disproportionately in charge of the board when it is appointed and they go about business that they are very much committed to which is creating a modern saving and loan industry. instead of 12,000 association we are down to below 4000. they are large and managerially oriented. the most important thing is a small number of savings and loan's, what they want to do is create a dominant and protected network of local lenders and they did. they were very effective in that. so, the bottom line of fhlb, it was very much industry driven and exclusive to us and ells. roosevelt takes office at the end of the hundred days. they passed the loan act which establishes a remarkable corporation that some people have written books about and in a period of just three years,

they refinanced a million distressed mortgage loans. by 1936 they held 20% of the the debt in the nation. :

>> >> but with the original one fha legislature but on federal guarantee if the house went into default or foreclosure the federal guarantees originally were only for your period that means it was extended and then extended four more times until permit they made

permanent this is what they're thinking about is the fha administrators whenever intended to have that federal guarantee. that is what i want to say about as h. aid now let's move on and i am a fan of the national housing act one of the ambitious pieces of legislation ever passed. it said of the system of mortgage banks to cover mortgage bond banks in europe. at least $5 million of capital embittered and then they could not originate loans with but to issue debentures on the basis so what they would have is a model of the mortgage banking system designed specifically as a secondary market for fha added

difficult time to stimulate mortgage lending and construction activity. over the next three years showing up with $5 million capital would but in any case supposedly they showed how the chargers may work to finance the national mortgage association and then strangely enough's that evaluation of new charter applications it is hard to find any information no other application was seriously considered. what this means in terms of

the fha it is we have the system offering public guarantees and public functions listed of a private mortgage insurance program which is where it is supposed to go. what they gave us was a secondary market can use for very specific purposes as well to serve the more broader secondary market. pdf so given that, here are three legacies so i need to write lots of books i don't want to give it all away right now laugh laugh but i will not tell you what they mean that we can talk about

it. first of all, the new deal system really wasn't well-designed doors system by decide almost accident but it was the unexpected outcome. and had a heavy local orientation. this is so important to the system that paid dominate by the early '60s or 40 percent of the residential mortgage market they remain their province the life-insurance companies' mutual savings banks they all engage in local lending but the savings bank gets into into regional and this is what it is really used for because

they form relationships with the mortgage correspondence in various areas of the world and then use the facilities to finance so really they were reduced to finance a temporary imbalance it could be regional, aggregate over time but limited function given what a secondary market could do. to create more -- market instruments. that is not what we are about. fidelity and this is important whether local lenders three the entry of regional market throughout

the system. this is one reason that is second legacy is that this would establish precedents to create affordability without creating a crisis. as you can see by 1955 the combination fha and that represents 30% so this is days huge expansion of federal under rigid market is. at the same time we have been is an increase of home ownership at the end of the of 47 sari the '30's as 60%.

are they connected? i am relying on the cetacean but if you look it ensure you notice this but the lows relative to be conventional not the time had higher loan to value ratios, longer maturities and eventually they even pushed conventional mortgage loans to the more liberal terms. is a what that shows in his analysis misses 40 percent of the increase in from ownership. but that mechanism is to accelerate home ownership. so like it or not this happened without a crisis.

we're not arguing against you but that is the same part of the background where housing roles are important with any type of program. finally looking at history after 1970 in the system is by the late sixties or early '70s this system is in flexibility with deposit rates this story has been told many ways what did has gone wrong but if what we begin to see is step-by-step a change in fundamental structures but these are not coordinated norplant. first is the definition of

fhlb that are privatized finally after 35 years may be to be privatized. they are functioned and their message are broad and as well. is the epicenter and we talk about why that happened but if you look at those diagrams with the importance of saving mom says originated in the mortgage loans through the net acquisition and to they sell to if you read the mortgage banking literature this industry is going through incredible change one. what we see is a development

of a wholesale in markets for servicing rights and then resell those rights. this unbundles to functions that are nearly conjoint. so 2008 the system fails to control or resolved so we're left with what do we do next greg hopefully these legacies will help. [applause] >> i asked the panel if they would like to have questions and answers from the audience?

>> guess i would like to respond but he tells a compelling story about the fact of fannie mae/freddie mac how they were privatized with the government guarantee think could treat the profits by that every guarantee the race into the subprimal loans because they would be profitable. but the trouble is that fannie and freddie were privatized in 1970. between 1970 and 1992 it was the same for with the same ability that they could buy mortgages and hold mortgages and security audits of mortgages but during that

period through 1992 on the mortgages. why did they change? my point that in 1992, affordable housing goals. now he was correct that fannie mae and freddie mac did go into the mortgage-backed securities market began to buy private mortgage backed securities. wide? because the 1995 hyde -- hud said of those loans were backed by mortgages that qualified then you got credit for those mortgages. and with any may freddie mac

ever provide those mortgage backed securities and savings over risk because they only from federal triple a fifth and a real risk was taken by the lowers so they became very enthusiastic in the early 2000's to buy mortgage-backed securities. why? because they were getting credit under the affordable housing goals without having to take their risk of the mortgages which at that point were high risk because those underwriting standards were substantiated and were dangerous. no a huge market was a

ballot because of what the mini and freddie were doing because as housing prices go up, and there is a bubble gum it is counter intuitive but the reason is simple that if your house has value going up to as you can always refinance if you can meet your mortgage obligations. so as housing prices continue to rise at extremely high rate that they showed you before they could refinance but what happened at the end they could air refinance any more because of market began to decline that is when all of the defaults came out because people could not meet their mortgage obligations were unable to

refinance. all of those high risk mortgages began to fail. that is why we have to look at to a understand the financial crisis. fannie and freddie were the same firms in 1970 and the 1992 except home ownership was 64 percent. right in the range and never change. with 1992 through 2008 it went up almost 70 percent. there was a real increase in home ownership.

so we really didn't understand the risks we were creating by forcing this kind of growth in housing. what should we do know? we have fannie and freddie because wendy's low-quality mortgage so what is the problem? that housing is such an important part to of the u.s. economy that has a real stake to make sure people can buy homes. so as long as the government is politically rewarded or

enabling people to buy homes by reducing the underwriting standards to force down those mortgage rates the government gets political credit for that. i am afraid the only thing i can say is talk about the policy of the future that means we can only avoid these types of crashes and the taxpayer obligations when the government is forcing the mortgages to be made and it is then in business since the '30's. but even when it is as a was 65 through 95 it did not increase the homeownership rate. when they really tried they

created the conditions for the financial crisis. if i were making policy, i would say get rid of fannie mae and freddie mac. is probably a good idea l2 have some kind of government program that does not have down payments as long as they have good credit ratings and have shown an intention to meet their contractual obligations and other areas. so the fha should probably continue in some way on a very limited basis for those who have special needs. but the difference of forcing to make mortgages

much more available to the public in general is always a struggle because of the value that has for political purposes. >> you have to watch the slight of hand. i said they'd had the implicit guarantee and that they think is not debatable in fact, it is at the core of the conservative critique during this period. second, watch the time frame. peter has given you an excellent explanation for the housing bill will and

financial collapse of 1995. there was no housing doubled in 1995. if there is a story than link it to what happened they happened in the early 2000's. and they have been to because the process of the change of government were to be a equity return driven the financial markets stepped into the space then fannie and freddie followed. if those are the facts that is what shows you the timeline and we can have a conversation so why are we

having the conversation? why are we being shown snapshots cetera hour of context 15 years before the event? to reasons. peter is pretty straightforward about those reasons. we have a principal disagreement that we regulate the financial sector because i think he believes it is self regulated. i would submit we have an experimental proposition and it is not true. the markets are not self regulated. we have our principal disagreement about this you can make up your own mind. the second proposition a really bothers me is that the problem here was the

effort by public policy makers to comparing degrees to housing and finance. my family tied to buy a house. and virginia 1973 african-american neighborhood. spotless credit middle-class and come nobody would lend to him. no one. the subprimal as were made 2000 to 2003 and 2004.

to help home ownership to exploit those loans. that they did not understand they were sold a hand grenade. but once it plop the real explanation was a long and slow recovery. for the real explanation is the failure to do what was done with the great depression to loans that they could not pay. what was the consequence of that? and in my view the most important thing that the consequence of not providing health -- help to homeowners with loans they could not pay was a couple things.

but the second thing that it did was that killed the net worth of what american family is so the net worth the of the african-american is one-third of what it was of the day prior. and that is a serious and adopting fact. -- daunting fact and happens that way because of the alternative. it goes beyond the question of housing but if you had recognized the loans that were made during this period of the dynamics that we were describing it is 10 years

after their responsibilities. if they were made during this window we have to recapitalize the banks. we ask communities of color to recapitalize for us to participate in the elaborate ruse to pretend they were okay. we ask the poorest people in the country to carry the weight and that is what happened and is inexcusable. for reasons that our obvious it is not ever discussed. now with peter's argument is not made explicitly but to was side responsibility to the financial crisis of a long-term effort to give people of color and access

to credit. that is what the states of the target is really about. is code. the roles we would like to return to where my father could not get a hole blown because he tried to buy a house next to black people. that is what this is really about let's not kid ourselves. if you doubt this is not happening in america today consider the fact people and real-estate today asked facebook to target their loans or their advertisements are targeted by race. do not think that these problems calloway. -- go away. dave return. >> first of all, do you think why they were made in

communities of color or latino communities to the low income borrowers? they were made because the government would buy them. a government policy and a government program. that created a buyer for these loans. in order to meet the affordable housing goals. so you can blame anyone you want for what happens to be completely correct to housing values with communities of color could

make loans and they had a buyer. that made it profitable for these organizations to make these terrible loans. >> we will open for q&a. we have one question here and one here. >> was negative and zero

occurred without the direct encouragement of banks to make low credit quality loans in certain neighborhoods? to the community reinvestment act so there is a direct incentive for the banks to be held over their heads if they want to merge. >> guess. the community reinvestment act was very small in terms of its impact. not even to be covered in a substantial way. the residents enough data about those loans under the sea are a rules to connect

them to what happened but that main problem with the affordable housing roles with fannie and freddie had the incentive to buy these loans and if cra was a factor in this hard to identify. people say the affordable housing goals and with the community reinvestment act but in my view i have never seen the data that says cra has had any impact on the problem of the financial crisis. >> there are some assumptions that our flawed in this discussion it comes back to around 65 for 70.

second that the crisis did not result from the states but the incentives of this financial industry and a lot of people see that evidence to profit from the model without any skin of their own in the game. because that codifies the doctrine of to big to fail. so now going for word, one of the things you have to do is reexamining and look at

those mortgage models better in place that entail less risk to put actual capital behind what it is they tried to do. >> you bring this up and what i think is interesting is it seems strange to me what works in the '50s if you have a good job to assess and ahold credit risk there could be a lot of reasons why there was a substantial expansion of these programs ordinarily budding think it is interesting me that when we talk about skin and the game was started this savings and loans were local the works

of builders, material suppliers, real-estate agents, appraisers industries in every locality that is attached to that housing market. all of them suffered during the crisis. to be completely disempower those local networks and those fools who rely on local activity in the housing market. and in doing that we're trying to demand capital of disperse organizations. to me, there is a natural skin in the game to take advantage of an lending and that doesn't seem to be part of the discussion this time of reform and i think that is too bad. >> i think the comment mazes

of a deeper issue. if you have coverage to compare the hear the conversation of the way you have to put those policy instruments together so that if you are going to have federal support for the long-term housing credit then you just cannot allow those supporters to go to any loan at any circumstances there has to be robust regulation of the terms of those loans and what circumstances to borrowers have access? one without the other they will go askew. we have different that this this that we talk about but we do agree on that.

the u.s. housing policy has strongly encouraged individual palm ownership you can say that homestead act and certainly the entire time we talk about it. if you looked at other countries in europe there is a lot less emphasis on a debenture -- individual family home ownership as the center of prosperity. instead, housing credit fewer people own their own homes, more government resources are set aside for public housing and it is a very different system. there are arguments they could make those systems are better but we have to move if you want to sustain prosperity, you could not cherry pick the pieces.

and that is the fundamental dilemma to raise those types of issues of there is an approach that is legitimate to say the government is not in the game of the caveat. if you bring the government into the game as the institutions want, there has to be rules on the other side. this same principle applies more general to monetary policy. if you will pump liquidity into the economy to stimulate its come on the

other hand you need to have those regulatory structures. that's was the lesson of this period. some people would argue that those dynamics are present today. is one thing to say hands-off that is the position to argue about but it is legitimate because effectively that it is hands-on but in a way that privatizes profits. >> we have one more question. >> i'm actually the alumnus. i have been involved in housing finance 47 years.

so that it goes way back. and i was with george romney. around the block on the issues i was very involved and to some extent that peter is well aware of my critique as well as his colleague as have numerous e-mail accounts and don't have half an hour to go over all that is why will just can't a few points just to pull up that chart with a high risk loans? could do that to a the audience how bad this misleading that charge is with the fundamental problem i have always had with the dead and peter in terms of how they look upon this subprimal and the i.r.a.

alt-a loans with the option are loans that our unbelievable days toxic with negative amortization. >> if you look at what we have got my glasses is save a little foggy but start with loans starting at 620 cycles core. -- fico score. data origination of over 90 percent to 267 billion. my math is not great but it seems like that is almost 600 billion of the 837 billion.

at my right? that is a huge. this is what i would tell you. i have done multiple studies for congress on the housing crisis. at least one doesn't you go to our web site but beginning with predatory lending how the fed told the san 2004 while on the record to say this prevents us from consumer protections of the non-bank holding company mortgage subsidiaries. some of the worst subprimal and option are lenders in history. horrible. just as bad as others. greenspan and company and bitterly told the examiners

don't go look at those loans . guess what? per jackie started when he was chairman and went after the worst one. countrywide. and with that fair lending exam it was as an ad as you can imagine. but they jump ship. hsbc was another bad one washington mutual was horrendously predatory the chief risk manager said and congress that david ridley preyed on minorities and gave them the worst subprimal own and guess what ? none of these loans to align knowledge are sold to did gse. so when we look at some problems in particular that

is called the hybrid warm where it explodes at two or three years to the libor rate or whenever of 3% or 11%, those loans and the horrible option are bad and better the fifth year 60% default rates -- 50 or 60 default rates to show how these others and even came close to that. we look to very carefully. so here is the big problem. there is the big difference between that high-risk loan they are but not extraordinarily high risk loans not entirely but almost all that were purchased by wall street.

by the way one of the reason why they could not buy them them, why did the market share goal 55 percent down 35% blacks not because they are incompetent but they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar with the accounting scandal or all of the executives that were paid bonuses to hit certain parks and housing goals were one of them. but that was not the biggest. they literally were caught by their auditors 2003 so the regulator said we will put a cap on your purchase loans. as a result innovative very difficult for them to buy new sub prior loans because they run going to secure ties them so then they turn.

said the lifting the cap to testify in congress the reason why the gse are failing is because of the securities. everything did not hit the fan complete the. buddy again it was my neighbor making huge money because they borrowed extremely low rates and here is my question one of the most preeminent economist than the country not exactly is a native organization and

economic advisor to john mccain. he showed me the report from 2013 and the table frankly i have never seen before how the lawsuits for the market for the seven year period on wall street 2006 through 2011 was $449 billion. now he is admitted to me after words that he thought he was too conservative but even if it doubles that. so by the way those portfolio lenders lost

218 billion. excuse me i made a mistake 12 million the first three years that it was 120 million and sari. but my point is to realize the actual losses is what caused the crisis that have loans are this or that. save say i will get back to you did you ever get back to democrats, but to hear your explanation. [laughter] >> we did have to exchange e-mail's. but the point is you have to understand that this was the market created by the gse's the plo as market was created because they got credit through the

affordable housing goals that matter how bad the mortgages were that they were covered by or backed or had the backing of the plo us that no matter how bad they were, they got the credit for them and did not take their losses of the subordinated loans so that is what happened to the aaa charges do not suffer any losses and that is why fannie and freddie did not take the losses. when the market started going, everybody started to get in the picture as the housing prices rose the defaults declined people all

over the world saw you could buy a mortgage backed security for a mortgage in the united states a likelihood of default was very small and those of prime mortgages were paid a lot since it became a huge market but you were complete the correct the biggest buyers by far of the plo as mortgage-backed securities issued by the private sector and the also bought ordinary mortgages that were also pour quality as long as you can see the hundred $38 billion that they had in 2008 and those were responsible.

these are the seven prime mortgages. >> we will end this discussion we can continue after the meeting but we can see the debate goes on. it is very interesting and complicated. but we are delighted to have had all of you shear. please join me to give them a round of applause. [applause] you are invited to stay after we have a reception across the whole way and help the speakers can stay little longer and they would be happy to talk with you and we invite you to come back to future programs as well. [inaudible conversations]

>> [applause] and gentlemen i will give you the same opportunity to talk about issue about your campaign. we will start with you these to talk about the same issues we try to make everybody happy. >> library talk so much about education to be up there in the days single-parent household of political pressure to be all

they senator either a spanish and english nobody called you bilingual. it is you can speak to any language. [laughter] i also went to four different elementary schools. so the issue of education is powerful. almost $700 billion we don't

have control of education of that district it delivers chaotic results soda to create avenues for options of education it would have a large role to play. with. . . explanation which your platform with the reality of school choice it eliminates a portion of children as

their driven to a different location. and choosing from a quality education to understand that every child deserves a quality public education adobes setup the society with our children of the school to prison pipeline without that early childhood education has been proven that these to a more productive child as they get into the system. by ensuring that in our public school system every child has access to a quality public education that would keep them from

that but then they can begin to produce greater as they go from the elementary level and have a stronger society because we are invested in our children. but i definitely understand that but looking at school choice the reason your grandfather could not read is because it was subject to school choice. he was not much to have a quality public education because he was not part of the certain ethnic group and could not afford it. we cannot go back to that time. we need to move forward in the educational price - - process. regardless of color or

economic background. [applause] >> net passing away 94 years old this past j. neary having access to education was not available. no doubt about that. but i think god to be involved that there is so much to a be proud of here in south carolina and given the fact that the last education bill in the last 11 years this is not the first time we should pass legislation to fund k through 12. in this cycle allows for prekindergarten funding.

if you rent the area through this a. did you have access to use some of your funding for the pre-k.. but the lady at is we're on the university campus. receives public funding and receives public money from the state. so why is it that we are okay with colleges into diversity's receiving public dollars for private universities for those who grow up in my neighborhood may not have a quality choice in their neighborhood or ever have the opportunity ? so with another question is another opportunity for the next generation of choice.

they are called charter schools for back-to-school. qualities are in the apparatus of education. catch is for the charter school is the actual school of the local school of a neighborhood very similar to what i grew up with the smu did as well. to date charter schools cannot take the place of those schools that are failing. this gives them a public auction michael that a victory so i'll look all that extra mile without question put the reality is that public apparatus today but can define day in the neighborhood? the answer is very clear.

the answer is too often, and no. [applause] >> said the answer should never be no panic comes to our children's education. to be smart enough and clever enough meat can find the money to pay the teachers brcs marty enough blood negative smart enough but to talk about charter schools, and i have seen the effect right there they start off great but overtime 90 percent white. that is not the exception that is the rule. what we need to do because

we can talk around on the issue but the solution will be that every child in america deserves a quality public education. [applause] i am not recounting the fact those that pay for private school or take a vantage of school choice. i fully agree with that. but we cannot overlook those attract a disadvantage. >> may re-read the top of the page i met the bottom but it isn't working. there is a reason why in

charleston county the graduation rate for the african-american male was 40% there is a reason why that high-school have black and brown and virtually african-american. so the promise that charter schools create that is already reinforced so when i am suggesting is i have taken the time that if you want to see great examples interstate then i was in philadelphia a great charter school. and parents are phenomenal being excited about this.

new york city ad of the 4,000 public-school in new york, this success academy schools 93 percent african-american and hispanic the average income is under $30,000 per year three i '05 for the best in math 75 percent are proficient in science vs. 58% to our white in new york city's other reality is all kids can learn. behalf to embrace that for what ever takes. whatever it takes for equality in education is in our backyard. >> so it is a working bill

based we can do is give options to the parents and they give redo that we will find ourselves with better statistics spell again i have no problem giving more opportunity but we need to be sure that there is not all whole to allow those of those options. i will put it this way. i haven't been able to afford to go this place to that place but have gone to charlton county school district to see the investment that they made in those same children that you talk about with those failing schools. i know for a fact the investment they have put in is substandard. they have not done their job like those that we have heard and will continue to

your. they have not done their jobs to ensure that every child receives a great education. the last term they lost $18 million. that this taxpayer money. but the chief financial officer has no accountability whatsoever. >> we know put a good many into schools we know that they are successful. >> guy bush suggests that if you look at the apparatus of $700 billion. of all of those oecd countries of math or science and reading, our schools are failing the poorest kids.

below the poverty level. we have to do better. >> how many public schools? many to reassure that they are released - - not released from eight grade with the third grade reading level. but that is exactly what you're talking about you're talking segregation unfortunately the biggest cities are segregated. just remember that charter's schools consist of less than

half of the money of the public-school. the options are very clear. if you have a failing public schools and create more options. i would go further to say this support of the mayor of washington d.c. you have to have a charter schools and school of choice we're talking about america's education. the average student is $22,000 per pupil they graduate 56% of the time. school choice is that it represented satisfaction rate among african-americans and parents they graduate 93% of the time. and then they do want to retrieve their for your education.

so if you provide that to the high quality education vs. the 22,000 and the rest of the charter schools. >> this is class comment. washington d.c., and your city, why are a breed number 42 outer 50 states? part of the answer by the way it goes to the classroom but the average nationwide is $0.65 out of the dollar. so which changes its formula with the legislators to have a conversation part of the reason we are so far behind

in my estimation is we have $1 billion to give to reach out. [applause] >> one of the issues you have said is gun violence if you remember of congress what would doo-doo crack. >> first is the same thing i have been pushing for is to close the background check loopholes that allows them to get into the hands of those that should not have guns. i want to make it perfectly clear right here by not against the second amendment i am pro the constitution to bear arms. we are charged with the fact to keep americans save.

and what is flooding into the communities through the background checks loopholes through identification i put that out here right now i could buy a gun right now on line. those that are flooding guns into the community they want to talk about chicago which is my home. but those guns in the community they are not made or sold in those communities they are brought into the community bought off of gun dealers who are responsible for 90 percent of those used in crimes.

those loopholes need to be changed immediately. i can only speak on the estimate but there has been about 1 billion tons in the hands of those that should not have guns and it is estimated by those statisticians at as 2 million lives saved. so with a background check nepal's and then to protect those bad gun dealers, if we do those things and what life is saved and those that have lost their loved ones. and because of the

charleston depaul and should not have gotten his hands on the gun because that was 72 hours but that was common sense. we have nine people in a church dead because of that charleston the poll who and distill don't have it closed and i do understand that. many people say hong nothing prevents a person palm house from dealing that should not have a gun or those said to have a gun. but the reality is.

>> senator stocks?

>> >> think about this. 7,000 people in this nation is the lives because of a gun. sixty-five% of those take their lives. sixty-five%, 20,000 people of those 30,000 take their life. supposedly the researcher of government violence and guns says that 3 percent that is the number of those

illegally buy a gun at the gun show and then they use that gun in a crime the vast majority steal their weapons berger take that 30,000 down the 10,000 because of suicide but about five for 6,000 of those deaths are homicides. that represents 25%. whether chicago or baltimore or detroit those have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. so when we have a conversation how to make people safer even chris

murphy, a friend of mine from connecticut's it would pass the question i think on "face the nation". [laughter] but the laws that he was pushing would not have saved the lives of those recently lost. even in connecticut it for. >> so what do we do? >> unchallenged is to have law-enforcement officers are doing their job. >> but then also crack down on those people greg. >> the answer is the cops help to support those officers and also provide

more money so the resource question doesn't seem to be the answer of the question how to stop but the answer is not to stop it from happening. but we have taken it up last year and again this year no fly/no buy. but that is through due process. we can make progress to say yes to do process. that is the two sides of congress. the both sides suddenly need to come together. >> but as a listen to your conversation, i am aware i

have the with the mother immanuel survivors and then they come home. so we can break down those numbers but unless we do everything within our power for losing our daughter or from her niece or losing her son. then we have let america down. but with all due respect and have the utmost respect for your sister.

and have good above to work with you somewhere. but when it comes to gun legislation, common sense gun legislation that b.c. from america that there is everything within our power. or how it touches anybody and the audience is not color or race or creed or gender or in orientation but the proliferation or the amount is the standard of law-enforcement. i know because i come from a community. i know how the guns came in.

and it is still going suez in a year-old with her $20, and no. common sense gun legislation we shot down those gun dealers. for those other not detected any more. we stopped of mine -- tom lange and sales. there needs to be more training involved. we are charged. from brcs charged with the task to take care of americans because that is

what we do. when we send our volunteers off to another country, they make a pledge to die for this country. there is no reason why anybody in america should not get up in them by going to church and he don't have to worry about somebody coming up to the elementary school to gunned them down. >> i don't dispute but if you look at chicago specifically whether or not those surveyed believe purchased, the existence are clearly looking up. but the reality is in each case that you just mentioned

dozens, if not for the laws were broken in connecticut? if the laws that we have from the box are not working , what laws to use a just? because i will tell you the charleston loophole was actually a lot. >> what that translates imi brother's keeper. for those entire chapters. so let's show some of. >> i am not disputing that.

by abstaining is ready to do whatever we can to stop somebody from dying the way that you break that down to that little number i don't know what you say about chicago because the fact is these are not legal gun setter killing people. >> that's right. >> get out of a kind of point you are making. they are illegal guns. so the maximum amount there are no gun stores in the communities but they come from somewhere. they come from somewhere or that back door of somebody's gun shops are all mine purchases but they get them from somewhere but it is a matter of enforcing the laws but until we do that we

cannot overlook anything that will make america safe. nothing whatsoever. >> dire agree. >> we have agreement on to the next question. [applause] what is a unique responsibilities with the nominees to the court? there was the vacancy nominated to fill the supreme court that there are dozens on the lower federal courts some of the of nominees have been waiting for more than a year for senate action. i am not asking you what you would do regarding the specific nominee currently. but i want to know what you think the senate's responsibility is regarding denominations.

should they give a hearing and a vote and what criteria is used to determine if you would confirm president's nomination? dixon: he can start first. >> a couple of things. . . >> one time has a been a supreme

justice allowed in that last year. to use the words of vice president biden, chuck schumer, when asked if they would allow for president bush to have a nominee this last year, the answer was, no we would not do so. >> would you clarify that question was asked of june of the residential election year, and it was a hypothetical question. there was no vacancy at the time. >> soaking to continue my point here because i think you help me build that. [applause] it's a very important point, even the moderator who is moderating this has a strong opinion on where we should go. the reality is this. >> i didn't say they were right i just said that was the timing of when they did it, i strongly disagree with what they did. >> the reality of it is that both sides have consistently

opposed a nominee in the last year. there's a reason why. the elections have consequences, there for their waiting until the election is over until there's an appointment. i'm sure sure there will be, the fact of the matter is that for us we believe a more conservative justice would be helpful, the president is not going to provide us with the conservative nominee. so we would advise him but not -- so if you want to come back with more conservative nominee we will consider it. >> is that your criteria for the supreme court nominee? >> are most conservative candidate i think i can get. [applause]