change need to move to the suburbs, they have a child or something like that, they often by a vehicle that they were driving and car sharing. >> this whole idea of sharing and variety, it is intrinsic to the whole sharing experience. if you are -- one of the things that is attractive about using someone else's apartment is that you get to connect.

it is variety. in it is not the same old holiday in. different try vehicles. you get to meet all of these interesting people. it is part of what makes it fun. it is not just the same old thing every day. >> i would never buy one, but i felt: help driving those things around. does this model translate to rural or suburban america? the ford f1 50 is the best- selling truck and america. is this moving up to the suburbs? >> i believe it will. i think that the stronghold for the systems will be urban areas.

just because of patterns and how people are going to be gravitating more and more towards urban living. but i do think that through phenomenon like peer-to-peer car sharing, fractional ownership, the idea that several people: a vehicle, and all this connectivity that is provided, there is really not a reason why these things can't spread to other areas. this is the next great challenge for the space. other move this into location that -- than just these areas. >> did you do research or benchmark on what is happening in europe? you had to companies one in germany and one in france. did you check why it is so big there?

>> i do not know if he is here. hadceo of car sharing has limited success. would -- and they have had tremendous success. all over year. it is a denser population. >> they also have institutional governmental support. i'm talking about regulatory and policy support. that helped tremendously in europe. >> is a great example of the sort of public framework encouraging these kinds of innovation. it has resulted -- i shouldn't

use the number -- they are doing millions and millions of riders. they are doing very well. >> that started out of colleges. i saw one today for someone going to greenville from san francisco. that is something that is really growing. >> that is right. today is our sixth year anniversary of a corporation. t started initially focus on colleges and universities, a critical thing with respect to carpooling, getting a critical mass. a large enough user base. the original model of the company was focused around colleges and universities where you have a dense population of people that are often going to and from the same destination. and we were left with the

evolution of that with mobile technology, the ability to do these things in real time, rather than plan a week or so in advance. >> we have to end it there. we have been talking about car sharing and ridesharing. paul, and en, sunil rick hutchinson, thank you all for coming. [applause] you.ank but let pan from the commonwealth club from california. this focuses on with consumers and companies can share products and information and spend less money. panelists include cofounders of

two internet products sharon companies. this is about an hour. >> welcome to climate one, a conversation about economy and environment. i am a greg dalton. our consumer economy is so linked to it interesting products. owning them -- when consumers buy less stuff the economy suffers. on consumers and the silicon valley and across the country a keating technologies and companies allow people to share and rents, not by. the sharing economy is hot and hundreds of start-ups are used infrequently. cars, designer gowns, power tools, fancy cooking utensils. these internet enabled services

at changing how companies pool capital. we will discuss the creativity and destruction of the sharing economy. we are pleased to have with us three people involved in this new form of capitalism. ina is author of "the mesh," -- and d. rubin -- and the president of solar mosaic. welcome them to climate one. [applause] >> thank you all for coming. lisa, you recently tweeted the ownership is last century. what does that mean? and the work we have all been working on is that last century we spent the second half buying a lot of stuff.

to,more people i speak especially in the developed world, we are suffering from a hangover. if we have far more things than we actually use as a global community. was relieved that last that last was really century did not have the ability to track things we can now track. he would rent a building or a floor of the building. things were in bigger chunks of time and bigger things themselves. a floor of the building as opposed to the ability to tap into, "i want that conquers room and did i want that conference room for an hour -- that conference room for an hour."

it is a remote control for moving around the world so we can find each other and things much easier. in many ways the technology is allowing us to find things and these mobile devices allow us to find each other have really taken the friction of sharing. last sentry those things were not in place. it is quite difficult to share. i have friends that are from switzerland. is itople that started car were inspired -- that started zip-car or inspired. is kashering going to scale? and no. but the technology freeze that up. -- freeze that up. that up.ees >> how you define the term and scope of a shared economy?

>> i think of it as we are moving from a world in which ownership was the real one which to a world in access to goods, services, and talent will triumph over ownership. mean we will not on things. -- will not own things. we also have the option of accessing experiences or services or talent or assets, tools, buildings, vacation homes, when we wanted and we just pay for what we use. because of the technology the business model serves plentiful, much more interesting and we have much more regularity so we can really choose exactly what we want, when we want, so we can pay for the true value. forndy rubin, you worked

walmart, one of the largest countries in the the largest companies in the world -- largest companies in the world. how did you come to sharing from working to their backs >> one of thegenesis of this was obviousness of what lisa just mentioned. we are living in a world -- there are 62 lego bricks for every man, woman, and child in the planet. we are living in such abundance of the things we own and the technology we were talking about a says -- when my daughter goes to play soccer in the fall my first thought right now is i would buy a shin guards. of girls whoens are one year older who are done with their shin guards.

the distribution centers of the future our closets and garages. our ability to the services allows it to connect to your friends and have access to that wealth of things we have been amassing four years and can be put to better use. is beauty we see in that that most people talk about my own experiences -- there is such an amazing and beautiful connection of being able to have -- to pass on shin guards. it is a gift. you are passing on something for someone who is looking for that. that is a special opportunity. >> that only exists as a goodwill or other thing people do through school. this new technology platform is making it easier and more convenient. >> yes. one of the things we love with this case is this is not a new thing -- a new technology that no one has ever thought of passing.

it is the ability of putting we knowg you care about a lot about people hang out with and go to work with and go to school with the don't always know who is in need of a keyboard for their son's piano lessons. to know that the use of something you are done with -- that is where technology is useful. it changes the dynamic of how sharing can be -- the existing behavior. that at scale,do sharing becomes part of the retail model. similar technologies are changing the way people can pull capital and make investments. we are talking about consumers and investors. tell me how you can to mosaic and how that as part of the sharing economy. allows people to

directly invest in clean energy clean energyt projects. to get to 100% clean energy we need 100 twin dollars of investment -- run hundred trillion dollars of investment. of100 trillion dollars investment. we have only been able to challenge -- able to channel to a trillion dollars. what we are unlocking as the ability for individuals to participate in that asset class to the energy owners and energy producers, not just energy consumers. it is answering this access question and at the current rate is when it take us four hundred years to build out the clean energy capacity we need. we need more people to get in on the game to participate in this economy. they have been locked out of it.

>> the old models are broken. let us talk a little bit about motivation. do people do this because they want to save muntjacs a lot of these companies, i for started hearing about them during the recession. there are certain demographics of people who cannot afford a car. this a child of the recession and hard economic times? >> i think it is one of the factors for sure. there were several things that came together, population density in cities in 2010 was the first time in the history of our planet that people have been keeping records that we have than 50%o being more of the people living in urban environments and rural ones. population density, more people in the same physical space, invites less stuff.

we are treating things for experiences. things for experiences. the recession was provoked much -- the recession provoked much of this. the first time that people do it, they kashered because it is expensive or they are not using that much and they made $700 per month. the average in santa cisco is $9,300 a host mix towards their with their b and b. a study last year said a significant number of the hosts they use their b and d money at support their regular life,

pay energy bills and sorts of things. it makes financial sense. there is a surprise inside. the sharing economy surprise is you feel good. not always. it is not an always true thing. the general feedback has been that they continue to do it often because they have met a cool people or they had a nice experience or it felt much nicer to borrow a car or stay in somebody's, rather than stay in a hotel because they went native when they visited seven cisco or new york. point, the savings is a pretty compelling in the show spark that gets people going. >> economics and social. one of the great achievements of the last 20 years is we built bigger houses for each other so we are more isolated from each

other. is the social connection part of it? >> absolutely. -- of the things that's things that excites me is with the advent of technology there are better models. they are better because they make economic sense, they make social sense, they make emotional sense, they provide community. at that point it is simply a better model of commerce and transportation. convincet have to people to move to them. people experience the better model and do not go back. >> how big is the sharing economy now? as a percentage of the total u.s. economy, is this a berkeley or boston thing? how big is the shared economy? >> my answer is an all.

it would be fundamental to think about how we reshape living, working, spending. community, there's a huge piece of it about being more connected. $3 billion worth of crowd funding by the end of this year. it's growing rapidly. it is something like 600,000 plus new members on a monthly basis. similar toketplace where they put up what they have made and they make a living or supplement a living but they are getting to express themselves through a service like at sea -- etsy. we are growing but it is really

in the early stages. there is one other piece that i hope we will see be evolving over the next hopefully year or two and that is policy and regulation. we have, certainly and various puc, other organizations ending with "c" who regulate in the united states are very organized around last century's models. things are changing very rapidly and i think the regulators are having a challenge keeping up with what is really a significant challenge to old thinking. often lags innovation. in a few cases specifically, that has been a problem with hotel taxes. airbnb in santh francisco and they do not have to pay the hotel tax.

the hotel doesn't like it. the city doesn't like it. there is a disruption that has not caught up. >> we are lucky in san airbnb has putse it at the forefront of his platform and there are people really dedicated to figuring out innovative policies that, for example, keep companies that are at the forefront of this new industry in san francisco and, at the same time, they balance out the benefits that it brings to the city itself. the hotel tax, 14% in the city, equalityput a lot of quote around the activity around them. i use them as an example but there are many other services and platforms. the city is really looking for

a balance point figure out how to do that. london and new york, other cities, they are working on similar things. the cities are also learning to share between themselves. as one tries a new model or some policy, there is increasing interaction between the various chief innovation .fficers or cto's one thing they are sharing with all of us and also between themselves is data. i think data in many ways is the gateway drug for the sharing economy. it allows us to see, we have so many strollers and things here. it also allows you to see how many cars, parking spaces you are not using, all sorts of assets to be managed in different ways that are high value to the city but using last centuries business model a lot of money on the table. click seen have had some

battles talking about innovation outpacing policy. just to get regulatory approval to allow people to invest directly in a solar product, which before they could not do, you could invest in a pipeline but not a solar project. tell us about the regulatory hurdles and how policy has been lagging. >> they were designed for fossil fuel energy. there were all sorts of tax benefits and incentives to invest in pipelines, oil rigs, things like that. the regulation around the financial industry was for banks. tohas been challenging publicly offer investments. >> you are taking on two huge industries, not just one. >> these two industries were really designed for a different time, as lisa said. and our challenge was to show

the regulators that these investments we are putting together are the same types of investments that banks have been investing in for decades and we just want to allow people to participate in investing in them as well. it took over a year to get and wel of our model were really the first in that space to do it. we had to break a lot of new ground to enable that. lawyers.of fancy >> yes. >> the sharing economy was on the cover of forbes magazine i believe in january. as wall street taking notice? the financial media has obviously taken notice, but has wall street? were something in california should keep our eye on? >> i do not think the bankers care yet. in the financial industry, the

two companies who have really begun to scale to a level that i think the banks are beginning to pay attention to our lending club and prosper which have peer-to-peer consumer loans. they allow me to make a loan to someone to help them refinance their credit card and it allows the borrower to get a lower rate than what they can get to the bank and it allows me to have access to an asset class i to not have asset -- access before. in the consumer lending space, they have done $1.8 billion in peer-to-peer loans and it is just beginning in other sectors. a key point to all of this, trust. there needs to be some arbiter of trust, whether it is facebook where you share your tools with people you know, someone validate to him going to lend $50 to and they will pay me back.

let's talk about the importance of trust and enabling this sharing economy. your platform is the premise of people sharing with someone they know or one degree of separation? >> correct. when you log on, you do it with facebook because of the ease that it provides and right away, on average, there are several hundred users. the average person who joins has between 300-320 items that are available to them based on the essentials of facebook so it's a very compelling starting place. does it stay there forever? no. part of the first moved to get these things building with trust. any one you have made a connection with, a friend of that person, you have enough

the exposure of risk. and it is someone you have a connection with, someone you need to get to know better. it is a really good starting point. >> i have a lot of friends it would not let our of my car though. there are parameters of trust, right? there are different dimensions of trust. there are areas you will trust with some areas, but not all, so how does that play out in this economy? >> sorry, i will not borrow your car. basically, we all have people people have more than 500 friends on facebook? >> about one third of the

audience. >> how many of you actually know those people? you don'tk friends necessarily know. >> my point is the whole meaning of "friend" has moved into what i call a tofu word that it starts to be everything else. you can use it for everything. if someone said to me, would you be willing to share this photo you took tonight with all of your facebook friends? i would say sure. would i be willing to let them watch my kid or use my car? the answer is no. morebably do not know than 50% of them. a lot of what we are doing in this process is kind of creating a level of transparency and building systems for knowing how to vouch for each other. who would you trust for which sorts of things? , there areid different people who you would trust to do different sorts of things am i have access to your

personal files versus borrowing your car or someone you would be willing to go in with to make a purchase. >> what about the demographics of the sharing economy? is this really an under 40 type of thing? are their grandmothers who are sharing canes? [laughter] >> i can't answer that. the demographics are not as you think. ends.nd of book you have 20 somethings and 30 somethings, then the 45 and up. the services are diverse enough that people use different source services. for example, we gave the comment before about peer-to-peer lending, lending club, prosper, and zoppa.

person who has money and wants to put it someplace, it offers a good return. .t's up to you you see people, for example, grandparents, i do not know about trading canes, but they want to park money in a place they think is a reasonable risk and a lot of these places have a very high percentage of return or, said another way, the default rate at these lending clubs are far less i probably an order of magnitude than commercial banks. >> for us, the ranges from 18- 95. we have a 95-year-old investor on the platform and the averages about 40. increasingly, we are finding that people are investing because they do not trust the .roader financial system only 21% of investors in america trust wall street and trust the banks.

>> and you know where your money goes, that's a big part of it. you know that your money is staying local. it's not going into a black hole somewhere doing who knows what. >> there is a connection between trust and transparency. our goal is to allow people to actually see everything about the investment. you can download the prospectus. they can go visit their investment. the idea that you could put your ira and something that you can actually see, touch, feel, and feel good about, i think it is creasing lay something that people want because they do not know where their money is going now. in thehe recession financial crisis, i think it shook a lot of people's confidence that the system is really fed up with them. the system is rigged by the people at the tippy top? founder ofrrish is

lisa gansky and andy ruben. >> given a choice, you would rather pass on a stroller you are done with to someone you work with compared to a perfect stranger. on the other hand, you want the size of the market that provides a wealth of options when you are looking for things, right? one of the changes that we are definitely seeing as we progress is that technology is eliminating some of that historical trade-off where you had to make the choice to between, am only going to share with the people i have this

immediate trust with or am i going to have access to everyone? what we are seeing based with online and mobile technologies is that by connecting groups of people, for most people, you have fairly high levels of trust for people you work with, people you went to school with, people your kids might go to school with and it is actually a fairly robust market getting much more of a transparent system of trust. it's a historical trade-off that is changing as we move through this with the advent of exposure and technology. this result in people buying less crop? ultimately, is this going to change capitalism in a profound way? re: going to buy and share more? -- are we going to buy and share more? >> retailers serve a need for an experience.

my daughter is playing soccer. i need to buy shin guards. is where it is out and we have been in a model for years were the only way to solve that need is to go and order something online and have it delivered to your door. the experience is not changing. i do not expect people to play less soccer. there are better ways of getting the things you need so your kids can go play soccer. it will not be one for one and it will not be easy to track, but without a doubt as we have more access to the things we already own, there will be less need to produce that same number of items. gansky, that means gdp will go down because it is the measure of output of stuff that is consumed. what amd is talking about is -- a recession is probably too strong, but slower economic growth.

>> we are redefining economic growth. my view, gdp is measuring what was really relevant last century. we were in the industrial revolution and we figured out how to a lot of stuff really fast really cheap and send it everywhere. yeah ay. what we did was basically make lots of stuff and we counted making stuff, buying stuff, selling stuff away, buying new stuff and that's the model have been trained on. essentiallyng that that there is a re-commerce. , are is a remanufacturing reverse value chain. whatever you want to call it, but the business of taking things after we are finished them, after we bought them. waste costs money, but in our current model, it has been subsidized.

likes and not measured. >> in the future, the cost of waste water and energy, that's what really is going to go superhigh. you're going to start to see the true cost of waste coming through. that's one of the big reasons that all of us are going to go -- holy crop. all of the stuff i have in my garage sitting around, these two kayaks, i figured out what to do with them but i have no access. .> i really want to buy a kayak >> come over, but i'm not allowed to use your car. >> that's true. we might renegotiate that one. this is going to happen and there seems to be a sensitive not inevitability but forces moving in this direction, what are companies going to do jack go how are they going to to this pressure from this sharing economy that a small right now but it's going to grow?

billy parrish? >> i had lunch couple months ago with the chairman of shell. he said they are talking in their management meetings about user distributed clean energy. been doingthey have very well. record profits on this centralized fossil fuel model, but they are talking on a regular basis about how they get to this regular world. they don't know how to do it. they say they will buy it when they see it. that sort of what he said what their approach was. i think a lot of the big incumbents in this industry are beginning to look and see what this will look like. i think it will be more about service and less about new creation. there are opportunities across the value chain that they can step in and create value and

different ways other than extracting from the earth. >> is that going to happen at walmart? becoming a service company? their business model is to push as much tough out the door as possible with shopping cart stuffed to the gills. will they be more service- oriented than consumption oriented? see about we will walmart. in general, i don't feel badly for companies who do not continue to innovate to change the marketplace. the opportunity is there. it is the job of the people who leave these companies to risks and the opportunities implicit to where the market moves. with any new model, one thing we are seeing that's exciting is that there's definitely a lot of conversation about what happens when i give my old blender to lisa and then she doesn't buy a blender? one thing we're seeing right now is because we are friends, abouting to let her know

the example that we saw. immediately, because it's very transparent in the community, someone says they can fix the cord for her. all will be born out of this as a better way of doing things. a few months ago, i would have never said there would be a day when items people post to give away will be somehow the noted with a little bit of attention and there will be whole groups or industries born out of the ability to service, like billy things to get more productivity out of them. >> just the recovery of waste. i read a couple of years ago that a ton of mobile phones actually has more usable gold than a ton of raw gold or. what we are calling waste actually has, in many ways, a ton of value.

, what is sitting around is costing us. there are companies, by the way, as well as cities who have been pretty happily forward thinking and aggressive and testing different things. ge launched ge garage last year which is beginning to experiment with opening up the community of workers and materials to local communities. imaginationo ge eco- challenge. because theyrgy realize new innovation is not coming from within the company but all the invaders are outside who would never come to work for ge. how will they capture that value and invited? they created an interesting crowd sourcing platform.

nike, unilever, big companies all over the world. in the cornerng shaking pretending it's going to go away, but since the very early stages of the internet, it is not that different. >> if you are just joining us, we are talking about the sharing economy with lisa gansky, andy from and billy parish solar mosaic. i am greg dalton. is this about less stuff, less distraction? you have been talking about waste, but particularly carbon pollution is disrupting the global climate. a lot of models are broken here. we're are having some strains. andy? >> when you think of toxins and waste and energy, it is the elephant sitting all around us

we do not talk a lot about, but there is a tremendous amount of embedded energy in any household product. for anyone pounds, there is 71 pounds of waste that went into making it somewhere in the supply chain. options foreat recycling products, but before you recycle, the better option is to get more use out of it. , reuse, recycle. >> the order actually matters there. .t's a phenomenal opportunity inple should continue working on making a shoe a little less energy intensive but it also raises the question as, as i produce this, can it be warned twice as much? you think about that side of the equation and is the first time i'm aware of that we actually beyonde ability to move simply looking out the supply chain and stopping the relationship at the point of

purchase lisa mentioned, with a great upside to innovate and carry that relationship beyond. levis andthe ceo of the ceo of patagonia here recently to talk about the end of the life cycle and also ebay. you are done with that jacket and then it goes on ebay. billy, did you want to get in on that? americans think about energy for six minutes per year. wetially, that's because are just passive energy consumers. for us, we are trying to channel a lot more money into the clean energy economy, financing more solar energy systems to help drive down carbon pollution but it's also about getting people involved and that's one thing that the internet enables. it's a platform for engagement, getting people to not be

passive consumers but also producers, owners in this new economy. we think that will translate into political power, helping to pass more policies to accelerate this transition. one millionhat clean investors on our plot orme, it will show up in sacramento and washington dc in a very different way than an organization that has a lot of e-mails. and are actually investors that's an exciting part of the solution. >> a cool part is thinking about the sonnet as a revenue stream. it is literally dollars going into your 401(k). did you like that? the stock market hits an all- time high today. , howe return you offer does it compare to a traditional banking cd? typically there's more return and more risk. , thee range of returns

expected annual rates of return around 4%. it beats most publicly on thele investment market. but it is more risky. we were thinking that people would want to put solar on their roof or their community center and we would just create a platform for them to get together and we may be able to do that down the road, but we realize we are really creating a investment experience and we are taking a higher road to that, really curating the best credit on our platform, the lowest risk investments that we can. in this get back to the trust question. of thishe challenges new economy is that people really need to be able to trust

that the platform itself is helping to take care of people. major focus at a mosaic. you saw what happened with airbnb. someone had a bad experience and their house got correct -- wrecked. they doubled down on insurance for the renters and i think that is incumbent on these new platforms, going the extra mile and setting a new standard for customer service and protection. i'm sure all of us are thinking about how to even do it better than the existing existing products out there on the market. inyour first round sold out the, what, 20 four hours? faster than anticipated. -- 24 hours? companieshundreds of in the sharing economy where you can share and elegant gown.

lisa, what are some of your favorites occupying an interesting niche for products or services? and yirdle?aic both of them represent interesting classes of business. -- ifk there are a number you look in an everyday i i live my life kind of thing, a lot of the services that are airbnb like, one fine stay, love home swap, they are all slightly different but it does give you a chance to have a different perspective in your own city. i use some of those services when i travel and also around here. it's interesting. you get a really interesting sense of the neighborhood.

recent new entries, obviously these two guys are doing really cool stuff. >> anyway thing else anyone is interested in gecko -- interested in? >> two the views, recently we were going to designing a new logo. we were going through the designs and said that this is sort of what we want in a logo and we got hundreds of designs from designers all round the world. a 16-year-old girl in indonesia who designed a new logo. that is a flat world. right? be inviting your participation here. if you are on this side, we

invite you to come through these doors. and this is often the most lively part of the program. participation. we are talking about the sharing economy of climate. >> i share some of your pain. i think -- what are the new kpi's? >> those being? >> key performance indicators. like how we use to measure economic output and growth. i am very curious to hear your thoughts. what do you see? the thought that came to my mind when you talked about the

blunder, you just impacted the economy in a negative way, but since i do not have to buy the , how do we measure our own? the yardsticks for sharing the economy? >> the measure of transactions versus product, as an entrepreneur u.s. spend money on three things. old models are relative to, say, amazon, amazon has theyrned that in each hand market specifically to you. once they have you as a prime

customer, it is nearly zero for every subsequent transaction. i think that increasingly we will see all sorts of companies going after that. have resigneds themselves to clarity. it is poetic but opens itself up to all sorts of things. i think that it is going to find value. real value in the supply chain will have it coming back. the personal vision of the old, industrial economy becomes very intricate. connectedeople being to these networks.

they're up right now for grabs. >> one thing i will add about the way that the world changes the mobil and information, outer person at the store is 23 spots away from the front door. once you have park your car you are essentially paying a cover charge. gettingwas all about you to park your car at their store. in a world with a mobile phone you can be in a store and buy a product from a competitor's store. ,he endless number of options royalty has always been around in retail. , the the metric is not new role of the plays in a business is why we are seeing models,

like amazon prime and a target life car, they are as much about maintaining the customer as selling items. continue to watch for existing metrics that take on new meanings as technology becomes more prevalent in our lives. >> there is one more that he reminded me of, the value of data, increasingly there is a real value, not only four instances of data, but shared data has more value. so, we are going to see a real shift towards shared things. things being designed for sharing, services being designed for sharing, that will have more value than the ones that were inside. >> you talk about a high-end vacuum cleaner, that will then be designed kind of like cell phones now, as something where you have to buy a subscription,

an upgrade. a lifetime of happy cleaning. >> i do not know about those were going together, but ok. [laughter] >> right, the company may agree to take it back from you and give you something newer and better than you are willing to share data in the exchange. >> kind of what we have been talking about, that is right, these companies, you have seen it slightly happening with cell phones and cars. you 100,000y gives miles, these sorts of things. i think that the products are going to be the responsibility of the manufacturer. they're going to think more wisely about maintenance and building things as platforms so that they are upgradable and how they are point to set up community service things similar to dealerships.

>> so that they break down in a year and you have to buy a new one? >> precisely. they are really looking at -- if they have the responsibility the onus is on -- if the most expensive thing they do is acquiring us as a customer, they do not want to do that every time there is an interaction. but if there is this customer relationship and they continue to perform, they still have to continue to be like us. the cell equivalent of phone contract. anyways, sorry. you have a question? >> i had a personal question. there is another trend that technology is enabling. the personalization of products and how you can get your own stuff cheaper. the 3 d. -- 3 the printer, of personal

basis is this going to break down in such a way as some things will be shared, some things will be personalized? or some things a share and some people do the personalization? >> people and personalization. would you like to tackle that? >> i definitely think that the tension -- i lost your name, but said this woman represented, it is that the maker economy, people being able to make things -- i do not know of venue -- everyone is familiar, derive a design of a computer and prince a 3 d item. for example, a friend of mine had an irrigation system that was expensive to fix. they stand a three dimensional part and after a few hours they had actually made the part.

>> out of line? >> which is amazing. notion that you can print something is, for the moment, quite a geeky thing. having been in the photo business, many companies thought that everyone would have totaled printers in the house and printing photos. i am guessing that not many of us do that. there were people, like 99 designs, which they referred to earlier, i think that what they will see is this aggregation of makers, artists, architects, designers, who can come up with cool things and then have access the platforms, three printers at king chose, your house, or a co working space or factory opened up as a platform. i think we will see all sorts of

ways in which there is a decoupling of people capable of designing things who have an infrastructure that allows those things to be made. >> that sounds creative, innovative, and disruptive. who is threatened by this? >> not the three of us. [laughter] >> one of the comments that we said just made, the question of personalization, these are options that can be brought together in terms of what they're looking for. that comment made is right, when we talk about at sea, platform and that has not existed before. when you are looking for experience you can put together something like that, something where some things are borrowed. some of it might be down the road. havehe ability to still

these options, the weighted to bill sharing is not that people buy things they did not know, it is that sharing will increasingly become a go to option for a suite of things and for many things and many occasions it will be a smarter option, saving money, resources, creating more human connection. it does not mean that people do not make anything, it is the question of access to sharing, makers, and new items, put together in a way that allows the retailer. >> sounds more like the economy where people work more independently as freelancers. a less large, centralized kind of economy. manufacturing is decentralized? >> more so than today. we may also have seen a

number of articles about the working spaces that are being used by big corporations all over the world because they realize that it is an interesting way not to create their own co working space, but to submersed their teams into public co working spaces because it creates more interaction, surface area, and awareness. schering has an opportunity for serendipity that might be programming that things lack. >> it is that people come up with ideas. >> like i said, the surprise inside is what happens in the personal aspect of the sharing economy. it is what these guys refer to as the community. i think that word is meant to be different things to different people, depending on who is talking about it, but the

community in the beginning -- i do not know the current stats, but up to three years ago more than 40% of the people buying were makers who were taking some of their money and buying from other makers. >> one big craft fair. >> yes, and that case. but the size of the craft fair is pretty impressive. like as said, 619,000 new members per month. these things are brought in rapidly. i think that the general economy, we are making a shift and a fundamental aspect, the word the hit on, is distributive. torything being contained driving agents and to invite openness, transparency, and

transportation. >> a few times the word community has come up and i thought i would take a couple of attempts at an example of that. retail spaces tend to be very transactional. as we look at the way that this world changes, recently at many of you have upgraded memory on mcintosh at home. i have four megs of memory that typically i would have allowed to sit in a clause that. upgrading computers in the san francisco unified school district. it and it is onehe american

of the more unexpected areas, beautiful moments that you are not used to in a retail cents where you are so appreciative of finding the transaction. that is the unexpected benefit for me. >> that does not show up in gdp? >> it does not. >> one country involved in that economy in australia is something like this that car, but for scooters. what do you think the future sharing these will go? [inaudible] already use? potential for be people trying new things, getting new services? who likes kidder is highway to get around. skitter is a way to get

around. or it will be a new market by itself. view is that a lot of the economy invites trials. tapas bar. a i said tapas. [laughter] little taste of things. the electric scooter, try a cool card in your thinking of buying. we have seen, for example, people trying out neighborhoods or co working spaces, a lot of those things have invited an exploration of an experience or neighborhood. on the other hand, i think --ple are using the services

some in the we started in brooklyn is called trade school. they subsequently built a platform where they have them popping up in singapore. works ishat this basically you get to know your neighbors because to teach each other the things your passionate about and you give each other classes. it is completely a barter system. these that people have interesting experiences and then they move on to taking down these kinds of explorations to do something else. hacker spaces are another really good example where i think people try things that would not have otherwise tried and they decide maybe they want to be a

designer or they have access to laser engraving or something that they themselves would not buy but would love to learn how to use. one of the things that the economy there invites is that typically out of reach experiences that many of us would like to have the to not know how to access, suddenly there is this service that is all about that. i found out, by the way, there is cheese making in sentences go. >> my question is related to the constraints within the business model. it seems like the majority of these work essentially because there is excess capacity or gift -- low utilization rates. let's say that the utilization rate is 60%, it seems like they would be willing to take a lower price, but at some point when , youo from 60% to 80%

would take a low price, but from .0% at what point do you want to tap out? 80% of the out engineer used month-on-month. that is what we are not using to the extent of pain to hold onto it. up an injury swinging, we have gone to the where a patagonia

jacket for a 6-year-old could get worn by 256-year-old's and go on hundreds the ski trips and be as good that day as it was the data was made. so, not only do we use the capacity that we have to make use of it, but there are continuing models but are well capacity.red and has outweighed a deeply imbedded cultural capacity for something new and better. wearing his hand me down,

somehow lesser. it keeps you just as warm, but we have this deep become a strong cultural bias for things that are new. >> that is correct, there is a bias toward the new. that you get from someone else might be worth half of what it should be worth. the patagonia that i get from someone i care about is twice. time i play the game othello, i think of pam. it is a $9 game, but to me it is worth more because we're using that game when he played. that is important for the general model in the collection. take something you are not using and share it with something you are caring about.

have to wrap it up. any last words? >> a lot of what we were organized about and what you referred to was the economy equaling security. coming to iswe are being connected = security. because we are connected to people me trust and can choose to be organizing in communities, that is giving us our confidence. the bay area during the 1989 earthquake, self-organizing communities happened during quickly and bond very deeply. i am seeing that all round the world. the technology has really allow us to make connections that are brazilian and fun. >> that will happen more as we face more destruction from the

communities that are most resilience in responding to the kinds of things that we have been told are coming our way. >> quick comments, hurricane sandy, after the storm, clever people figured out they could use the registry, wedding registry from amazon and use the wedding registry from amazon to figure out who needed what from within their community so that they could then distribute to those people and families. i think the point that we are all making is that we have an incredible physical and digital imperative of the things we have and opportunities to be connected and aware and play it is a greatr, way to reduce carbon but also to build ties. >> after hurricane sandy some of the distributed solar power worked better than the old centralized model.

you will have to end it there. thank you for listening. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] energy issues facing the u.s., including hydraulic author of the power surge. >> as the comprehensive immigration reform package makes its way through the senate? the bipartisan reform center look at how it could affect the economy. the panel included douglas told z-eakin.d -- holt

this is an hour of a hat -- hour-and-a-half. >> i will start with dr. lynch, on my rights. he is a senior research fellow at the educational institute dedicated to progressive ideas. a nonpartisan think tank created to explore policy on low and middle-income workers. ofitled the economic effect thategal status concluded they could boost gdp from $832 billion to $1.40 trillion, depending on the time frame, increasing american and come.

ingraduated with a degree international economics from georgetown university. he received a ph.d. in economics from suny stony brook. to his left, but with eakin, former director of the congressional budget office, most recently the commissioner on the congressionally chartered crisis commission. he previously served under former president george of the bush. for the john mccain presidential campaign. he has been researching economic policy. he is the author of the april 2013 paper, "immigration

reform," where he argues that it would raise gdp per-capita by over $1,500. his left is dr. stephen cammerota, director of research for washington, d.c.-based research institutes. he has written and testified before congress extensively, including his 2004 paper the high cost of cheap labor. he has a doctorate from the university of pennsylvania. last but not least we have dr. robert rector from the conservative think tank in washington, d.c., a study in , he was heavily involved

in crafting the welfare reform bill for u.s. taxpayers. is also focused on how to fix american immigration and focus on the broad overhaul of 2007. his recent paper, the fiscal cost of amnesty to the u.s. taxpayer, looks of the ethics created by the program as $6.30 trillion. fromlds a master's degree johns hopkins university. now i would like to turn it over to our panelists for some brief opening statements. look at the economic

costs and benefits of immigration reform. analysissis of my starts from the understanding of the redistributive nature of government. to psychoanalysis applies government in general. i look at total taxes paid in and all the benefits paid by individuals, including national defense, looking essentially of how much is redistributive from the upper class to the bottom half of the population. is roughly $1 trillion transferred from the top to the bottom, not particularly controversial. the other thing that i showed this startling, the average

household in the united states ,eceives $34,000 for year implying it they would have to pay that in taxes to break-even. not many households pay that much in taxes. the issue then gets stronger, because when you look at the least advantaged households with the lowest levels of education they received over $48,000 a year in benefits and only pay 8,000 in taxes. so there is a net deficit there, minus of around $38,000 a year. if you look at some of the other households, they are exactly the opposite. they pay about $30,000 a year more in taxes than they pay in benefits. so overall we have a massive system of redistribution in which we provide lots and lots

of benefits to the least advantaged americans and don't ask much of them in taxes. although, they do. they pay taxes. i look at that. i calculate how much lottery tax, how much tobacco excise tax. in my analysis, we have over 30 different individual areas of taxes -- taxation. it's a -- it's a holistic analysis. w, the question venus vee -- vis-a-vis analogy, you have people with an average education of 10th grade. once you get above the window, all those amnesty recipients will be eligible for over 80 different means estimates.

they will be eligible for obama care. they will also be eligible for social security and medicare when they retire. recognizing that, in fact, these individuals have on average a 10th grade education, giving them access to all those benefits is extremely expensive and is not going to be financed by those individuals themselves. they are in fact in deficit at each stage of their life cycle. they will always receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. that is not necessarily a bad thing. but it is the nature of the thing. to understand the fiscal consequences, you have to understand the current nature of redistribution. i then look and say, what happens in you granted these 10 million or 11 million people access to all those benefits? i use a simple methodology to do that. i look at the current unlawful immigrants. i assume once they have access to all those benefits, they will

pay taxes and receive benefits in the same way that a current legal immigrant receives them at the present time who has the same education level at the same age. i look for example at an illegal immigrant who does not have a high school degree, and half of them don't, who is maybe 35 years old. i look at a legal immigrant who is exactly like that, and i measure what the fiscal deficit is. the reality is then that these individuals, each household, once they gain access to all these programs, which they do under this legislation, each household will run a deficit of around $23,000 a year in benefits, minus taxes. once they hit retirement, the deficit will be around $22,000 per person. it is not far fetched because all i am doing is saying, look, once you legalize, then the illegal is going to receive

benefits the same way that a similar legal immigrant currently does. and that's a lot of benefits. it's a lot of transfers. the bottom line is fairly simple. the united states -- some of us say, we don't want a cradle-to-grave welfare state. we have had a cradle-to-grave welfare state for 50 years. we have had the largest social security retirement system in the globe or at least in the top five. we also have the most expensive public education system at $12, 300 per pupil per year, which is largely free or nearly free to lower income households. they get that service, but we don't ask them to pay very much in taxes in exchange for that service. now we are taking a population of 10 million people with an average education level of 10th grade and plugging them into all those benefits. they are already partially plugged in.

we fully plug them in. i am asking the question, what does that cost? the average illegal immigrant is 34 years old. under this bill you are granting them lifefime entitlement to these benefits for the rest of their lives. on average they will live an additional 50 years. that's the time frame in which these costs will be imposed on the taxpayer. once you look at that analysis and you assume that the unlawful immigrants once legalized will have the same deficit status of the current legal immigrant with the same education level, then these costs simply unfold year after year after year, and over the course of 50 years, they will receive about $9 trillion in government benefits, pay about $3 trillion in taxes during that period for a net deficit of $6 trillion that someone else has to pay for, or else it has to be funded by increasing the deficit. it doesn't mean that these people are bad or evil or anything, or that they are lazy. one of the myths behind this is

that some people think, well, if someone comes here and works, they inevitably must be net taxpayers. they must pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. that really hasn't been true since the 1920's. the largest cash welfare program in the united states today is the earned income tax credit. it is only available to parents that work, ok? there is a lot of myth out here that people do not understand the nature of the redistribution because they have not caught up with what government has been doing for the last 40 years or so. i any that it is -- i think that it is unfortunate, but given the fiscal status of our country, we cannot afford to throw away $6 trillion on individuals whose claim to those resources is simply that they came here and violated our laws. we can't afford to do that to

this nation. it is an unnecessary burden on taxpayers which we should not create. >> doctor? >> i would like to thank you for inviting me here to the bipartisan policy committee. let me start by saying that when you think about the issue of immigration, there are three basic issues that often get confused, but they are not really the same thing. let me run through them. one, there is the impact of immigration on the aggregate, the overall size of the u.s. economy. there simply is no question immigration makes the economy bigger by well over a trillion dollars a year by having all this extra labor in the united states. if anyone says immigration does not make the g.d.p. larger, then that's false. it certainly is the case that g.d.p. is larger. again, by over a trillion dollars. there is simply no question about that. however, an overall larger

g.d.p. is not existent to the native population. as you know, pam pakistan has a larger good good than ireland. no one says pakistan is a richer country. what matters is per capita g.d.p. or per capita income. there is a way to measure on the per capita income of the native born. ere are some well developped -- developed methodology. it is called the immigrant surplus. what that shows is that 98% of that extra g.d.p., that extra added to our economy from immigration, goes to the immigrants themselves in the orm of wages and benefits. there is a tiny benefit to the native born equaling about .2% of g.d. p. it is called the immigrant surplus.

the good news is, g.d.p. does create a benefit to the native born. so it is relative to the size of the u.s. economy. that's the second issue. now, if you accept the idea that there is an immigrant surplus, then you have to accept the redistribution of income that immigration creates. this has to do with future flows or allowing immigration to stay. redistributing about $400,000 in the u.s. economy. it is mainly doing it, but by no means exclusively 0, by the less educated to the workers of capital. here is a quick way to think about it. immigration is not evenly distributed throughout the economy. about 6% of lawyers in the united states are foreign born. that gives you an idea of the labor shock there. t about 49% of the hotels -- hotel maids in the united states are foreign born.

so of the 800,000 u.s. maids, immigration creates a lot of competition. as it does for the millions of meat and poultry processors in the united states who are u.s. born because about 60% of the meat and poultry processors are u.s. born but about 40% are immigrants. for journalists, another low immigrant occupation. only about 10% are foreign born. for english language speaking jury roomists, it is even lower. but for unanimousies, mades -- , there nannies and maids is a lot of competition. the fasth that the business community in the united states fights so hard to keep immigration high and have a latively lax and unin-- laxe and uninforced immigration law those t presume that

wages go to them. or they presume it does. the impact on the overall size of the economy, which is almost irrelevant to whether it benefits natives. there the impact on the overall size of the economy, which is almost irrelevant to whether it benefits natives. there is this immigrant surplus, which should be positive, but it must come with redistribution, and you have to decide how you feel about taking income away from the less educated and the poor and giving it to ememployers and more educated employers.

this confirms something the national academy of science found in its research over a decade ago. they estimate that an immigrant that comes in with a high school education has a net fiscal drain of taxes, minus services used of about $35,000 during their lifetime. obviously those numbers would be larger if you adjusted for inflation. what we see here is exactly the same phenomena. we see 65% of households headed y immigrants use benefits. i'm just including public housing and medicaid. we see households headed by immigrants have low tax liability. about 70% have zero federal income tax liability. this is not a fully developed model.

what it tells you is, when thinking about immigration, it is the education level that matters. my own research, pugh hispanic center, and others, indicate that illegal workers are overwhelmingly unskilled. 75% are thought to have no education beyond high school. so only 25% with a high school that ion, and less than have a college education. people do not come close to paying their share of taxes for consumption of services. this is not the result of the im grants unwillingness to work. it is not because they are lazy. it is not because they came to get welfare. rather in the modern economy, people with very little education don't make much. education, as you know, has become increasingly important. it turns out your mother was right when she told you to stay in school.

what you make in life is very much determined by education. what you pay in taxes reflects your income. and of course your eligibility for you and your children also reflects your income. anyone that argues less educated immigrants or natives, for that matter, can pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services simply just doesn't know what the data shows or they are being disingenuous. one final statistic to highlight the fact that this is not being caused by a lack of work, if you look at immigrant households receiving one or more household welfare programs, 86% had at least one worker during the year. we are going to have a welfare state. i don't see a desire to fundamentally and completely change that. you have to have an immigration system that reflects that reality and selects skilled immigrants who won't create the fiscal cost. the imimmigration bill increases skilled immigration in the

future because it will double -- legal immigration, we are going to take in instead of one million green cards, under this bill it looks like it goes to about two million. about half that increase is unskilled. about half that increase is skilled. to put it differently, we accelerate family immigration and we create new avenues for unskilled immigration. it is not clear if this bill changes the skilled mix of immigrants very much. in the past it looked like half of all immigrants only had a high school education. so in the future when thinking about this, we have to have a policy that reflects these realitied. remember, in 1910, federal and state g.d.p., immigrants could not create a large fiscal cost. today the size and scope of government is fundamentally different, and we need an immigration process that reflects that. with regard to illegals, that means how ever many we let stay, if we decide to do that, each

incremental increase increases the cost. if we let half of them stay, that's more costly than letting a quarter stay. if we let three-fourths stay, that's more than costly. so that's the thing we have to think about when trying to weave our way through this. in conclusion, it is important not to think of these fiscal costs as some kind of moral deficit of the applicant. rather it reflects the reality, it reflects illegal immigrants, mostly all adults, and the existence of a well developed welfare state. thank you. >> i want to thank the bipartisan policy center for first of all having this event and inviting me to participate. i want to take a moment to applaud the commission. i worked with the b.b.c. in the past, and it is uniquely a place that fosters this kind of dialogue on tough issues and make sure all points of views

get represented. that's something i think should be applauded, especially in this town. this is a difficult set of issues. you can look at it from a couple different dimensions. as a former academic, i don't want to bore you to tears. -- set of dimensions is the [cell phone ringing] force my favorite tune. [laughter] a first set of issues has to do with -- can we keep them on the line when we are trying to hire those who reside here legally? another issue has to do with dollars and sense, economic issues, federal budget issues. that's an important set of issues to discuss. i want to come back to them.

it is also important in the theme of the event, when we talk about cost, to recognize this raises very difficult issues in valuation. what is board security worth? this is a fundamental issue we face when we talk about the defense budget. what is the value we place on having a secure nation? the same is going to be true for these issues in the evaluation of legal issues, internal security, the diminished criminal threat that might come from a sensible immigration reform plan. i want to recognize that at the outset. we don't want to hijack the debate over things we can measure, when in fact there are things difficult to measure that may be more important in the end. we can measure things about budget and economics. to me, the most central feature of the debate we are having for the first time is that we are recognizing the importance of immigration as an economic olicy.

it is a demographic fact that the native born population is having so few children that in the absence of immigration we will shrink as a population and an economy. so that by our choices in immigration laws, we are choosing the future of the american population, we are choosing the future of the american labor force, and we are choosing as a result of our economic policy how fast we will grow and what we will look like as a nation. that's not the tradition of u.s. immigration law. that's not how we thought about it. we have always based our laws on principles of family reunification. we are now out of step with the rest of the world as a result. we have less than 10% of our visas granted for economic reasons. our competitors realize immigration is a powerful tool and have moved away from that. we see a shift in the exclusive

reliance of this to economic considerations. i applaud that. we need to grow more rapidly as a nation, and there are trem does potential benefits to that. we know that compared to the native born population immigrants work more. they have higher labor force participation. they work longer. they have more small businesses. they demonstrates the traits of trep neural zeal -- of . trepreneurial zeal i have done back of the envelope calculations, and others have as well. we can look into that. that's another part of the debate. it bridges -- brings with it, other parts of the fiscal considerations. i just want to emphasize that to me, all we have seen in the discussion so far and in this debate is we have proven that an unsustainable american social safety net will have more bodies in it. social security is broken. the current plan that keeps it

, nowarle -- actuarily sound private company could get away with it. that's a system that needs to be fixed. right now the gap between medicare payroll taxes and spending going out, $300 billion a year. a third of the trillion deficit you heard about. a third of beneficiaries every day going to fall under its own financial weight and it will fall in the process. that needs to be addressed. huge burden on state budgets. it is going to have to be fixed. these are fundamentally broken systems that will not survive. they certainly will not survive if we put more people into them. that has nothing to do with immigration. it has nothing to do with decisions we make about immigration. if we have a baby boom and put

more americans into that system, we will fall apart in the same way. that's something that needs to be recognized, needs to be fixed. big problem. we are behind the curve on getting it solved. but it is not an immigration problem. we need to go back to ask the questions that we want to about the immigration system. what are the things we can accomplish on security? what are the things we can accomplish in our economic to h, and what do we want look at and evaluate in the quality of bills that come through congress? thank you. >> thank you for having me here. be ath is what will happening with the illegal immigrants currently in the united states. what is indisputable is that

undocumented immigrants right now are earning far less, paying much less in taxes, and contributing much less to the u.s. economy than they potentially could. what we know is that if we granted them legal status and a path to zip we -- citizenship we would see increases in productivity and taxes paid. it's important to note, too, that the income would increase while it was primarily the taxes of the undocumented that would go up dramatically. why is this happening? there are three questions that we should be asking. first of all, how do we knows these positive issues would come from citizenship? we know this because there has been a lot of research that has followed millions of undocumented immigrants from before they were legal until after they were legal.

the best studies and all of these studies have shown significant improvements in productivity. the department of energy that analyzed what happened to the roughly three million undocumented immigrants who were granted legal status in 1986 from president reagan, the department of labor found within five years -- that is after they got legal status but after they were granted citizenship, their productivity increased by 15%. numerous other studies have found larger increases. there are other studies that show an added boost. so when you go from legal status to citizenship there is a 12% to 15% increase in the productivity of those workers. so the second question we should be asking is, all right, why does that happen? why does changing one's legal status boost a person's

productivity? we know that quite well. there are many reasons, and i will just mention three of them. one is that when we see formerly illegal immigrants acquire legal status, we see dramatic changes in their behavior. one of the key things we see is significant increases in their investment in ed -- education and training and improving their english language ability which increases their productivity. number four, when we learn someone is illegal, we know they are at risk of deportation. so we know then regardless of their skill level, they tend to pursue occupations that are low paying and low profile where they are less likely to be discovered. that's why we know they go into agricultural and cleaning services and child care services. and we know exactly what happens once they acquire legal status. many of them move into jobs which are more closely -- which

more closely match their skill set. for example, you may have the nurse from bolivia who worked here as a nanny. once she acquires legal status, she applies a job at a hospital, and she is working three and four times as much as before, producing four and five times as much as before. so legalization makes the whole u.s. labor market more efficient and more productive. and thirdly, as dr. holt-egan mentioned, once you acquire legal status, you also get access to things that are key it -- to creating jobs. you get access to permits, licenses, and insurance that you cannot get when you are illegal. we know from numerous studies that newly legalized immigrants are much more entrepreneurial than the native born americans. so any immigration reform that

unleashes this tretchnurl otential -- this entrepreneurial potential is going to boost the economy and boost u.s. jobs. the third question you should ask, is what is the economic impact? in my research -- not only that, but important for this discussion here today, what are the budgetary implications of that economic impact? in my own proich, i was looking t -- in my own research, i was looking at what happens when you legalize the 11 million undocumented and provide them a path to citizenship. i found that as a bottom line their productivity would increase after legalization by at least 25%. again, i am at the very bottom. other studies have shown it is larger than 25%. what impolitics does that have for the government budget? my study, which i did with my

co-author, patrick oakford, we did not calculate the budget impacts. but for the sake of today's discussion, i went back and did some calculations, and i came up with a number that can be compared to the number just mentioned. what i looked at is, if we provide legalization and citizenship, what will happen to the earnings of all americans and the taxes they pay and what will happen to the services that the legal immigrants will now have access to. when we look at the whole impact, he found at minimum, it will have a positive effect of $ 200 billion over the first 10 years. you should compare that number to the astonishing $6.3 trillion that mr. recollector -- mr. rector just mentioned. let me just say one final point. mr. rector's study is riddled th methodical --

methodological errors. one error alone reverses his results. what his studies proves is that immigration reform would be a huge financial boon to the united states. exactly the opposite of what he thinks it proves. >> thank you to you all. i also want to thank becky and the bipartisan policy center for allowing me to moderate. i am going to open it up for q & a. there is a bill that just came out of the senate judiciary economy. it will go on the floor next month. i want you to talk about who has done this in the past well in terms of minimizing economic costs and maximizing economic benefits. is there anything to be learned by policymakers engaged in this

debate from that experience that e can look at and apply? >> i would say when you look around the globe, policymakers are saying each model is highly redistributive. in those economies, the government is going to redistribute from the better educated to the less educated. there is no moral fault of the ones that are the recipients. that's really what government has done through the 20th century, and it is doing it increasingly. then these governments are saying, we have to tailor our immigration system to reflect that distribution. we don't want to bring in people who will be a net fiscal cost. in the context of the united states, it is not rocket science to understand that a college educated person pays more in taxes than they receive in benefits. someone that does not have a

high school degree does pretty much exactly the opposite. if you bring in lots of people that don't have a high school degree, someone will have to pay or those fiscal costs. i ask anyone, the man on the street, everyone understands a protective system that we support the least advantaged american workers by giving them the services and not asking them to pay much in taxes. the public generally accepts that. the problem is, when you try to apply that same system of generous redistribution and support to a population that is overwhelmingly poorly educated. and i would make the comment. we would have these same costs if this was a baby boom growth. we wouldn't. because if you had a baby boom growth with the general u.s. population, only 10% of the people that would grow up would not have a high school degree.

with the illegal immigrants, it is over 50%. so the fiscal redistribution is massively different. with immigration in general, even with legal immigration, our system, and i think uniquely our system, has allowed in a disproportionate number of people who have low levelsful education compared to those who are better educated and delby impose costs on the u.s. taxpayer that are largely unnecessary. we should stop doing that. >> one country that does not do that is japan. the reality will be every country faces their own politics.

we face our own politics. one of the things that i think is important to recognize in , we don't have a just a temporary worker program. we don't have a debate just about what will be earned legalization. we don't have a debate about any of those things. it is the character of the u.s. that we do bipartisan reforms, especially when they are big, and they have to touch on all those issues. the question we have to answer as a result, is not what we think about each of those pieces, but what is the impact of the legislation and how does it change the lay of the land? that's been true in other countries and it will be true in he u.s. as well.

>> when you look at those programs, how do they respond to the economic needs the united states is facing right now? >> i would argue in a nutshell that the bill is out of touch with the reality of what americans are facing. right now we have about a 10 million job deficit. if you take the existing population and you want too get it back to where it was in 2007, you need 10 million jobs. in the next 10 years, we would need about another seven million. in the next 10 years we need about 17 million jobs just to get back to 2007. this bill legalizes workers. he doubles illegal immigration. so about 14 million or 15 million of those individuals

will be looking for jobs along with that 17 million of the exiting. in addition to that, it creates new huge guest worker programs that will admit 700,000 new people. in a nutshell, this coming decade is not the greatest jobs bonanza is what we have seen in american history. what we are going to see is what we have seen -- increased unemployment. some people say, well, the immigrants won't come if there are no jobs, right? but let me give you an example. between 2002 and 2012, there was a net loss of four million jobs. we still gave out five million green cards. the new census status shows at least 16 million immigrants came in and we had a net cane of about four million jobs over that time. what that says is, you can still stimulate immigration because life is better here than some other countries.

but it does not necessarily increase job growth. it can in the future, but it hasn't in the past. what we have seen in the united states is little or no wage growth for u.s. workers and a dramatic increase for nonwork. and each increase is likely to xacerbate that problem more. >> he talked about the job loss between 2007 and 2006. that was when the bulk of the immigration came in. we issued five million green cards. people applied for green cards ive or 10 or 15 years ago.

when they happen to get them is irrelevant to the system. those numbers do not really reflect what goes on in the economy. >> i think it is really important to take the long view in this. >> i think something important to recognize is, it didn't work over a long period of tifmente we don't do immigration every year in the united states. we do it once every 30 years if things break the right way. so to evaluate the economics of a reform legislation on the basis of current labor markets conditions i think is fundamentally a mistake. it is the case that the american economy is a remarkable thing. it has on average fully employed its people over hundreds of years, even though we get bigger and bigger and bigger all the time through both immigration and job growth. that is the nature of a successful economy. it grows the economy. i have little doubt about the capacity of the u.s. economy to

employ people from both fronts in the future. so i think that's important. the second is, you know, let's get the metrics right. if we take your numbers, that's two million immigrants a year. that's 20 million immigrants legally. that's -- over a decade, that's an important number that swamps the 10 or 11 that are here illegally. 0 let's evaluate the legislation on the basis of what it will do over the long hall. and the core there is, what happens to the visas? what happens to the temporary work programs? and most importantly, what happens to our core visa granting system and what does it do to our economy? >> i think that's a very important point. the bill is very complicated. the bill, what i will say here, my initial assessment of the bill. when i look at the high skilled visas in the bill, and then i look at essentially all the

low-skilled categories in the visa, and it is extremely complicated, i see two low-skilled workers coming in for every high-skilled worker. maybe that's not it. but to characterize the bill as a high-skilled bill is not true. i actually think not only would amnesty cost money, but also potentially, all of the low-skilled legal immigration that would come in would also cost money. we have these guest worker programs in here. w visa. we have a guest worker visa. have access ple do to green cards. they can become citizens in the long term. they get to bring their dependents with them. they would impose fiscal costs similar to the cards. they can become citizens in the long term. they get to bring their dependents with them. they would impose fiscal costs similar to the current he will little population. i think a real understanding is

we expect the better educated people to pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits and we transfer that surplus to others. so therefore a college educated person coming in also creates a fiscal surplus of around $30,000 a year. most of the other immigrants, particularly those with a high school degree or less are exactly the opposite. they are net tax consumers. their costs have to be subsidized by someone else. the other thing i would say is, i think the literature is very clear, i think the high levels of low-skilled immigration has driven down the wages of the least skilled, least advantaged american workers i believe by around $2,600 a year. this is also supported by the worltpoth who i think is the best immigration expert in the country. i would say someone who works

with the poor and welfare costs and those issues, that the last thing in the world we should do as a nation is have an immigration policy that drives down the wages of the least advantaged, most vulnerable american workers. we owe them something as american citizens, and we should not have an immigration policy that makes it more difficult for them to participate in the american dream. >> you wanted to respond? >> these are all tough issues when you think about it. on sort of substance, it is important to remember that market value skills, we're not very good at that. notice that high school, college, all thodse categories -- those categories that the analysts like to use, we don't turn into market value modifications. we notice that we need more welders. we don't put welders on high

school applications. they make lots of money. the current bill, i'm not fond of committees in congress writing caps and dictating what the supply curves indicate in the economy. i would say the less we do that and the more we make these responsive to conditions on the ground, that's better. that brings up the third reality of politics. that is that none of us are going to like everything about this bill. i view major aeducation in this ofntry as the inglorious art to agree and up pass a bill. this bill is on track, i would say, to disgruntle many. >> usually when we do that, it costs the taxpayers a fortune. >> on this issue, this is just completely misplaced. the reality is that low-wage

americans are competing with low-wage people all across the globe. it doesn't matter if they are across the street, across the country, or across the ocean. the competition is already there. them moving does not change the nature of the wages they are going to receive fortunate of the competition. t is a complete nonsequiter. borhost was the research.rson in this he has since been passed by researchers that have surpassed what he did 20 years ago. if you look at the emin any event research done in the 1990's to 2000 of david card, he analyzed a specific issue. is it true when immigrants come in they push down the wages of low-skilled american workers?

the answer is, no. they did not find any such effect. in fact, if anything, they found an increase in the wages of the low skilled american workers. so their citing studies that is really more than 20 years out of date. more recent data shows either no effect or a positive effect. >> professor lynch, i can disagree very strongly. i keep up with this literature. i have contributed to it. he is absolutely wrong. he is still considered the top guy. and perry's work has been shredded. there is a whole article explaining all his method ological mistakes. we have to agree to disagree strongly. >> it is not just perry, it is dozens of dollars. >> there is a good paper looking at the job displacement effect of immigration on workers. there is a lot of stuff out there. you and i may disagree on what that literature shows.

that partly, i think, suggests how con 10ous -- contentious this is. i think most studies show it does displace people, just like what you would think with common sense. >> if i can drop in, with all respect, in is a disagreement here, but i think we need to understand where people are coming from. david card, a very good economist, but his claim to fame is research that shows that raising the minimum wage has no effect on jobs for low skilled workers. most people on the conservative side of the spectrum would find that really not good research. it is essentially the same here. >> i want to move on to one other issue before we open it up to questions. i am going to raise health care, and then if you would like to respond to who benefits from the

economic reform that comes from immigration, you can do that. but as doug is well aware, as a former c.b.o. director, c.b.o. scores things for over 10 years. dr. rector has a much larger time horizon, but clearly one of the huge lead substantial costs here beyond the 10-year window is going to be health care. i wonder if you could talk about how you affect those costs to look and how much of that comes from the affordable care act and how much of a factor that is in getting this bill through congress. we know the house group working on this has been hamstrung over this issue. they have been looking at what to use in the absence of giving the affordable care act benefit to undocumented immigrants when they are in their provisional status. so if you could talk about the costs of granting an access eventually to the affordable care act, and also the cost of

the alternative. what would happen in the absence of that in terms of emergency medical care or whatever the alternative might be. >> i think basically people need to understand the c.b.o. legislation game. i think each of these bills has a fundamental principle which is designed to deceive legislatures -- legislators and the american public. >> i reserve time. >> ok, good. the name of that game is the 10-year c.b.o. budget window and attempts to refocus the debate there. in each of these bills what you find is that individuals are granted legal status, but they are not given access to government benefits. in this case, with the exception of the i.t.c., for 10 or 12 years. they move beyond the 10-year window. therefore the budget window looks very bright. we actually brict the deficits of the illegal immigrants -- we

actually predict the deficits of the illegal immigrants will go down. for the first 10 years, there is not a lot of cost. once you get out around year 10, they become eligible for all these things, including obama care at that point. we predict the cost of obama care will be $28 billion a year. we also believe they will receive a substantial amount of medicaid as some of them are injured. when they retire, they will receive benefits. those are in constant 2010 numbers. the actual cost will be higher because medical costs go up faster than inflation. it is partially because of the fact that legislators can't really face the real cost which everyone is acknowledging occurs when you give people access to these programs. we have over 80 different programs to assist poor people. the adult illegal immigrants

don't get those now. they don't get social security or medicare. those are programs that when you put them in there, the costs over the long term are very large. >> with my c.b.o. hat on, c.b.o. doesn't pick the budget. 15 years in ts for the united states, and that's dictated by the choices of the congress and the office of management and budget. the c.b.o. just follows their wishes. the c.b.o. has nothing to do with what congress wants to do. congress writes laws which actually take advantage of the 10-year budget window. i would say the leading practitioner of this was the affordable care act itself which was riddled with gimmicks over the 10-year window. this is not a c.b.o. problem, this is your congress at work. you can like it or not like it, but that's that. the second thing, c.b.o. does a of of long-term estimates

the type that mr. rector has done. long-term budget outlooks. in every case, it is important to give perspective to those numbers. $1.50 now is very different from $1.50 in 10 years. we have to show how little it is relative to now or relative to the size of the economy. so if you look at the kind of spending we are worried about in the heritage study, there are $200,000 in federal spending. so get something and scale it to something people understand. when you get to the affordable care act sts -- act itself, i think i have a good track record of saying this wasn't the best move that america ever made. i think every immigrant should be exempt from it. it is an inhospital pittable way able way to greet

people to these shores. but things will have to be changed, as will medicaid. that is not an immigration debate. that's about the fact that we have over-committed in these programs. the only way it shows up in the immigration debate is if you go past 10 years and you start trying to do calculations over 50 years to something sensible, you have to then make some tough calls. are you going to recognize that social security is going to get cut in half by 25%? i don't think you did, so you are assuming some sort of social security fix. are you assuming that you will somehow keep medicare from going bankrupt. so if you are not recognizing those cuts, you are assuming some type of reform. we put the analysts in the position of being a future congress. that just tells you that we really don't know what these situations look like. >> but what we do know --

>> no, you don't. >> we know having people in them creates a bigger fiscal problem. >> but you don't know the numbers. you can't count the numbers when it relies on a future number you can't specify. cut no policy change is you social security by 25%. you can't have it both ways. >> i don't think congress is going to do that. >> what i do think, based on historical example, is when those programs go to be reformed, and they have to be, ok? the people at the very bottom who are getting for example the social security minimum benefit, and i predict the illegals will get something similar to that, the basic medicare benefit for the poorist americans, i predict that those things will not be cut. i think we can assume that. and therefore as we alter social security and medicare in the future, i think that this

population, with an average 10th grade education is largely going to be protected from those cuts, and they will impose greater costs that other people have to bear more sacrifices in order for those costs to be born. i think that's a simple assumption. we don't know exactly what's going to happen. we do know that amnesty will make all the choices in the future more difficult. >> to do proper fiscal analysis, what you have to do is compare what will happen to the budget in the future to what will happen in the budget if we do immigration reform. for example, if we were going to run a $7.3 trillion deficit in the future, but by doing immigration reform we will only have a $6.3 trillion deficit, then you have to conclude the immigration reform will have a huge positive impact on the u.s. budget. all right? mr. rector does not do it that

way. he does a very different thing. he doesn't do the counter-factual. he doesn't estimate what it will cost to cover the illegal immigrant to what it would cost to do no immigration reform. >> that's not true. >> it is a fact. on page 29 of his report he tells you for the time that his $6.3 trillion does not represent the net fiscal cost. he explains on page 30 that in order to do it properly you have to subtract the cost of the unlawful immigrants under no reform. but then he said, that's not a serious oversight on my part, because the cost of doing nothing is not very significant, it is only about $1 trillion. you have to ask yourself a question right away. how is it possible that if we do no immigration reform illegal immigrants cost us $1 trillion but if we do immigration reform they cost us $6.3 trillion?

stunning difference. there is a good reason why. there is an asum should not shun he makes on page 30 of his report. he assumes under no immigration reform something astonishing. he assumes under age 55 all illegal immigrants in america return to their country of origin. they self-deport. therefore in the last 30 years of his analysis, there is zpeer owe cost. in the next paragraph he acknowledges that will never happen. he acknowledges it will never happen because it is something any researcher can tell you. right now the vast majority of illegal immigrants who are adults in america have u.s.-born children who are u.s. citizens and who at age 21 can ask for legal residency for their unlawful parents. and in fact legal residency is almost always granted. so he acknowledges that in fact they won't self-deport. then he says in a throw-away sentence, so he said the real

cost will be many trillions trillions. he never calculates what those many trillions trillions will be. he tells you it is $6.3 trillion. he says later it is not one trillion, it is many trillions, but he never calculates what those mr. trillions trillions are. i did. i did. i used his methodology. i don't endorse it. it is riddled with errors. i used his methodology. i calculated what it would cost if we do nothing and compared it to if we do immigration reform. the net effect was a savings of over $1 trillion. so his own study done properly shows there is a huge financial boon to the united states. >> if i might, my reform makes very clear that the net cost of illegals after amnesty, or the total cost, is $6.3 trillion benefits minus taxes. it also very clearly spells out that i think the baseline cost under current law is about a

trillion. so the net cost is about $1.3 trillion. >> because you assume at age 55 that they would self-deport. >> no. it is because i assume they would not get social security and medicare. >> you say it -- >> it doesn't really matter. if they stay here and don't get those two benefits, then the costs are pretty minimal. >> i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i assume that under the baseline, they do not get social security, they do not get medicare, they do not get medicaid nursing home care and all of that. ok? if you do that, then the cost as they age up are not all that large. however, as i acknowledge in the report -- and i'm glad you know this, because very few people in congress know this particular point, which is that there is a loophole in the law which allows an illegal immigrant when their kids hit age 21 to basically get

a parent visa and parent green card would which would eventually give them access to all those things. what i say is, depending upon how many people access that loophole, the baseline cost is -- could be very -- and i say the baseline cost is actually the hardest thing to calculate here. but the bottom line is, they are very expensive. they may be expensive under current law. we don't really know. half the illegals currently have u.s.-born children. we don't have a lot of that accessing now. we may have a lot of it in the future. the bottom line is they are very, very costly. they may be more costly even under current law than most people understand. we're talking then -- i can't see how you could get, if half of them get access to social security and medicare through the parent visa, i don't see how you reverse that. it would mean the net cost of amnesty might be a couple

trillion. the bottom line, what i recommend in the report, if you are interested in saving the u.s. taxpayer trillions of dollars, close that loophole. do not allow people to say, because i came here, i had a child born in the united states, i then have access to become a u.s. citizen because i came her illegally, had a child, whoopee, i get a huge cash benefit as a result of that through these parental visas. i can guarantee you i have yet to meet a single member of the senate that understands that loophole is there. if we are interested in protecting the u.s. taxpayer, we should not grant amnesty and we should close that loophole. >> let's open it up to questions from the audience. do we have microphones circulating? ok. right here in the front. >> hi. news." arr with "u.s.

i think it is true some of the countries that have some of the strictest immigration have that is because in denmark, once you are a legal resident, you have access to their very generous in a fit of free college, subsidize housing, daycare paid for, and those kinds of things. we are talking about legal immigration. in this country, back in the days of ellis island, one of the considerations was if you're going to be an economic burden on the country, you are not allowed to come in. you had to be up to prove that you would be contributing to the economy. i wanted to see your reactions about that. but what is interesting is that all these sessions are usually about legal immigration around the world.

it is a whole different topic when you are talking about people that are here, interesting that they wrote the law and we are trying to figure out how they can help the country. i think it is interesting. >> i think is an important point, this old law that you cannot, to the country if you are going to be a public charge. no one is a public charge today. some people in congress think this is still a reality. in fact, you can come into the country, your kids can get 80 different means tests and welfare programs, you can access different welfare programs and so forth. if you are legal, you can also get welfare as an adult. no one is dismissed as a public charge. the difference is at the time of ellis island, we do not have a $2 trillion redistributed state. it is true that denmark has a more redistributed state than we do. but we spent close to $1 trillion a year aiding poor people, poor programs. who are the beneficiaries? it is the less educated people.

not there any moral defect, not because they are bad people, not because they do not work, ok, but because we support vulnerable individuals through massive redistribution. we can barely afford to do that for us-born citizens and for legal immigrants. but to try to apply this massive system of redistribution to peoples whose only claim to u.s. taxpayer resources is that they came here and broke the law, i think that is a travesty and i think it is an assault on the u.s. taxpayer that is un- american. >> i mean, look, the redistribution issue is obviously very important. but the key is that our system is broken period. it was broken before immigration reform. it will be broken after we finished talking about immigration reform. we're going to have to fix that.

it will be way easier to fix that problem which is going to bedevil this demography for a decade, at least, it will be way easier to do that anymore rapidly growing, more vibrant economy. we should remember in evaluating the costs and benefits that it is the crucial element that we need to aim for. >> this whole discussion of redistribution, i think, it is not being framed properly or correctly. if you look at his numbers, you'll see that his numbers suggest that roughly 70% of the american population are not paying their way, all those who have less than a college degree are takers, not makers. i actually calculated using his methodology of looking at the 50-year fiscal impact of 200- something million americans, and it came out to negative $66 trillion because the way he assumes redistribution occurs.

i was having a discussion recently with a senior executive of a high-tech company talked about the fact that he would rather pay $40,000 a year to indian computer scientists than $80,000 to american computer scientists. he told me that those indian computer scientists are just about as productive as the american ones. i would much rather pay than the $40,000 in the $80,000 to the american ones. i said, that is right, you can pocket the difference. he says, that is right, $40 million in my pocket. i said, what just happened to your productivity if you do that? well, nothing. you earned 40 million more and you put that income away from the american workers. they do not become less productive. no change in the productivity. it is just who got that income. he assumes that when, for example, wall street bankers

tanked the u.s. economy five years ago, six years ago, when they pay themselves $20 million to create an $8 trillion hole in the u.s. economy, that reflects accurately their productivity. it does not. we are a nation, a very public's organism with hundreds of millions of people -- a very complex organism with hundreds of millions of people doing cleaning services, childcare services, accountants, all of us working together and producing an output. how we distribute that does not always reflect the productivity of the workers. >> we have one in the front here the gentleman all the way back. >> hello, i am the u.s. correspondent from an austrian newspaper. ironic that there is a canvassing for labor and

organizational rights, but that is different. you have a population in this country about the size of the republic of portugal, a huge number of people here and not all of them will self deport or will be forcefully deported. i would like to get one answer from each of you for what should be done to improve the economic and personal prospects of these people here now, not in 20 years or 30 years but now. what can be done so they can stop -- pay taxes, get the educational system -- i'm not interested in quarreling about whose study is more correct or more precise. please give us each one thing that can be done to improve things right now. for these people and also for the overall american economy and society.

>> we will start with dr. rector. >> i am interested in protecting the u.s. taxpayer. first, do not give people access to social security, medicare, obamacare, and 80 different welfare programs because they came here and broke our laws and got into our country illegally. that is a very, very bad way to use the taxpayer fund. the second thing i think we need to do is to keep the promise that we made the last time we did amnesty. in 1986 we gave amnesty and promised it would be a one-time amnesty, we would never, ever do it again. they are not even promising that this time. we are on serial amnesty here, ok. we promised we would do a one- time amnesty, and in exchange we promised the u.s. electorate that we would make it illegal to higher illegal immigrants.

it was not illegal before that most people do not know that. and that we would enforce that rule. that rule has not been enforced for a single day since 1986, not one day, not one hour, by either republicans or democratic administrations. this bill makes a genetic reversal. it makes the current employment verification system called e- verify which works very well, and it prohibits states from using it -- put it on the shelf and promises that they will propose a completely new system that will be developed in the future. if you followed this from 1986, that is exactly what they say and every time. always we will do employment verification next year. we will do it at some point in the future. please trust us. that is what they said in 1986. amnesty now, please trust us, we will do employment verification sometime in the future. now, 25 years later, they have never done it. they are offering exactly the

same deal to the american electorate again. i say fool me once, shame on me. fool me twice -- fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. it is exactly the same charade am at the same bogus deal was offered in 1986. >> basically, it is a replay of 1986. we promised absolutely from now on we enforce the law. and we did not. now we end up with 11 million or 12 million. i think the obama administration really enforce the law. but the truth is what they have done is have high deportation numbers coming out mainly of what is called the secure amenities program. we are identifying people in jail. not going out looking for people, not going after employers. then they did some very significant shenanigans. they reclassify people, captured

at the border, and moved into the interior. the obama administration has not deported more people than anyone else. even though that has produced a significant number of deportations, it is everything else that has been allowed to language. for example, you can still work in the united states with a false social security number very easily. we still do not have an entry/exit system to keep track of people who come in on temporary visas. this deal does not obligate a fully functional system. there are the land borders. we try to track people at airports. at the land borders most of the visa overseeing goes on, it is entirely exempted from that. we will get rid of that and create something new and not for five years. still, it never applied to existing workers. this still is not even a really serious promise to enforce the law in the future. all the legal immigrants that got amnesty -- work

authorization, social security numbers, travel documents, drivers licenses, and everything wants the bill passes. it is true, we are going to make them way to go from this green card light they get initially to the full green card in about 10 years. about 3 million looks like they can get in 10 years. ag workers and dream act recipients. the bottom line is the same, amnesty first with a promise of enforcement and the future. that promise is not good. it is set up for another replay because the special interests will slow the enforcement. the business community and ethnic groups say, look, you cannot enforce it on this group, you cannot do it now. it will be put back and put back. so we're set up for another replay. anybody that thinks the law will actually be enforced after this bill passes, i have a bridge in brooklyn. that will not happen.

enforce the law first. do it for several years. deport illegal immigrants from within united states. monitor the employers, actually control the border. create an entry/exit system. then tell the american people, ok, we had done this and other some fraction of the legal immigrants that we should give some legal status to. i can support that, but not this. this is 1986 all over again. >> the question was first from the perspective of those here illegally, what is the best thing for them? take away an ever present criminal element to make their lives better, and labor force protections that every american worker would have, allow them to compete on an even playing field. those are benefits realized for those individuals, no question. allow them to take advantage for the right job opportunity for themselves. pursue jobs, pursue upward

mobility. for the nation, we would benefit from more effectively utilizing that labor rather than having it locked away. you have heard the skepticism. past a law that could be enforced and thereby make good on the promise that we are not going to be a nation that advocates for implicitly illegal immigration. that is the great challenge of this debate, no question about it. some say it will never get done and can never get done. a dark cloud will hang over the united states. but i think this is a nation that has proven to be quite practical and its ability to right the challenges. once in the growth in magnitude like this has, we will come to grips with it. we will put on the books a lot i can be enforced and does the things that everyone has talked about. i think that is the chance we have this time around.

>> i would like to echo some of his comments and add to them. for the illegal immigrants themselves, by providing legal status, legal protections, the ability to change jobs, a long- term commitment for them to know they can stay in the country and get education and training so that these people who have less than a 10th grade education, a lot of them can get high school degrees. on top of that, i'm sure everybody knows a large number of illegal immigrants came here as children and were brought here by their parents when they were one old, three years old, five years old. they were raised here, gone to school here, america is their home, their country, what we call the dreamers. they are as american as you or i am. we should allow them to stay. we should recognize that it is hardly about benefits for the illegal immigrants. this is about benefits for the whole nation. remember, we have something like 60 million baby boomers in the

process of retiring now. we only have about 53 million children and grandchildren of those baby boomers coming into the workforce. the legal immigrants who are here are on average 34 years old. they are going to be paying into the social security system, medicare, medicaid, taxes for the u.s. system when the bulk of the baby boomers are retiring. they will be supporting all of us in our retirement age. they will allow us to do exactly what we have done in the past. elderly americans most need those 11 million immigrants. we see the explosion in productivity and it will be good for the economy. native born as well as the undocumented. >> we have time for one more question. all the way in the back.

>> yes, i am with the american counsel for immigration reform. i learned when i was a freshman in college, economics 101, that if you increase the supply of any of the factors of production without increasing demand, wages or the cost of that production has to go down. i find myself in never never land here, talking about huge unemployment already and you want to add millions of more workers at the same time as we are having a hell of a time competing with countries moving up the ladder, and we have a crisis. how can you conclude that by bringing in more immigrants, especially low-income, low skilled immigrants, it will make things better? it just makes no sense. >> reaction -- first, thank you for taking economics 101. second, as i said before, i do

not think you should evaluate an immigration system that you expect to be durable enough to last for decades by 2013's unemployment problem. if we get to 2018 and unemployment is 7.5% some of we will not be talking about the immigration problem. >> [inaudible] >> we're talking about employment. you said people were unemployed. now we get to the wages, the third thing i want to say -- you said it yourself, we are competing with developing countries. the competition is already there. if you change the location and put a different label on its head and say u.s. resident versus norwegian, brazilian, or indonesian, moving that supply and the physical location does not matter in this economy. the supply is there.

the competition is there, and wages are there. that is a serious problem for low skilled workers in the global economy. that is a fact. it means we need to better -- to do better on education and skills and the united states. again, changing the location adjustment immigration reform is about is not that issue. >> my point is that for a large part of the immigration reform, does not even change the location. it just changes their legal status. remember, the 11 million undocumented are already here, already part of the u.s. labor supply. 8 million are working right now. by you changing your status, you do zero, nothing to the supply of labor. but you do increase the productivity of that workforce. you do have a supply shock in the sense that we increase dramatically the production of goods and services in this country, which benefits all of us. >> look, we do not have a

shortage of labor. real wages have been done for 30 years. as immigration has increased, the less educated in this country have made less. i would argue that immigration has played a role but is not the only factor. i also disagree that it does not matter where the immigrants are. construction is a job done by people here. restaurant workers is a job done by people here. hotel rooms in the job done by people here. any factory is an area where you face the most -- only about 9% of employment. if you allow the immigrants in, it makes an enormous difference for the people who clean hotel rooms or do construction work. construction workers in the united states generally do not compete with construction workers from china and less the construction worker is allowed here. this idea that immigration will lead to an aid in the aging population is categorically false. we can look at fertility, how many children a woman has in her lifetime.

with or without immigrants, the survey lets us do this. look at the fertility in 2011, all told in the u.s. the average woman had 1.98 children. take out the immigrants, it is 1.88. immigration increased average fertility in the united states by about 5%. twice the level of immigration that the census bureau projects now, they just release estimate showing is that immigration can change the ratio of workers to people who are too old and too young to work by maybe one percentage point. no one will argue that immigration rejuvenates an aging population because they age just like everyone else. the average age for nativeborn person, 36 years. immigrants age like everyone else. the families are not big enough to change the age of structure

and united states. immigration is a highly inefficient means for changing the ratio of workers to the ratio of everybody else, according to the census. it will not do it. we have to think about how to deal with an aging society. immigration is a trivial part of it. as you point out, we have a surplus of labor right now. we have lots of people not working, record rates of non- work and unemployment and declining wages. >> [inaudible] fiscal cost of low skilled immigrants. he said correctly that we have a problem with our entitlement system. but immigrants make this issue worse. why? well, because if you look at the us-born population, only about 10% of the people do not have a high school degree. when you look at illegal immigrants, it is 50%. legal immigrants, about 20%. because they have a lower skill ratio, they make all the problems of the welfare state, particularly when the illegals

make it dramatically worse because they tend to be -- [indiscernible] in my analysis, i assume that legalization causes a productivity boost. a boost of maybe 10% of wages going up. but let's say it's 25%. let's say there is a boost of 25%. as a resident, the total goes up 25% including sales and all those things. when you look at this, once they gain access to all these different programs, the amnesty recipients are going to be getting about four dollars of government benefits for every one dollar of taxes is paid. if you boost the taxes by 25%, the ratio is still four dollars. instead of 4-1, it's 4-1.25. i agree that their taxes will go up. a substantial increase in tax

payments during the first 10 years as the unlawful immigrants, half of them work off the books, begin to work on the books. they will pay income tax. they may pay fica taxpayers $14 billion a year in tax increases just there alone from working on the books. however, we also granted them immediately access to the earned income tax credit. the cost, about $12 billion per year. so they will work more, they will pay more in taxes. but the increase in the benefits that they get access to are going to overwhelm that, particularly when you get beyond the 10-year window. >> ok, well, that was quite a spicy discussion we had today. i would like to thank our panelists for joining us here

today. thank you all for attending. thanks to those who are watching on our webcast and on c-span. if you would like to continue the conversation, feel free to jump on twitter. you can also leave comments on the website www.bipartisanpolicy.org. thank you again to walmart. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national >>ble satellite corp. 2013] experts gather to discuss religious freedom. this conference was hosted by the ethics and public policy center. >> good morning. it is my great pleasure to welcome me this morning to the

2013 national religious freedom conference. my name is brian walsh, and i'm the executive director of the program. it is a think tank in washington dc. my colleagues and i are honored that so many supporters and defenders of religious freedom, including great friends and allies, have chosen us to join -- have chosen to join us today. had a marvelous lineup of speakers. we trust you'll be challenged and inspired, encouraged by the speakers, and sessions. we would like to acknowledge and thank our good friends and colleagues with the religious freedom project of georgetown university's berkeley center. beare honored to cosponsored with them today. ,he conference is final session with our project colleagues tom

far. would also like to thank -- for theirlleagues ongoing work and assistance. finally, before we get started, i would like to acknowledge the marvelous work of my program colleagues, including tim schultz, tj will, and brooke look. ,heir hard work and diligence they have been terrific to work with. i'm delighted to have them on my staff. state is not about us. it is not about the americas -- american religious freedom program. this is about our faith communities which represent virtually every faith in every

nation, and every religion on earth. no nation enjoys greater religious diversity than does the united states of america. to livele freedoms together free against the rail -- religious oppression that play others around the world. range off a wide america's faith communities, ,hey represent the jewish seventh-day adventist, catholic, evangelical christian, latter- day saint, mainline protestant, muslim, and eastern orthodox communities.

, public policys experts, and attorneys. they are elected officials to statewide office. they represent a microcosm of vast diversity of america's religious experience. it is by no means common for important leaders of so many different faith communities to share one stage on one day to talk about a subject of mutual concern. having so many different and diverse national leaders, religious leaders contributing to a single cause, could engender hostility in some nations around the world. in america it is not even controversy over. the fact the it is not controversial is testament to our religious liberty of providing robust protections for religious freedom for all faiths. widelyronment in which different faiths can work together in peace, and with

respect. it is important to underscore that no one has asked these leaders to pretend that they agree on matters of theology, or doctrine. it is safe to say that our speakers hold to a wide array of beliefs and practices regarding faith, god, worship, the meaning of life, and the afterlife. yet no one has asked them to boil down there religious beliefs and practices to some least common denominator, and to make that view of their faith in basis for today's conversation. because not necessary we are not here to strengthen a religion, or any particular religious theology or doctrine. instead we and that's a very different thing. see in this country we figured out a way, and we have been blessed by god to figure it out, to make our religious diversity a source of great strength in

the community. in america, we do not sim plate peace by abandoning our deepest held con vicks depsh convictions -- convictions and pretending we are all the same. we believe the best way to protect our pluralistic society is to protect conscience and the identity of religious institutions mple -- institutions. in short, it is government's duty to protect every religion, every religious belief, and every peaceful religious ractice. this is the frounges and formula that allows our political community to be -- this is the foundation and formula that allows our political community to be surrounded by peace. midst of -- in the

many faith, we have unity in america. our overall mute twal spirit in -- mutual experience is one that has served as a foundation in the midst of great religious diversity. in today's religious freedom conference, government leaders will give their belief to defend religious liberty on behalf of all americans of all faith. mir r first speaker, rabbi sloavacik will say, when government's take upon themselves the illegitimate power to define religion according to their own preferences and to the deference of any faith community, it is an attack on all faith communities. there is one key reason we do

not degree on everything. we don't have to degree on the deepest issues of our lives. in order to respect each other and want to protect each other's freedoms. i have the privilege of silave ing rabbi mir cik. do ef introduction cannot him justice. he serves as associate rabbi in manhattan. in february of last year, he testified in the u.s. hupes regarding the u.s. department of health and human services preventative services mandate. his testimony was persuasive to other faith groups at a time when the threat was not directed to that of his own faith community. you might also be familiar with

his televised communication last september. e vid described the levitical itzvah to moses, proclaim this to all abroad. this is a command from the shofar. the rabbi explained in his invocation that the same mitzvah is emballetsened -- emblazened on the liberty bell in philadelphia. please join me in welcoming him. [applause]

>> thank you for that introduction. it is a privilege to be here with you. jonathan sacks, the chief rabbi of the united kingdom, recently wrote a book entitled, "the home we build together." in this book, he, a british jew, and a member of the british house of loffed lords, reflects on religious pluralism in america. he says, quote, "whn whenever i visit washington, d.c. i make a point to see presidential memorials. jefferson, roosevelt, lincoln. each care indescriptions taken from their words. london has no equivalent to this that i know of. there are memorials of statues everywhere, but no speeches, no quotations emblazened on the

stone." sacks notes incredibly even the memorial to church yill, churchill whose speech yells rival lincolns in their power is a statue without any text. in other words, it is words, ideas, not images that embody america. ever since i read this, i noticed that when you travel to washington, d.c., as my wife and i did last night, you see the train's souvenir shops are replete with items containing not images but words. every souvenir is a tie, t-shirt or poster containing words from the declaration or the constitution. the two founding depumets of the american republic. on the other hand when you fly out of london no one is selling agna carta. he m what's for sale is not words but images.

can you buy pictures of buckingham palace. pictures of the queen, of course, are everywhere. a member of my congregation happened to be visiting kenzington palace and he brought back for me a souvenir from the gift shop which was a picture of and his six wives. when you pour hot coffee into the mug, the wives disappear. fabulous mug. so again, words versus images. and the difference for this, sacks writes, lies in the fact that the two nations have different political cultures. america he writes -- america's culture is based on covenants. britain's on hierarchy and tradition. in other words, america is the first country in a long time that was founded around an idea. an idea articulated by two documents taken in tandem, the declaration and the constitution

, along with the constitution's amendments in the bill of rights. together we come together to celebrate and defend religious liberty. in drawing on the writings of the chief roob rabbi -- the chief rabbi and that of others, i hope to address that these documents lie at the very heart of the idea around which our nation was founded. one of my favorite books is entitled, "strangers and neighbors. what i have learned about christianity by living among orthodox jews." this was written by maria johnson, a professor of religion at the university of scranton. in this small and wonderful memoir, johnson recounts how she was asked by her university to teach a introductory course in the hebrew bible. a subject in which she felt less comfortable than her usual systematic theology. she decided to approach it the

way students would a victorian november yell. she asked them to read the hebrew bible without pondering its continuing relevant today. on the way to class, she was passed by the home of the orthodox jews that lived in her neighborhood. she would hear the children call each other names. and sikora.osef she was surprised at living down the road from descendents of moses. and this indicated to johnson that the hebrew johnson was clearly more than just mere literature. the story very obviously, she writes, was alive and well. you don't run into the descendents of oliver twist or find yourself living down the road from people that trace eir ancestry back to anna karennena or huck finn. until then she had no sense of judism as a living reality.

now she and her orthodox jewish nors are close friends. the women lend each other maternity clothes and go to the gym together. our husbands borrow each other's snow shovels and grumble about local politics. our children are in and out of each other's homes. this friendship has led johnson to learn more and more about jewish observance. a life lived with mitzvahs or mitzvot, adhering to the ommands of god in the torah. she will be visiting her friends that live in a sukkah during the jewish holiday of sue coat -- sukot. they will visit them when they nukah.their menorah at cha they consider themselves even now authorities on judism. thus, she writes, there was a

time at the park when her little daughter catherine was playing with a boy while chatting to her father. the boy mentioned he was jewish. catherine looked him up and wn, saw no kipot, no tzit-tzit, and catherine looked at him and said, you must be one of those jews that don't know their mitzvot. [laughter] so why did she call her book "strangers and neighbors"? in what way are her neighbors strangers? deep religious differences are between them. johnson writes, "it is a difficult business to live in close proximity with people who are different. it always has been and always will be. we must learn to do it or we may not make it into the next century.

at the same time we can't afford to jettison whatever convictions clash with the convictions of others. when the going gets tough, and it will, we will need our con vingses and commitments." thus, the more friendly she becomes with her friends, the more she understands they are also different. they are both strangers and neighbors. interestingly, the fact that johnson and her neighbors are members of covenental faith, the fact they are both neighbors and strangers, makes them better neighbors. religious certainty it not an obstacle in this friendship. on the contrary, quote, "we feel come fofertable around the very different -- comfortable around the very different worlds we inhabit because the boundaries are clearp. no one tries to hide them or gloss over them. nobody acts as if they are silly or embarrassing or if they are superficial or don't matter. they do matter and everyone knows it." in other words, in recognizing

what sets them apart, maria johnson and her neighbors become better friends. this is simply and beautifully put. i would suggest unbenownst to her maria johnson has chosen a title that aptly captures the ideal for interfaith friendship and that serves, this phrase, strangers and neighbors, as one of the great interfaith encounters. it was my uncle who argued that to be a jew in the world in modern society is to embody the phrase with which abraham introduced himself before the purchase of a burial cloth for his wife sara. [speaking hebrew] which means, i am a stranger and a neighbor among you. in other words, i am set apart by my faith but also dedicated and motivated by my faith to

working together with you. stranger and neighbor. we seek to be loyal to what makes us different while working with every other member of humanity in order to build a better world. werabbi soloveichik's words, share the destiny of adam and nature, and also as members of a covenenal community, which has preserved its identity under a most unfavorable condition. we are summoned by god to reveal at both the level of creation and the private covenent to undertake a double mission. in other words, to be both stranger and neighbor. in this, rabbi soloveichik recognizes, what it means to be a member of any faith in modern society. he noted that all too often, the modern age and those inhabbing it, have assumeled we must deny our differences in the public square, sacrifice what makes us

different if we are to work together as neighbors. this mistaken approach is reserved for the -- religion under the mistaken approach must be taken only to church or home. says one oloveichik must rn leave his identity when he enters the world. i would add it is the american founders that understood this. that true religious freedom means allowing us to be both strangers and neighbors. here we turn again to the rabbi and his reflection. rabbi versation with sacks, rabbi sacks told me he used to meet with tony blair to discuss the bible and what --

these meetings would take place in private. because the news report that the prime minister had a bible session. i believe when asked about it, he said, "we don't do god." end quote. in this meeting, blair said to sacks, jonathan said, i reached the boring part of the bible. what boring part to you reach, said rabbi sacks. the tabernacle. it does go on doesn't it? >> it does. it goes on at length, the different materials, the wealth that they had, jewels, or the creative skill to create a tabernacle in the desert from which to serve god. 600 verses it describes. creation of the universe in contrast by god takes up 34 verses. why? o build the entire universe 34

versies. to build a house of worship in the desert. 600 verses. we all know why. to build a house of worship, that's done by committee. but seriously, why the excessive elab racial there. he later realized the profound political point that this tabernacle can teach us. he noted there are two ways to speak of western political society. they spoke of contract. whereas the bible spoke about brit, which means contract. that individual members seek first and foremost their right. could have in any event is a -- covenant is a situation in which two parties come together to create which neither can alone, a destiny.

these two motions have to blend together. to have no cooperation is of course not a society. but a society that is all about coming together and makes no room for individuality and difference is not a society on -- society. on a larger level, it is toe altarne -- totalitarian. utopia's 's wrote dream has led to some of the worst societies in history. hat we need, said rabbi shachs is a society which embodies integration without assimilation. the joint community is individuality. that allows us to be neighbors even as we retain our ability to be strangers. a society in which we are joined in common endeavor while respecting what makes us different. to teach that political lesson

that the tale of the tabernacle is so important. that's why he writes -- that's why he says it appears not in leviticus where you might expect it, the book of sacraficial lecture, but in exodus. because the lesson here is political and social. the group of individuals -- to turn a group of individuals or a tribe into a nation they must build something together. the tabernacle was built out of difference. some brought medals, others jewels, others skills and time. unlike the creation of the world, the tak tabernacle requires individual efforts by many. how do you turn a group of people into a nation? god's answer was dazzling in its simplicity. you get them to voluntarily create something together. a nation is built by building. the tabernacle represents relation without assimilation. because we are not the same, we each have something unique to

contribute. society for the bible is in rabbi shachs the home we build together. it is a story we teach that we do not need to deny our differences to come together. bbi shachs notes that of all nations on earth, only america embodies this. it has a contract and the equivalent of covenant, the declaration of independence. it is this that preserves the individual rights of citizens and factions. on the other hand, the declaration is not unlike a biblical priest, a covenant, which brings us together, which joins people together. quotes rabbi hs neiber. "the declaration assumes responsibility to and for individuals under god." taken together these two documents that are on every tie and t-shirt you see in union

station come together to create the idea of unification without assimilation. that we can be both strangers and neighbors. of course the israelites constructing the tabernacle were all of one faith. but as rabbi shachs wrote it is the coming together without assimilation that so ponders others. where so p many diverse denominations could become one nation. the answer they came up with and were inspired by was the biblical concept of covenant. a society that could be built out of difference and liberty and yet embody could have in any vental -- covenental unit. quote the god of heaven has not visibly displayed majesty before

our eyes as when he came down to israel on the mount, but this falls short of a miracle as a heavenly charter for these united states. we cannot but acknowledge that god has acknowledged our cause and taken us under his care as did his ancient covenant of israel." imagine the professors of harvard saying that today. thus it is the house of lords can help -- in other words a rabbi from the house of commons can help americans remember what makes america great. 1776, a jew 6 -- sent a letter to a friend in hollande. he enclosed in the letter a copy of the new declaration of independence. this letter is now in the british public records office in london because a ship bearing this letter was bore by the british troops who could not

make sense of this dunalt. and assuming this tratoriuos document they assumed they could not read it. the reason the british were unable to read it is because it was written in yiddish. the british could not follow the yiddish because they could not follow the hebrew letters. thus leading to a clash between british and yiddish. but it is a british rabbi who now allows us to understand that it was hebreic forces that allowed us to inspire american thought and it was this that embodied the phrase immigration without assimilation. when the constitution -- when met in philadelphia, fipies wrote a letter complaining that all public office holders in pennsylvania were required by law to affirm that the new

testament was given by divine inspiration if they wanted to work in the legislature. this, jonah phillips wrote to washington, is against the conscience of the jew to take any such oath. phillips then asked washington to help the convention create a country in which, quote, all religious societies are on an equal footing. meaning, where all faith were able to sur serve in the legislature while remaining true to their beliefs. phillips then went on to note to washington that the jews in america had fought bravely for the patriot cause. now, he said, have fought for a liberty and bled for a liberty that they could not enjoy. now, we have to appreciate the audacity, the chutzpah that phillips has shown. jonah is one of the wealthiest merchants in philadelphia. he was restricted from serving in the legislature. in the 1780's my ancestors in

eastern europe at that time, they should have been so lucky to have what he had. yet here he is audaciously arguing to the most famous man in america, washington, that the jews were not able to serve society without violating their conscience and therefore they were not truly free and not truly equal. he did this because he believed that to be truly american men that he could be simultaneously stranger and neighbor. that remaining lyle loyal -- that remaining loyal to his faith should never be the reason for preventing him for engaging and serving his fellow citizens in society. now today, in this day and age, when american public officials speak of freedom of worship rather than free exercise, as if our religious identities are reserved for the church and synagogue, not something we take with us and freely obey in the

public square. when charities and hospitals are threatened with fines for seeking to serve society as neighbors while remaining loyal to the dictates of their faith and their conscience, when this is occurring in america today, then we see it is the very une -- nuneeekness of the -- uniqueness and at the heart of what lies at the american documents which is being fundamentally mude -- mood -- mude. johnson's cause is ever as important as it ever was. that's why i am here with you today. may we emerge from this conference with a renewed appreciation of the united states. may our efforts preserve our rights to be different and make us better neighbors together in this great and blessed covenanta nation. it you for having me.

>> next more from the national religious freedom conference from the national hispanic christian leadership conference. this is 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, brian. we have all been rewarded by our attendance today. thank you to your staff and team for providing such a stimulating morning. it is now my pleasure to introduce reverend sam you'll rodriguez who will be our noontime address. many of you know reverend rodriguez as an electric electrifying oriter. many of you know him as the leader of the national hispanic leadership conference. it is a position from which she has become one of the nation's most -- in which he has become one of the nation's most

influential hispanic leaders in america. l religious or leadership at the white house in congressional meetings. reverend rods gezz celebrated the 50th anniversary of martin luther king's "i have a dream" speech. he recognizes the important role that face faith plays in reminding us that justice does not belong just to the left or the right, but it flows from high for the purpose of lifting up the low. ref rentrend rodriguez's address today is entitled, renewing religious freedom. he will be addressing the question of how our understanding of religious freedom needs to catch up with the current and developing threats to freedom that we have long taken for granted. reverend rodriguez, we welcome

you here to this podium. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome me in joining him here to this address. [applause] >> i am honored to be here with you today. thank you, governor, for your gracious introduction. throughout the course of the next few minutes, if you see that i extradite -- expedite the process, if i'm a little too fast, blame it on three things. one, i'm hispanic. second, i'm charismatic. third, i'm wired on three carame machiatos. i took a redeye from l.a. and i haven't slept in several days. that's my story and i'm sticking to it. i am often asked how to describe my community. what you get when you take billy

aham, cross them with martin luther king jr., and sprinkle -- on top. we are here by faith and for faith. we understand that faith is transparent, transsentent, and transformational. faith quips us to go through obstacles, break through crowds, walk on the impocket -- impossible in the mft of storms. empowers us toth see the invisible, to embrace the impossible, and hope for the inincredible. faith fm exorts us to speak for the poor to welcome the stranger all while doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly before god.

conceptualizes, it is faith that allows us to get beyond our problems and our needs and love beyond our own. we live in a time where the freedom to express our respective faith narratives stands threatened. friends, we have never been down this road before. from the mandate of religious organizations on the alter of political expediencey to businesses such as hobby lobby required to abandon conscience or suffer the consequences of continued litigation. freedom of religion in america can best be characterized in the year 2013 as nothing other than an endangered species. for that matter, we must embrace one simple truth. as people of faith, we cannot be silenced. we cannot be silenced while people suffer the wrath of the i.r.s. audit for the simple act

of affirming biblical marriage. we cannot be silent while people pay the compliance of a health care mandate when they run counter to the very ethos centered around the state business of life in and out of the womb. we cannot be silenced when pears morgan engages in pornography by labeling ryan anderson who is seated somewhere in the back, ryan anderson unamerican for his conviction regarding the institution of marriage, all while by the way, ryan, repudiated all vess to my knowledges -- vetiges of homophobia. we understand that with a posture of complacency today will result in a position of captivity tomorrow. as people of faith, for the sake of our children and our children's children, we gather today to issue a clareon call that this nation remove from the

womb of religious liberty. our founding fathers relinquished the political endony by declaring we are oued by our creator -- endowed by our creator certain inalienable rights. we de-- they declared with malice toward none and charity toward all. dr. martin luther king jr. brought an end to segregation and laid out a vision where in america we would be judged not by the color of our skin but rather by the content of our character. you see, my friends, faith is the silence, the moral conscience of our nation. to obstruct religious liberty is o obstruct the fishes with the bread.

it is to grant amnesty to the pathetic. our founding fathers, whether dias or christian, insubscribed d aaith narrative -- inscribe faith narrative which cannot be denied. elections, politics, and foreign affairs not usually as the centerpiece of policy but almost always as one of the elements that shapes the mores by which policy is written. one cannot extract from our ethos the spiritual thread woven into the american genome. and other european ations treat religion as a artifact, and while iran -- our nation thrives through religious pluralism and tolerance. our greatest export may not be

technology or popular culture. our greatest export is not lady gaga but rather a commitment to religious pluralism, diversity, and tolerance. a system that stems from a faith value system. a system that encourages us to propose a belief all the while while prohibiting us from imposing a religious world view. parenthetically i am driven by the cross. the cross is both vertical and horizontal. life is both vertical and horizontal. vertical to our god. horizontally we relate to family. simply stated, the cross is both redemption and relationship. holyness and hugh millity.

- holiness and humility. ortodoxy and orthopraxy. both billy graham and martin luther king. the pulpit and the public square. the new jeruslem and washington, d.c. [applause] the strongest part of the cross is none other than the nexus. the point of convergence where we reconcile the redemption with the reconciliation. it is the place where my community advocates for religious freedom. in order to advance the religious cause for all, evangelicals reconcile billy graham's message of dr. martin luther king's march.

it exclusively advances what as a christian i deem as the agenda of the lamb. for at the end of the day religious freedom and conscience serve as a platform from which all other liberties flow. this is what truly makes us exceptional. we are not exceptional bauds of our military prowess. erican exceptionism -- exceptionalism is -- in other words, our freedom stems not from the legislative, executive, or judicial branches, our freedom comes from our creator from whom all blessings flow. our nation's greatest gift of the world lies embedded in two simple truths. the antidote to religious totalitarianism is religious pluralism, and religious freedom serves as the proverbial firewall against secular tyranny

. our relationship with god demands constant vigilence. we must be weary of falling away from the very beginning, washington said. he said "i should be pained to believe that they have forgotten that agency which was so often manifested during our revolution. or that they failed to consider the omnipotence of their god who is alone able to protect them." if we deviate from god is over man and man is over government, we will not last long as a nation. the result will be chaos and the end of our potential noble experiment. i am reminded of a program i watched on a nature channel. a lion returning from the wild seeking additional food for his little ones to ambush. the narrateor -- i believe it was the national geographic channel -- the lion suffered

what i believe to be mortal wounds. he was ambushed. this lion had no strength. no strength to lift his paws head or open his eyes. at the precise moment many the cameras captured the images of predators aiming toward the lion. they came with the intention of not finishing off the lion, but with the purpose of attacking the descendents, the little ones. nevertheless, at the precise moment when the enemies of the lion approached the camp and threatened his offspring, the wounded lion who did not have the ability to raise his head or claws, released the last resource available. a broken roar. immediately, and without exception, all of the enemies threatening the lions offspring d most cherished possessions fled.

the narrateor stated the following. "why did the enemies of the lion flea? they know very well as long as the lion roars, they could not him." ay what belongs to it is time to emerge as vertical lambs and horizontal lions. it is time to pray but also release a collective faith-filled roar. i stand committed to roar when muslim brothers stand threatened, i stand ready to roar when my jewish brothers are threatened. it doesn't matter if you are black, white, asian asian, hispanic, muslim, jue jew, hindu or sikh, charismatic or automatic -- [laughter] -- it is time to unleash a courageous roar. "time" magazine had an article

called "the latino reformation." it talked about this emerging american hispanic demographic and what it means for religion in america. first of all, in a meeting i had a while ago in a meeting i had with a different subject matter, i was asked why so many people in america fear this great hispanic influx. i think it lies in the very concept of the term "hispanic." "his" and then "panic." we are his. it is time for a community and those committed to faith to rise up and then defend this vieable freedom. in the state of california where i reside, recent legislation inl prohibit even counselors

my local church from disseminating information stemming from the bible from the word of god as it pertains to what we believe is appropriate bibcally aligned, sexual identity. we are not allowed to do that anymore. the voice of our faith stands to be silenced. it is time to rise up. we cannot sacrifice truth on the alter of political expediency. i encourage you today to rise up and defend this freedom for our children's sake, for our children's children's sake. rise up and protect our religious liberty. rise up and seek truth to power. rise up with civility and grace, and remind our great uncle of the following. uncle sam, you may be our earthly uncle, but you are not and never will you ever be our hevenly father. thank you very much. [applause]

>> that was marvelous and inspiring. as i advertised earlier, i thought you would be challenged and encouraged and inspired today, and i think that all came in one package just now. reverend rodriguez has graciously agreed to take some questions. just a few real quick. so if you have any questions, if you have written written them down, that would be the first place to start. we will start with those questions. if anyone wants to ask any from there, you can pass them to t.j. t.j. and his colleagues will pick those up from you. let's see. e have a starter right here.

>> yes, sharing our faith. how can we share the good faith of the book without offending those of other flocks. here's a nice little joke you may not want to hear. we are having here for the first time ever in the evangelical hispanic community vieable conversations with our catholic brothers and sisters. [applause] i sit down with bishop gomez, and he says, i want you to know that some, not me, but some in my leadership have issues with hispanic evangelicals. not me. but some in our leadership believe that you are stealing our sheep. my response was, bishop, we don't call it stealing sheep, we call it strategic recruitment.

[laughter] obviously with great civility in this wonderful place, the marketplace of idea, i love that n our nation we can submit and referendum introduce not impose our religious beliefs. we do that with respect to other faith narratives. but depen -- again, it is that provides liberty that a con dute -- conduit with which we can introduce our religious concepts. i am grateful we can go out there and say, here is what we believe. take provides it or leave it. >> isn't our first task to

expose to young people that there are certain truths. >> we live in a time of spiritual apathy. but i believe the greatest roblem in america today is eclesiastical faith, that is luke warm faith. there is an emerging is an emer with no concept of absolutes. that's our fault. we're guilty. christians, and jews. we have basically -- we must once again stand and reininvigorate a commitment to abc news absolute truth. there are truths that it or lea send faith -- that transend faith. we have to do away with the idea that faith in america is opposed to everything. that faith in america is an antagonizing force. in my community, let me speak

about my community, i want to do away with the idea that if you interview that 19-year-old in georgetown, and you say evangelical, they immediately hink of a white angry man. we want to share truth with love. grace with civility. >> in your work, where are you seeing that there are inroads where people are beginning to work together where they haven't before. where are you beginning to see a greater willingness to see we can focus on this one issue, religious freedom, and put aside workof our differences and together? >> i have a great experience in california of working with our mormon brothers and sisters. i had a wonderful opportunity in new york to work with our muslim

brothers who were denied building a mosque in a number of cities. catholicrking with our neighbors. again, i'm from new jersey. i never would have thought in my generation i would have seen the threat to religious freedom. without interfaith cooperation we will never be able to build that fire wall against secular tyranny. >> another question for you is about messaging. you are a terrific communicator. what are things that you see as opportunities for the religious freedom movement to begin messaging in a way that will make a difference? is there specific media that can be used? >> i think it was referenced in the last panel, but definitely social media. the referencing component must

include social media. it must be applied to a broad multi-ethnic audience. the aesthetics of the messaging must engage black, white, yellow, brown. we must engage multieye generational. -- multi-generational. we can't work from the impetus of anger or even fear. we must demonstrate prophetic courage. in all that we do, we are a messaging platform. evangelicals?he it evangelical myself, seems we must distance ourselves from some of the angry rhetoric of the past. do you have any suggestion sns >> we have to do what -- we have to do away with rhetorical

pornography. any other questions? no. [laughter] no, we have to do away with rhetorical pornography. where as to be a purging that -- a prophetic moment where that called for fire pemmings lips. s -- ppurges our as evangelicals we need to rise up. we can't be married to one political platform. we can't be married to the donkey or the elephant. we must exclusively stand loyal to the agenda of the lamb. that's the only way we are going to engage the next generation really. my friend mentioned the fact that he is a conservative democrat. it would be hard-pressed to engage many african-americans if we somehow project as evangelicals if this is an

extension of the christian right. it is not about the christian right or christian left. it flows from on high. we have to redeem the narrative prophetic emerge as a independent movement. it doesn't mean we don't speak truth to power. we become prophetically active, but we must be free from manipulation of either political ideology. >> how about the youth? where do you see tupts for the youth to begin to assimilate this message and recognize that this is for them, for their muslim friends that they know, that r their sikh friends they know, that this is a message for them. >> absolutely. it is working on that thread and commitment for tolerance and commitment that so resonates out of this emerging generation. if we suffer a cultural or

riptorle -- scriptoral myopia, we will fail misably. but if be broaden -- but if we broaden the argument and say, your friends may lose their right to express their religious view, this generation emerging is committed to doing something good. those that have a faith component, they don't just want to hear t. they want it do jufments i believe if we hit high schools and college campuses, we can see a movement emerge. >> that's a great note to end on. >> thank you. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal", we'll talk about president obama's commencement speech at morehouse college with joe madison and editor of "black

chick.com" crystal wright. then the keystone pipeline with michael levi. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, president obama delivering the weekly address. he talks about jobs and the address. sean parnel delivers the republican address. he focuses on energy and roduction. >> hi, everybody. we have been fighting back. thanks to the grit and determination of the american people, our businesses have now created seven million new jobs over the past 38 months. an auto industry flat lining is

now the heartbeat of american manufacturing with americans buying more cars than we have in five years. within the next few months, we are projected to begin producing more of our own crude oil at home than we buy from other countries. the first time that has happened in 16 years. deficits that were growing for years are now shrinking for the first time in decades. the price of house -- housing is lowering, too. sales are rising, foreclosures desline kleining, construction expanding, and home prices rising at the fastest rate in nearly seven years are helping a lot of families breathe a lot easier. now we need to do more. this week my administration announced we are extending a program to help more responsible families modify their mortgages so they can stay in their homes. to keep our housing market and economy growing, congress needs to step up and do its part. members of congress will be coming back next week for an important week of work.

we have to keep this process going until middle class families start regaining. we can't let congress get in the way. congress should pass a law giving every responsible home owner to save about $3,000 on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low rates. congress should rebuild our crumbling roads and brinls like the one that collapsed last week in washington state. we would all be safer and the unemployment laws would be passed faster. congress should pass immigration reform that should provide a path way to earned citizenship. it also modernizes our legal immigration sfim so we are attracting the highly skilled entrepreneurs and edge nearing -- and engineers that will help our economy grow. in is a lot to -- we just have to keep going. we got more good jobs to create,

we have more kids to educate, we have more doors to open for anyone who is willing to walk through those doors. if we work together, i am as caund confident as i have ever been that we will get where we need to be. >> hello. 'm sean parnell. across the country republican governors have another story. we are balancing budget, reducing regulation, cutting taxes and growing our economies. all the while, working across the aisle. chief executive magazine recently released appalachian wall survey of the best states for business. the result? the top 10 are all managed by republican governors. despite the federal quagmire of entireg regulations, our

nation benefits. today i want to focus on what local state and federal governments do for energy and our access to it. first we need to address some basic questions. is it better for the u.s. to import energy or export it? is it a good idea depor americans to produce our own energy or simply consume it? can america be energy independent? most americans agree that energy independence is good for america for both national security and our balance of trade. we need our president to allow our nation to grow the economy for the benefit of our families. the republican house has acted. it is time for the democratic-controlled senate to do the same. let me give you an example. -- alaska is doing its part. the last session was the most

productive in a nation. alaska worked across party lines -- all with a more the goal of creating more opportunities for our people rom alaska's vast resources. we know our federal lands should be unlocked for all resources. the federal government too often is less than nimble about permitting land use. permitting delays means delayed jobs for americans. just last week i introduced my financial commitment to use oil-rich federal lands. alaska is willing to pay a part

of exploration of lands for nergy. anwar, the wildlife natural refuge. it is a study on this federal land. for this effort i'm prepared to seek up to $50 million from the alaska legislature to help the federal government pay for developing this valuable information from its own land. we have had this anwar debate, but the federal government does not have current data on its true energy potential. we have proposed a fact-finding mission on federal land with the state of alaska covering up to one-third of the cost. so americans have the facts on anwar and can understand what's at stake for the country. this is just one example of how republican governors are trailblazing the path to the future. the president and congress have many such examples to emulate.

recently the majority in the house passed legislation to approve the keystone pipeline which will create up to $20,000 domestic jobs and transport oil and gas from canada to the southern u.s. for refining. it is time for the democratic-led u.s. senate to pass this bill or at least allow it an up or down vote. the project will -- would already be jupped way, but they have delayed it. a coalition has been gathered to unlock off shore development. each of the governors in our coastal coalition is frustrated by the endless delays and politically motivated inaction by federal agencies.

while the northeasterly -- while the deperl government -- while e federal government has had boondoggles, access to this land has been blocked. permits that could restore scombrobs across america has been delayed. that's not the strategy the president promised. you may have herd under the obama administration, energy production is up. it is important to note that this is only because it is increasing on private lands while production on federal lands, which belong to you, the taxpayer, has dropped dramatically. alaska and many of the other energy states have focused on responsible and safe oil and gas development. as with the arctic national wildlife ref uste usage, the opportunity is there. if washington, d.c. would start working with states to unlock access to federal lands, an economic boon would be felt across