service. giving you a front row seat to democracy. senate majority leader chuck schumer and republican congressman dave joyce's give their support for cannabis legalization. topics included interstate commerce of cannabis, criminal justice reform indian higher mental impact of the cannabis industry. watch today at 7:00 p.m. eastern or online at c-span.org. coming up this morning on washington journal, former nra lobbyist richard feldman talks about efforts to reduce gun violence and later lawrence yun

talks about the state of the housing market and what trends to watch out for. be sure to join the conversation with your calls, text and tweets. >> it is time to act for the children we have lost, the children we can save, for the nation we love. let's hear the call in the cry, let's meet the moment. let us finally do something. host: president biden says enough and a primetime address urging lawmakers here in washington to act on gun legislation and adds congressman -- americans should hold them accountable in november if they do not. republicans dial in at (202)

748-8000, democrats at (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002, or you can text us at (202) 748-8003. more from the president last night, he laid out the proposal that he would like to see laid out in the country. >> we need to see a ban on assault weapons. if we cannot ban assault weapons we should raise the age from 18 to 21. strengthen background checks and enact -- address the mental health crisis.

these are rational, commonsense measures. here's what it all means, we should reinstate the assault weapons ban on high-capacity magazines that we passed in 1994 with bipartisan support. nine categories of semiautomatic weapons were included like ak-47s and did the 10 years that it was law, mass shootings went down. after republicans let the law expire and those weapons were allowed to be sold again, mass shootings tripled. those are the facts. a few years ago, the family of the inventor of the ar-15 said he would have been horrified to

know that his design was being used two massacre children as opposed to being used on the battlefield. enough, enough. we should limit how many rounds a weapon can hold. why in god's name shouldn't ordinary citizen be able to purchase an assault weapon that holds 30 round magazines and let mash shooters fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes? the damages sewed devastating, terrence had to do dna swabs to identify the remains of their children. enough. we should expand background checks to keep guns out of the hands of felons, fugitives and those under restraining orders. stronger background checks are something that the vast majority

of americans agree on. i also believe that we should have safe storage laws and personal liability for not locking up your god. the shooter from sandy hook came from a home full of guns. that is where he got his weapons, the weapon he used to kill 21st graders. if you have a weapon you have the responsibility to secure it. to make sure no one else has access to it, it to lock it up. to have trigger locks and if you doubt, you should be held responsible. we should also have national red flag laws so that a teacher, parent, a patient, if someone is exhibiting violent tendencies or

suicidal thoughts or makes themselves in danger to themselves or others. host: many republicans arguing that the president and drama kratz want to infringe on gun owners rights and the second amendment. this morning we want to get your reaction to this. the nra put out a response to the address and this is what they said. the nra supports substantive policies that will make a difference. policies that will not only address these tragic and evil acts but also the catastrophic loss of life that happens as a direct consequence of the crime epidemic the plagues the nation. america does have a mental health crisis. confused people -- too few people are able to get help, but

instead of enacting real solutions, all the president proposes infringes on law-abiding people. it is not what america needs and that is a shame. it is your turn to tell washington what you think. mike, a republican in washington. caller: i have a few things to say. i am wondering if joe biden, that tyrannical fascist. i wonder if he will go after his son for throwing his pistol away at an elementary school. the only thing joe biden is going to do is restore the gas to oil company and take people's

guns. host: melissa and montana, a democratic collar. caller: thank you so much for everything you do. you are a bright light in the midst of darkness. one thing i would like to say to america, before we put joe biden down, with his leadership we are talking about issues instead of trying to destroy the press. host: when it comes to gun legislation, what do you want to see? caller: one thing i would relay her -- really like to see. all of these games that people play where they shoot people. would someone do a study where

if the shooters play these violent games? it seems to me that they are programming young people's minds to go around and shoot people. thank you so much for c-span and president biden. at least we are talking about the issues instead of putting each other down. host: daniel in kentucky, and independent. caller: for that previous collar , there is no facts between violent video games and shooters. my main thoughts on the current thing is, you will not see

republicans in power do anything because they live behind gates and walls and have security guards. they don't have to worry about seeing down the barrel of a gun or that this special report is going to come from their school that it was shot. they won't budge because they don't care. the thing is, you have all these people like that first collar that their rights won't be infringed. the thing about the second amendment is that it is well regulated. they did not intend for all people to have all kinds of guns. you have to have background checks, you have to have an eye out for people who might take guns and shoot up the place. host: so daniel, you are on

board with everything the president laid out? caller: at least the common sense part. red flags, taking away the immunity causes and stuff like that. host: lindsey graham, the republican senator from south carolina tweeting out after the president spoke to the country, i am ready to vote on all the republicans and ever for the republicans to ring them to vote. i will work across the aisle. there is a bipartisan group of senators that have been meeting, exchanging ideas and could come forward with their framework of gun legislation that could pass in the senate.

the president called on congress last night in his address to act. here is what he had to say. >> i just told you what i would do. the question now is what will the congress do? the house already passed key things that we need. getting rid of the loopholes allows the gun sales to go through in three days even if the background check has not been completed. safe storage requirements and banning high-capacity magazines. raising the age for assault rifles to 21. banning ghost guns they don't have serial numbers and cannot be traced. tougher laws on gun trafficking.

this time we have to take the time to do something and this time it is time for the senate to do something. but as we know, in order to get anything done in the senate we need a minimum of 10 republican senators. i support the bipartisan efforts , but the fact that the majority of republican senators don't even want these issues to come up for a vote, i find it unconscionable. we can't fail the american people again. uvalde, there have been 20 shootings. including yesterday at a hospital in tulsa, oklahoma. the shooter targeted the surgeon

using an assault profile -- rifle he had bought just hours earlier. that doesn't count the carnage we see every single day that does not make the headlines. i have been in this fight for a long time. i know how hard it is but i will never give up. if congress fails, a majority of the american people will not give up either. they will make their outrage on this issue central to their vote. enough, enough, enough. host: we are getting your reaction to what he had to say. today, the headline reads, the nation is caught in a grim cycle. ryan miller reporting that there

have been a dozen mass killings in the united states which has left 76 people dead according to the associated press. since 2006 30 mass killings a year. yesterday, before the president spoke, there was another shooting that left three people dead in the church parking lot and aims, iowa. here is the headline from the des moines register, a man killed two church members and himself outside of an teams, iowa church. caller: here is the thing.

we need to disabuse ourselves that passing another gun control law will make everyone with criminal intent say i should not do whatever i considered doing. we should do what they do in israel. every school with 100 students or more has a guard. as far as legislation is concerned, all of these different laws that improve background checks. background checks have been a failure. we have seen that over and over again partly because human beings are involved in the process or the process itself doesn't work properly and crimes and mental health issues aren't being reported to the

authorities. lastly i would say what jeff cooper said, criminals don't fear the courts or police, they need to be taught to fear their victim. host: before you go, what about the proposal that is raising the age from 18 to 21 to get in an assault style weapon, would you be in favor of that? caller: you go into the military when you are 18 years old and they will put a real assault rifle in your hands. in assault rifle is a specific type of military rifle which is select fire. it has the ability to file one shot per trigger pull or multiple shots per trigger pull.

host: let me ask you to respond to the president. he said that these 18 years old that go into the military are trained and supervised. caller: when you buy a long gun, you have to pass a background check. but as i pointed out, the background check system is not working and people who otherwise have no reportable crimes or mental health issues are able to pass a background check. so either we change the background check issues so that arrests for violent threats or a 70 hour hold our reported to the fbi are in our system or it's not going to work. host: richard is a democrat in

new jersey. caller: i find it interesting that in the republican states they will pass laws, but for breathing children, they don't want take the ability of gun collectors to collect guns. the second amendment does not give you the right to own any weapon you please. you can read the heller decision

i believe that is what it says. host: what do you support? caller: most people want to do is get rid of the ar-15's. one guy killed 54 people before he could get shot. you are letting these children get killed, for what? every other country in the world realizes it is insane. we are sacrificing our children to the gun nuts. i hope it can change. we get rid of the ar-15's and

protect the right to an abortion. those are the two things that can shift the election. host: patricia is a republican from circleville, ohio. caller: these gun restrictions, the bodyguards will not be affected by them. host: as we said, house speaker

nancy pelosi will bring up several pieces of legislation. one of them includes the protect our kids act which comes before the house committee yesterday. they spent nearly 10 hours marking up a package that will come up in this protect your kids act. one legislator displayed his guns while arguing against these proposals. >> they want to take law-abiding citizens ability to purchase handguns.

last year, the glock 19 was the highest sold handgun in the united states. it comes with the 15 round magazine. that gun would be banned. i have a six-hour --sig hauer, it would be banned under this current bill. this gun would be banned under this bill. here is a sig hauer 620. this gun would be banned under the this bill. this is a gun i carry every day. it comes with a 15 round magazine.

here is a seven round magazine which would be less, it doesn't fit so this gun would be banned. >> i hope that dan is not loaded. >> i am at my house, i can do whatever i want with my gun. host: if you missed it and you are interested you can go to our website. you will see key moments, points of interest to out the 10 hours. you can click through the gold stars to see some of those key moments from the debates. it was passed with the democratic majority and it is headed for the floor next week. included in that bill, and protect our children act, it raises the age for automatic

weapons from 18 to 21. it outlaws high-capacity magazines. it also cracks down on non-trafficking and straw purchases. john in temple hills, maryland. thank you for joining us. what are your thoughts? caller: in america, the law is wholesale. if they can repeal roe v. wade, they can repeal the second amendment. but in order to repeal the second amendment they would have to jail large amounts of white people. i want to know where was all of this compassion when to mere

rise was shot? it is disingenuous for people to come on the air and talk about their right to bear arms. america is not a light on a hill, it is a killing field. caller: i have been an gun honor -- owner all of my life. i hear every time this comes up people will use the second amendment and the words well regulated militia without knowing what was meant by our founding fathers. well regulated militia meant all males between 18-60.

you needed to be able to defend yourselves and your area and you needed the same type of weapons that our militias and standing army had. that doesn't mean we all need machine guns but we need something comparable to what our military uses in case we are called upon to supplement our military. everything else is moot. you can't get away with chiseling away the second amendment because the bill of rights would fall apart. you are grasping at straws here. i don't have anything against

raising the age. some of these red flag laws are very much against the public because they convict people without having a trial. you take away your right to defend yourself before you even have a hearing. they are trying to level in a bunch of bad stuff with decent ideas. when you do that people like me say forget about it. you throw the baby out with the bathwater. that is the way i feel about it. host: catherine in concord, new hampshire. independent. caller: good morning.

when the constitution was written, guns were muskets. they were muzzle loaders, not high velocity weapons. that must be taken into consideration. host: byron, florida. caller: i am a history teacher and former intelligence analyst. 40 years ago the city streets were flooded with guns that made ar-15s look like jokes. there were other machine guns and they were shooting at schools.

you have seen the movies stand by me, they took knives from kids, they had metal detectors. there were young men with machine guns running the streets. these young men who wanted to kill people, they would shoot them at football games. this violence is the same violence. we have young men that are frustrated and angry. they want to strike and strike quickly. our nation is flooded with gun. and the inner city it was mac

tens, uzis. the first instance of gun control was at the ok corral. they had a shoot out with men who would not give up their guns. host: ryan miller wrote an article about american paralysis around guns. at schools, more people have died in mass killings than in the prior 12 years combined. the database at northeastern

university defines a mass killing as an instance in which four or more people have died. gun deaths are increasing in the united states. 2020 saw a high of over 40,000 does. that was a increase of over 20%. mass killings have been steadily increasing in recent years. 2021 saw the highest incidence of mass shootings since 2014 at 600 92.

-- 692. let's hear from howard in somerville, texas. what do you think about what the president was asking congress to do with any of it be ok with you? caller: what about the mass killing of babies? abortions are a guarantee kill. host: tyler, texas. independent. caller: long before we declared

war on england, william blackstone said no human lives should be suffered to contradict these. those laws are put there because our founders did not want human loss to contradict the laws of nature and nature's guide, creation and the bible is what those referred to. almost everything we are talking about is a result of the

violation of those two laws. we need to go back to the origin. william blackstone and thomas jefferson and reacquaint ourselves with the limits of what men's laws do. host: mary in jacksonville, florida. caller: i agree with the earlier caller from new jersey. my idea that i thought of, every single person who refuses to vote for doing away with semi automatic weapon should have to look at videos of what really

happens with someone who gets shot with those weapons. the mental state of those people who think this is acceptable. i don't even know what else to say, i am so upset. it has consumed my life right now and i am in the state of florida which is insane with guns and every day there is a shooting in the city i live in. thank you for taking my call. host: headline from axios.com. senator john cornyn, republican from texas, willing to discuss red flag laws.

senator mitch mcconnell asked to discuss bipartisan legislation about gun control. republican congressman matt gaetz of florida warned his colleagues in the senate, his republican colleagues about supporting reg flag laws. >> if you back red flag laws as some reflexive response to some emotions that you have, you betray your voters, you are a traitor to the constitution, the second amendment, the fifth amendment. you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely and you put a target on the back of your constituents to be subject to

bizarre proceedings that you wouldn't see in any type of circumstance that have bizarre impacts on your rights. and they will be abused, how long until the conversations about having senator kicked off an aircraft turn into taking his guns away? it is not about guns it is about power. the democrats want to take your guns away without having due process. shame for any republican that would pave the way for that. host: that is matt gaetz, the red flag law he is proposing is one that is likely to come to the floor in the house in the coming weeks protecting our

children act which is what the house was marking up yesterday is on the agenda as well as the risk protection order act. it would encourage states to take up their own risk protection laws. and the active shooter alert act. nancy pelosi announcing that she will put gun legislation on the floor next week. let me go back to the constitution committee and show you the reaction from david cicilline. >> this is a radical position from our friends on the others of the aisle. they claim that we should

support that people who are in imminent danger of themselves or their others, that they have a constitutional right to access a firearm and to deny them that right would trample on their due process. do you know who did not have their right to life respected? the kids at parkland and uva lde? so spare me the bull--. they ensure that people who are a grave danger to themselves and others don't have access to firearms. the former republican president said that those who pose a

threat do not have access to firearms. those firearms could be taken, that's why i call for them to be taken. the bill introduced by senator lindsey graham, no matter how dangerous you are, no matter how much you have exhibited a danger to yourself or others, you should have unfettered access to firearms. host: david cicilline as a congressman from rhode island. susan, in new york and independent. good morning and welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. we keep going around and around

in this country. i don't expect anything will be resolved. matt gaetz is right about one thing it is about power but it is the power of the nra to throw in so much money for campaigns that the republicans, that is how they vote. it is no matter of how the people vote. all of these things are important, one of your callers mentioned israel. it is the size of new jersey. i challenge anyone who does not even want to consider gun laws to look at the data and other

countries, the united kingdom, canada who have tighter controls and are minimal numbers of these kind of mass shootings. how do you explain that if not for guns? the only thing we are going to change is if every person votes if this issue is important enough for you. host: mark in montana, hi mark. mark, go ahead. caller: listened to congress and jim jordan talking about gun control. jim jordan asked, why does all

of this happened there has to be some kind of mental illness. there was a caller yesterday who talked about her daughter that got killed. she said it is related to drugs. we are awash in drugs. we have so many drugs and so many gangs. if you add up the amount of gang members, it is the size of the army. this woman also mentioned the effect of the drugs. nikolas cruz who was the shooter

at parkland. he said he experienced auditory hallucinations. the same story happened with the boston marathon bombers. they were daily smokers of marijuana. our violence stems from childhood trauma and certain people are more vulnerable to the effects of marijuana on the mind. if we want to solve this problem we need gun control. we don't have to worry about a taranto coal government but we also have to address, drugs at

the border. our liberalized values that started in the 60's. america's demands for drugs. as a whole culture, our demand for drugs. host: this is a piece written in the new york times, other countries have mass shootings and then they change their gun laws. they all had a culture of gun ownerships and tightened restrictions anyway.

statistics now diverge sharply from those of the united states. max fisher writes, it now has one of the lowest death rates in the world. in australia, a 1996 massacre, a million handguns were melted. canada also tightened gun laws after a 1989 shooting. in norway, last year, only the united states whose rates are without parallel has so consistently refused to answer those events with tightened gun

laws. even australia, where conservative values have supported gun ownership, they supported tightening gun laws. the risk is impossible to fully erase. let's hear from alvin in virginia. the president is urging action here in washington, do you agree? alvin, are you there? it is your turn. caller: what i want to say is,

we need to quit calling this gun violence. we need to start calling it violence with the gun. a gun is not violent. we need to put god back into schools. we need to hold parents accountable until the age of 18. if they can't control their kids until 18 they need to be in jail themselves. we need to put the value back on human life. the government promotes death especially with abortions. some of the stuff that is on tv as well.

i think social media has played a big part. if we don't get some of these things under control we will continue to have this. host: ricky a democrat in louisiana. caller: thank you c-span. i don't understand about these sick republicans. they are sick people. if you are against regulations for gun and any manner, you are as much responsible for those children and those people getting killed with these guns. these gun should not be made in no way form or fashion for any citizen to go and purchase those kinds of rifles and especially if you are 18 years of age.

you should automatically be aged 21 to purchase these guns. i hear these republicans talking about coming to get your guns. nobody is coming to get your guns. they should be regulated in order to get a gun. you should be verified in order to register that gun. those guns are just not made to kill innocent children. those guns are made to fight a civil war. and when you are going to the capital and you destroy the capital, most of those people i guarantee you they own ar-15's and those guns are made to fight the government. you bet that is going to happen sooner or later. that is all i have to say, thank you for taking my call. host: john in huntsville,

alabama. an independent. caller: almost everyone calling in is being scammed. obama's mentor in college was someone called frank marshall. he was a marxist. a number of people killed by communist violence, and china's 65 million.

russia, 25 million. cambodia, 2 million. north korea, 2 million. columbine, 15 afghanistan 1.5 million. vietnam -- host: what is your fear? caller: a government like that will come to america with kamala harris. with that rioting that

happened in 2020 and she said that the writing shouldn't stop. that is who they are, that is what they want. host: john in fort dodge, iowa. caller: i have been following this since it happened and there is one thing about this that i have not heard anywhere. you have the shooting in florida some time ago being perpetrated by 18-year-olds that supposedly went through a background check. anything that happens prior to

the shooters becoming 18 was sealed where they couldn't be checked. if that was overridden where they can check these 18-year-olds previous records when they were minors, they would not have got these guns. host: you are open to that idea? caller: absolutely. i think everything else we are talking about, the guy in vegas he was 62, there was plenty to check. outside of that, if they had been checked through their juvenile records, i guarantee you they would not have gotten their weapons. thank you. host: from philadelphia, a democratic caller. caller: i don't understand why the republicans in reference to

the gun legislation and the abortions, they want to save the unborn children but you are willing to chill the children that are alive. that makes no sense to me. you want to kill the live children but you want to keep alive the unborn children. that is my comment. host: darrell in indianapolis, independent. caller: the main thing i see in this country is, we are not changing laws because of the second amendment which is part of the constitution which was 250 years ago.

how much freedom do we have in this country? you can't go to church. you can't take your kids to school. either they will have to control the guns or they will have to supply the security to make it safe in this country. freedom is something that we fight for but can we have it in this country? our politicians are putting rhetoric on rhetoric and are not going to solve this problem. why can't we protect the citizens of this country? there are politicians that are debating this that have been under indictment, why are they

deciding what is going on in this country and still free? host: ed from pleasant valley, new york, republican. caller: first thing is, i don't believe that only republicans own guns. i am in a hunting club and everybody has guns. we have a red flag law and new york state. i know a guy who lost his gun. everybody better be ready, this is the beginning of the disarming of america. we have outfitted an entire country with our high-powered equipment. do you think that won't show up on our borders? we don't know who is at our

borders. our own government is feeding drugs to people on the streets. we are in bad shape in this country. it is our government and the people running it. you can even protect yourself from this. we are letting in millions of people and we don't even know who they are. it is just a matter of when, what year and everything is going to heck. host: you mentioned that new york passed red flag laws. they also raised the age to buy automatic weapons do you agree with that? i am so sorry, i accidentally pressed the button. but you were saying you do not agree. darrell, in texas. we will wrap up this

conversation with you. caller: my point is just very quickly, why can't we give this a shot to put what president biden was speaking about last night into action? my wife and i are afraid to go to the store because of these mass shootings. i appreciate your time. host: we will take a short break and when we come back, we will talk about congresses efforts we will talk with richard feldman. lawrence yun and then later we will speak with and speak with

the trends in the housing market. ♪ >> book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern, on in-depth, join our live conversation with journalist sam king who will discuss immigration issues, americans drug epidemic and his book, the least of us, true tales of america and hope in the time of sentinel and mass. 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, creator and host of the rubin report, dave rubin, shares his thoughts on how to revive the american dream and woke culture. he is interviewed by emily eakin's. watch book tv every sunday as he spent two a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org.

>> only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here -- if it happens here, or here, or here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> washington neural continues. host: richard feldman joins us today, the president of the independent firearm association and is also the author of this book, ricochet, confessions of a gun lobbyist. he used to lobby for the national rifle association.

mr. feldman, let's begin with your group now. what is it, why did you decide to not continue working for the nra and for this group -- and form this group? guest: that is very many years ago that happened. in the interim i used to represent the firearm industry during the 1990's. it is just a policy group so this issue right now is kind of write up my alley in terms of not what someone would necessarily like to do, whether you are pro-gun, anti-gun, or somewhere in the middle, but what is doable and what could be effective. we throw a lot of terms around when we discuss the gun issue. most of the times -- terms are political terms not policy terms. we confuse ourselves all the time in talking one minute about politics and the next about policy and we have to be clear

about focusing on the problem. as i said to then vice president biden in his office after newtown, the issue is not the issue -- not the gun per se, the issue is always in these ends are the guns. when you frame the issue that way, the american people, gunowners, nonowners, gun lovers, gun haters, we are all in agreement on who should not have guns. a violent, predatory individual whether they have mental issues or just criminal intent and unsupervised juveniles. sometimes i scratch my head and wonder what are we fighting about? because we are all in agreement on the basic who should not have guns. but we start fighting about the politics all the time. host: let's talk about what is

doable. next week, the housel take up the part acting our children act. let's take the proposals one by one. raising the purchasing age for semi automatic weapons from 18 to 21 years old. mr. feldman, is that doable? guest: yes. i think that is doable. it probably would be making all long guns at 21 and since we are on a thoughtful show, i might add federal law only would be able to prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling those guns. that would have a real impact in buffalo and uvalde since the shooter bought them from a licensed dealer. the supreme court has already -- or several federal courts -- strongly suggest it may not be constitutional to do that, but that is a separate issue. it is something the congress could do and i think it is

something right now that they should do. host: when you say would only apply to licensed dealers, what do you mean? guest: well federal law cannot prohibit in a state a 19-year-old from purchasing a rifle or handgun from another adult. that is a matter of state law. they can only prevent the sale of that gun from a federally licensed dealer who they have jurisdiction over. federal government does not have jurisdiction over me selling guns in the state where i live in new hampshire. the state of new hampshire has that ability to decide, not the federal government. host: the next proposal outlaws high-capacity magazines and bump stocks for civilian use. guest: if we want to have a really good food fight in this

country and to me it is like kabuki theater, we have gone through this time and time again , and if we start talking about assault weapon bands and magazine capacity, we will have a great food fight. i almost promise that nothing subs live will be accomplished -- nothing subs sit in the -- in line it becomes easy to suppose the bill -- oppose the bill because it includes parts unacceptable. that is from a policy measure gun owners. politically, i am at a loss on the stand why -- loss to understand why thoughtful democrats, particularly political operatives, would even want to suggest to have that kind of fight six months out from the next election. instead of doing what we could achieve, they want to have

another food fight that would cost them real seats in congress , in the house and senate, and many legislative fights. i would suspect there are republicans and other gun groups salivating at the opportunity to have this fight over magazine capacity and semi automatic firearms. ?" why -- firearms. host: why? guest: because gun owners that is a first -- can owners know that as a first step. is anyone suggesting that if the ar-15 platform gun didn't exist these guys would be like i would never use a hunting rifle to kill a whole bunch of people? what do you take me for? there are thousands of varieties of guns that are far more dangerous than those. they don't necessarily look as dangerous. they do not have that militaristic black finish, they

do not have the forward stock or the threaded barrel or a flash suppressor. none of those items make it look like an assault weapon have anything to do with their functionality as a firearm. what makes a firearm a firearm is its ability to fire a projectile at high speed down range. our opportunity to control it is who ends up with those guns whether it is a single shot guarantor pointed at me or a fully automatic water cooled machine gun. the consequences are pretty much the same. i do not want anyone getting those guns. not saying it is ok you can get these guns and use them against people but not those guns. that is a silly fight that has no consequences to the problem we want -- we agree we want to

solve. host: how do you respond to the thread earlier this morning, a piece written about how other countries who have had mass shootings, britain, norway, australia, had gun ownership culture as well and they still restricted the type of guns people could own and they saw those mass shooting numbers go down? guest: there are lots of things that other countries can do, but they are not politically doable in america. those countries did not have half the households in them with a firearm available. they did not have 35% of their voting population owning guns. if a political party once to write off 35% of the electorate, and while it is true democrats are guns in lower percentage than republicans, it is very

substantial numbers of democrats own guns. in an election, they are always looking at the margins. you soon your -- you assume your base voters will vote for you and your opponents base voters will vote for them. when you're fighting a tight rice, -- tight race, you are fighting over the independents. and pendants own guns -- independents own guns is somewhere between republicans and democrats. if you want to write off a certain amount of the independent vote and give it to your opponent, that does not seem to be a thoughtful strategy if you are intending on winning elections. host: let's have our viewers weigh in on the policy and politics of this. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. gun owners this morning, your line is (202) 748-8003.

that is your number, 8003. you can also text us at that number with your first name, city, and stay. let's go back to the protect our children's act, the package of proposals coming to the house floor next week. establishing requirements regulating the storage of firearms. what is your take? guest: i have been a proponent of safe storage of firearms as long as i have been involved in the gun issue. i am the guy who made the announcement in the rose garden with bill clinton when i represented the industry, announcing the handgun manufacturers would begin shipping guns with child safety locks. i certainly have been a proponent of safety. the problem with legislation is what is appropriate in one situation could be inappropriate in another. you cannot legislate 20,000 different varieties of situations.

what we ought to do, wha smart people would do, what we use to have done in this country is encourage people to do the right thing. yesterday, i had a piece in politico about the five things we could do right now that would have an impact on this issue and have the support of the gun community. one of them involved safety locks. we ought to use our tax code right now and give ppo -- give people a deduction for buying a gun safe. let's piggyback the sales tax and suspended on the purchase of gun safes. let's also have an educational campaign to encourage people to keep their sons -- their guns secured when not in use. that is certainly including when you leave a gun in a car.

that is where a number of guns are stolen, unlocked vehicles. that is silliness and it earns and negligence -- and ignorance and negligence on gun owners. rather than pass criminal laws, let's use a care instead of a stick. host: what about cracking down on gun purchases? guest: i have been a proponent for 25 years of things we can do in our government to do a better job. i must say the industry really stepped up to the plate in terms of purchases. there are other things we do not even talk about in this country that we could do fairly easily to cut down substantially on the theft of guns. but certainly every gun dealer i know, there is no upside to someone in the business selling

guns to someone unauthorized. it comes back to haunt them and cost them far more money than they could ever possibly make. host: talk about ghost guns. what are they and this law would subject ghost gun purchases to background check requirements. guest: we use the sexy and politically charged term ghost guns as though they are invisible. this is talking about parts. parts to a gun that under federal law a firearm is actually the receiver. when you have a receiver, it is a piece of metal, basically a paperweight that is the basic part of the gun. it cannot fire, but all of the other parts have to be assembled and put together to make it a functioning firearm. so what we're talking about with ghost guns, if you put all of these other parts together and

manufacture the frame by yourself, perhaps with a 3d printer, that will be illegal. that is kind of like saying i oppose the internet and we will stop progress because we do not like the way it works out. it is a full's errand to try at this point because it is just not going to work. what we can spend lots of time talking about issues that we wish could be, or we could spend our limited time, money, and resources on focusing on the things we actually can achieve, ghost guns. people have always been allowed to manufacture several guns at home, lawfully. to say you cannot do that now, now it is easier to do than ever. that is not the problem.

it is like manufacturing a car at home with parts and not registering it. it is not illegal, and as long as you do not take it on a public street, it is perfectly fine. we do not say someone could get hurt, because it was not registered and you are not licensed. we already say it is your property and you can do it, may not be the smartest thing but it is legal. let's focus on what we can do instead of using the things that divide us from preventing us from moving forward on the many things that we in fact could get achieved and would have an impac. host: red flag laws are legislation that could come to the floor next week. you write in the political peace the next item we could fix is properly drafted gun restraining order or red flag laws. talk about what you think would work in red flag law. guest: like anything, there are good ones and bad ones.

good red flag laws will provide a lot of due process to the person who is being challenged. that means you cannot use hearsay, well i ready piece from someone who said that tom jones was going to use a gun and kill people. you have to have personal knowledge of it, they have to have said it to you. if we start using hearsay, everybody who you do not like will get accused. they are angry at me, this neighbor, they may have guns and i will say they threatened me and then -- did they threaten you? how clear was it? we can use this effectively. if we take this to gather -- take the scatter approach and draft poor laws that affect way too many people, that is where the pushback from the legitimate -- not the just gun owner community, the civil libertarian

community. anybody can be accused of a crime but when you swear out a complaint, it is not what you think might have happened, it is about what you know happening. no hearsay. there has to be a hearing very quickly. in an emergency, perhaps we can take those guns, but then the hearing has to happen within 72 hours, and a judge has to say, yes, this was legitimate or this was bs, give him or her back those guns. host: we are talking with richard feldman this morning, the president of the independent firearms association. let's go to calls. brian out of massachusetts, democratic color. caller: good morning -- caller. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i am a democrat. i had guns when i was a kid, but one when i was 18, a shotgun. i was never a hunter, but i enjoyed target shooting or whatever.

i have heard a lot about everything from before this crap, before abortion, drugs, video games. this gentleman here, i was expecting something different from the pro-gun lobby but he is very intelligent. he knows it is a hot fight on both sides. they will not take away the second amendment. magazine capacity, you don't need 30 bullets to go target practice. host: let's take that point. richard feldman. guest: this whole magazine capacity issue is an interesting issue. it is as though we are searching around for the perfect number. let's take an example. new york law that was passed after newtown and is now 10

round magazine capacity. so everyone in new york and glove and are -- and governor cuomo said this is common sense to let's examine the common sense if i'm in new york and i lawfully own two glock pistols, each one can have 10 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. so i can have one gun in my left hand and one in my right hand and i have 22 rounds of 45 ammunition available. but if i should have no gun with me, no ammunition with me, and i have this 16 round magazine, at little box with a spring in it, that makes me a felon in new york state. gun owners look at that and go, that is common sense? really? so instead of zeroing in on the problem of people who are misusing or likely to miss use a gun, any gun, we are going to

focus on the super majority of americans who do own guns with higher capacity magazines. while you are right, for target shooting, the nationals do require 20 shots so if you have to change your magazine after 10, you are off your target and not affected. sports shooting aside, if you are in a firefight in your home, against three assailants, i know i would like to have as many rounds available as i can because it is not like target shooting at all. you are firing at somebody moving in that life or death situation. it is not so easy to hit your target. i would want to have a lot of ammunition. that is exactly why the police carry high-capacity magazines. it is not for target shooting, it is for protection. host: rob on alabama, democratic

caller and gun owner, welcome to the conversation. caller: yes, i am not a democrat, i am an independent. but i'm a gun owner. i would like to address some of the false information put out by the media and by the president who just stated couple days ago that nine mean -- nine millimeter pistol rounds [indiscernible] that is the most ridiculous thing i've heard. also the ar-15 is a civilian rifle, not a military rifle. no military in the world uses that rifle. it is made to look like a military rifle, but it has not the capacity for the military rifle. it does not have a switch to turn it to fully automatic fire. it is not an assault rifle. it is a very small caliber rifle. it is a 222, which leaves a

whole much smaller than a pistol. if i were going to do a mass shooting, i would use a 12 skate -- 12 gauge automatic shotgun. you will get a lot more damage with a much bigger weapon that is much more powerful at short range. my rifle is the 36, most caliber used by the military but this would not affect my dear rifle which can kill at 500 yards. it is going to affect the small varmint guns like the ar-15 and ar does not stand for assault rifle, it stands for the company that manufactures it. the ar-15 is much less deadly than my dear rifle which is 30 out six. also the nonsense about

high-capacity magazines is completely irrelevant. it takes two seconds to change out a clip magazine -- a removable magazine. if you have five of them that are 10 rounds, you can change them out quickly enough that it does not matter how many rounds is in it, i can drop it magazine and put a new one in in less than two seconds. host: i will have you jump in. guest: everything you're caller is saying is true, but those of us in the gun community understand these things and it is understandable the people that are not familiar with guns here this misinformation and go that sounds right. after every shooting, we always hear the shooter used a high powered gun. i was -- wish someone would show

me what a low powered gun is and would be ok if they used use that instead of a high-powered gun? that is silliness. instead of focusing on the problem, which is the gun in the wrong hands, we start talking about changing the gun as though that was going to change the outcome, regardless of who is possessing the gun. that is just silly and is political. it is tribal instead of policy. host: richard feldman, the president last night in primetime addressed -- address also urged congress to ban assault weapons and mentioned what happened in 1994. tell us the 1994 legislation, talk about that, the impact of it, and what you think about this call to do it again. guest: yes, the 1994 semiautomatic assault weapon act as it was known, which is really a contradiction in terms, can't

be semiautomatic and an assault weapon, but be that as it may, banned guns essentially based on not their functionality but on their appearance. so if it had a forward magazine and a bayonet lug not, it was an assault weapon, but you could make two variants of the same gun, each one of those -- each with one of those and it was not banned. neither of those had anything to do with functionality. but as the last caller pointed out, all semiautomatic firearms, which pretty much have to guns sold in america if not more now are semiautomatic, they all function the same way. by banning a gun because i don't like the looks of that gun, take another gun and put a woodstock on a, take off the bayonet lug nut, you have the same gun that functions exactly the same in an even larger caliber.

we have not done anything about the problem. we have done something about the optics of the problem. now we have nice-looking guns but fast forward five years and i think it is possible that it would be harder to obtain these kinds of guns so people use a different kind of gun. what are we going to do then? go there is a new class of guns that we have to ban because i'm shocked, people are misusing a different class of gun. we are not focusing on the problem. it is the people misusing the guns. we have to zero all our resources on the people misusing the guns, not the resources on the guns. that is inside out, upside down. host: john is in new york, a republican.

caller: hi. am i on? host: you are. your question or comment for richard feldman. caller: ok, i'm sorry. i was given a gun when i was a kid by my father and i used to go to practice ranges and i shoot a lot and i had this terrible ringing in my ear. i was wondering what happens to the laws that were happening when the trumpet administration was in as they were trying to get silencers past so i could get -- go back to the practice range and start shooting again so i could get this ringing out of my ear? silencers will help me have fun shooting a gun again,. i know you guys have been trying to get silencers past before, are you going to still gonna go ahead and try to do this?

host: i don't think in this current environment that is particularly viable as an option to be putting forward, but i'm sure at some point in the future they will. and again, we have all watched too much television and seen too many movies, and in those movies, people you silencers that are generally misusing the gun. in fact, in france, silencers are widely available, a good neighbor policy so ranges, and they have been in rural parts now encroached by suburbia, do not bother the neighbors because it is not really a silencer, it is a suppressor. it still makes some noise and of course you have to use different kind of ammunition. it does not do any good to use normal ammo because most of what you hear when a gun is fired is the bullet penetrating the sound barrier. so you have to use subsonic ammo

to make a suppressor work correctly. host: let's talk about background checks and the buzzword, universal. you write in your politico piece that you are for expending back on checks but not for the word universal. explain. guest: i think most of us are talking about the same thing but we use language which divides us. what we all want is there should be background checks in commercial transaction, particularly in situations where you do not know who you are selling the gun too. that is what the brady law was about. gun dealers who normally you don't know who walks into your gun shop so you transfer a gun, celie gone to someone you do not know for the most part, so there are background checks being run on them. it does not apply, unless a state has passed separate

legislation at gun shows -- most states have -- whatever leave markets in sales between individuals. when i say -- what i say is where we all are pre-much all would like to see is background checks for commercial sales. why i don't so universal is because it is silly. really i will force my wife to undergo a background check? she has the same access to my guns now. if i give her a gun, she has to pass a background check? if i give them to my children when i gave a gun to my father i had to put them through a background check? i think that is just silly and we end up making millions of people into felons because they did not put them through a background check and they live in the same home. some live in the same bed. that is why i am more careful in saying we could have passed this

25 years ago if we would have done the smart thing and make it commercial sales, not universal background checks. host: you think republicans in congress if democrats were to say let's do back on checks on all commercial sales, not use the word universal, do you think it could garner enough support? guest: i think most of the opposition from the organized gun community would pretty much evaporate if they did that. that is correct. host: you think the nra would support that? guest: the nra is in a particular position and the question is not so much would they suppose it -- they support it, the question is what they oppose it? would they use it as a key vote and i'm pretty sure the answer would be no. host: why do you think that? guest: because they do not have a policy problem now with background checks at gun shops

when people come in and they don't know who they are. a problem the nra and i agree with. -- agree with and that i have is when you force me to put a background check on somebody i already know well. a friend of mine that has been a prosecutor for 40 years, i once sold a gun to my local police chief. he was at my house after work in uniform and i was supposed to say to him, you know, chief, i have to put you through a background check to make sure you are not a convicted felon. is that height of stupidity or what? yet if i just gave him a gun and said here, try it out for a week , i would have been committing a felony. is that a smart law? i don't think so. i think we can do better. i get what it is we want while protecting the rights of people who are not a problem in the first place. host: you are talking about

internet sales as well. when do you become a commercial seller? at what point? guest: when you don't meet the definition of who is exempted in the exemption -- and the exemption i would use is when you transfer a gun to a family member, or you could add close friend or neighbor for more than 10 years, so if i've been out hunting with a buddy i've known 20 to 60 years, i'm pretty sure i would know if they committed violent felonies and would be prohibited. and let's also add protection to civilians. if they do put someone through a background check, they should be immune from prosecution or for civil liability if that gun should later be used in a crime after all. they put them a background check. we always think it is one thing or the other.

why don't we get smart again in this country and start using carrots as well as sticks. host: mary lou, new jersey, independent. caller: good morning, greta and good morning mr. feldman. thank you for c-span. i want to make a couple of statements and i would like feedback from you on them. first of all, many people do not understand why the second amendment was instituted to begin with by our forefathers and it was mainly instituted to protect the people from a to radical government, which unfortunately i feel we have right now. secondly, there were three main problems people are not even addressing that could be causing these mass shootings. one is loss of family structure, another is loss of faith in god, and the third is a mental illness issue.

another comment i want to make the many people may forget, when you look at the venezuela, the last freedom those people gave up before they became a communist country was the right to bear arms. i do not want to see that happen in this country, even though joe biden is saying it does not intend to take the guns away, this is the same regime that said if you like your health care and your doctor, you can keep it. vaccines will not be mandated. it seems all we hear are lies from this administration. good people should not be punished for the evil deeds of bad people. thank you. have a good day. guest: thank you. as i've traveled around the country over the last 20 years and spoken to colleges and outside of the country as well, i always come back to a central theme in america. we always talk about how in our

country the government trusts the people. it does not say the people have to trust the government. yet when people talk about banning guns, limiting magazine capacity, what they are saying is we really do not trust you to have the guns you currently own and don't misuse. we do not trust you but after all, all you need to do if you are in trouble is call the police and after uvalde, if it could ever be made clearer, the police cannot or will not protect you when you need it most. most of the time i think it is because if the police were there, you would not have needed them. you are on your own. violent criminals do not commit felonies in front of uniformed police officers. mostly. so when the government says we trust the people except when it

comes to having guns, what they are saying is we do not trust you at all. why are they surprised when those people say i do not trust you and the government? because it is about trust. this issue is more about trust than about guns. guns are a very symbolic issue and if you understand how the symbolism works and the power of the gun issue in american political thought, i think it is easier to understand the ferocity of this battle and why, when president biden, vice president harris, say we are not out to take your guns, we want to ban them. we will not take them, you can keep the guns you have you can just not buy anymore. that fine line does not cut it to the millions of americans who are hearing you do not trust me with the guns that i've never

misused. therefore, i guess i should not trust you. host: buck in lexington, texas, democratic caller, you are next. caller: i can understand banning assault weapons, i get that, but you have to remember millions of law-abiding citizens owning guns already so really -- another thing, as far as mental health, they gotta worry about mental health, you got that, they could do that. i agree. 100% on that one. anyways, that is all i have to say and you have a nice day. host: do you think the nra would support red flag laws in the current proposals out there? guest: the nra currently is undergoing an awful lot of internal strife, and they are kind of locked into a position of frequently just say no because it is the safest

political position for them to take for their own internal politics. so if you really want to understand what they are going to do, you have to look further. not always just what they say, but what they are going to do about it and how much they will fight something. that is really the telling point. but over the years, people have always looked at the nra and said, on the others i do this issue for me, they have gone the nra is a terrible power and should be limited. another way of looking at that is democracy is ok, as long as i'm winning. but if i'm not winning, i do not like democracy because how dare those people form the group and outmaneuver me. that is not what you doing democracy. you organize, educate, and get your supporters to the polls on election day.

the person or party who does that wins the election. the person or party who does not do it, -- it cries foul. that works from both sides of the isle as i think we have seen. host: does the nra have this power that they have had now that they had in previous years? guest: times have changed and the power that the firearm community has is more diffused today than it was one to five to 30 years ago. we have the internet and there are gun groups in almost every state that probably have a larger reach than the nra membership in that state. it is an echoes -- echo chamber. people read about it in different social media platforms , so in many ways i would argue the gun rights community is much

more powerful today than it was 25 to 30 years ago. a good argument could be made that the direct influence of the nra as an organization is a little more limited. what always gave the nra more power, it was not wayne lafayette standing at a podium, it is the national association was a real grassroots organization comprised of 4 million to 5 million dues-paying american voters. that is where the power is. money does not vote, people vote. educated, informed, angry sometimes, gun owners votes. everybody can have an opinion. i do on almost everything. come november, i only get to vote for or against a candidate and frequently comment to me,

the issue has been about guns. if one candidate says every gun proposal idea ought to be tried and we ought to do as much limitation as possible, and the other person in the other direction, where i find myself somewhere in the middle, i want to zero in on certain ones, but i know which way i will vote most of the time. that is what has me so surprised by the democrats. bill clinton wrote in his book the reason he lost control of congress in 1994 was because of the assault rifle -- assault weapons legislation. that was not me writing it, that was bill clinton saying it. if president biden wants to assure -- ensure the democrats lose control, as many statehouses -- lose control of as many statehouses as possible, i'm sure his heart is in the same -- in the right place but i'm sure his brain is not the same place if he wants to keep

his party in power. any time they push a proposal that will not happen anyway, it pushes millions of particularly new gun owners who are disproportionately asian, hispanic, black, and women right into the republican camp. how does that work? host: david in new york, you are our last caller for richard feldman. caller: thanks for taking my call. i had an idea that could possibly reduce or maybe react to a gun sale or purchase had a gun store, so if some he came in and there was a first time in their life they are purchasing a gun, or ammunition, with a background check possibly ask questions, have you purchased a gun before? if the answer is no, are you going hunting with this gun? do you have a permit to hunt?

do you have a license to hunt? what is the reason for the purchase? if red flags come up, and nothing stops them from purchasing it, i think maybe a call to the local police department from the gun store to maybe send the patrol car around to talk to them to make sure they are storing it properly, to see if the environment is good. if it is a young kid, talk to the parents, just to find out their mental wellness. and see if they are capable of really owning and storing and having a gun in the house is something the family really wants. host: richard feldman. guest: if we are going to put on psychiatrists and mental health professionals, their sign off before someone can buy a gun, i think we ought to start with

politicians and have a rule -- and certain politicians that want to pass a law like that. if you want to run for public office, you need three psychiatrists certify that you are sane. if they will support that language, then i think i might consider expanding it to other endeavors in life. but this a preen court in the hellas case said you have a right to own a handgun in your own home. it does not mean it is unrestricted. certain people cannot buy them and possess them anyway, but it did not say it is a privilege after psychiatrists sign off on and the mayor thinks it's ok and you had a patrol car come by and check you out. that is not what the supreme court said, not all. speaking of the supreme court, sometime in the next four weeks, the supreme court will come down on the new york state court -- new york state decision on whether the government can

prevent you from taking your gun by proper cause outside of your home. it is going to be a huge supreme court case and is coming in the next three to four weeks. host: define proper cause. guest: what new york finds is proper cause is whatever the local police chief once it to mean. if you live in new york city, proper cause means you need to be able to prove you routinely carry $10,000 worth of cash or jewelries in your business. if you live an upstate, more rule county, upper cause means you want to get it? i issue it. it is all over the board. this case, and it is clear which way it will come down, is only a question of how far they go in the ruling about -- in new york will still be able to license people. they will still be able to do

more thorough background checks in the license than when you go to the gun shop, but again that is part of the silliness of our gun laws, that we have written them time and time again and they overlap so if they are having a thorough background check with your fingerprints and you pass this and you are issued the license, you have to go through another background check to make sure you are not a convicted felon? how did the first one miss you if it is a fingerprint background check? we write laws on top of laws on top of laws which do not always do anything about the problem, but they add costs to the system instead of zeroing in on those who do misuse guns. host: you said it is pretty clear which way the court will come down. what do you think that is? what do you think they will rule? and when you say how far will they go, what do you think? guest: i think there is at least a 5-4, probably a 6-3

decision, overturning this decision -- this disablement to own a handgun and take it outside of your home. how far it goes and the language they use will determine how much new york state can decide not to issue a carry license to someone who has never been in trouble. most states these days have constitutional carry where -- where i live here you do not need it concealed to carry a loaded firearm on your person. i'm not neighbored with that situation it i think it is reasonable if you will carried a concealed gun public for you to know a great deal about use of the gun and the laws on the use of deadly force. but i'm not on the supreme court's. and i think -- court.

i think this case will take new york state law and throw it out. it is what they say about how far or suggest how far the state has the authority, what they can do, but proper cause is the most nebulous of terms. proper cause to you is not going to be proper cause to me. there should not be that kind of uncertainty in this kind of a law. to be clear. and it should apply to people in new york state across the board. host: richard feldman, president of the independent firearm owners association, thank you for the conversation this morning. guest: thank you. host: we will take a break and when we come back we will be an open forum. after that, the chief economist for the national association of realtors joins us to talk about the recent trends in the nation's housing and rental markets. as we said come up next, open form, public policy issue on your mind.

start dialing in and we will get to those calls after the break. ♪ ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 3:05 p.m. eastern, a look back at jackie robinson's integration of baseball in 1947. previewing the items from archives, historians discuss his career with the brooklyn dodgers and impact on the sport. at 8:50 pm, this smithsonian national museum of history presents is great america's metal to ruth bader ginsburg in honor of her legacy as a supreme court justice. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturday on c-span2. and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history.

c-span's unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and the state department, as well as congress. we have international perspective from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on the c-span networks. the c-span now free mobile app and c-span.org/ukraine. that's our web resource page where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. > "washington journal" continues. host: we are back in open form this morning. any public policy issue that is on your mind. we will start with the economy, the government announced earlier this morning that the under play

rate for may was at 3.6% and there were 390,000 jobs added. the wall street journal reports jobless rate remained at re-.6% amid persistent shortage of workers. president biden plans to talk about the job numbers this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. you can watch it here on c-span on our website, c-span.org, or download our c-span video app, c-span now. you can find it on any mobile device. then also the vice president will be speaking to the u.s. conference of mayors in reno, nevada, talking about the administration effort to curb inflation at 3:40 p.m. time eastern time also right here on c-span on our website, c-span.org, or on our video app, c-span now. we will turn to open form here

for the next 20 minutes or so. in between, the house will come in for a quick pro forma shush and. -- session. they are not in washington today. joe in pennsylvania, democratic caller, what is on your mind? caller: i would like to know, i think they should do away with the second amendment because it is not working for us. there are too many ar-15's and 47's on the street. they should get rid of them. second, i believe i'm less than 200 miles from canada and they do not seem to have this problem. are the people in the united states crazier than the people up in the north or what? why don't we go by their way of doing things? thank you. host: our next caller in new jersey, republican, what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i just want to start by saying criminals don't follow gun laws. all you will do is disarm citizens.

i hear people calling in that do not feel like the second amendment is a necessity but you have to remember the first amendment, and case that fails, the second is there to help back it up. host: jeff, pine grove, pennsylvania, independent. hi, jeff. caller: yes, you're talking about all of the videogames or violence and all of this stuff. why don't they talk about somebody -- some of these republican ads, their political ads? all they are doing a shooting guns and stuff. that is promoting violence. no one is saying anything about that. host: burning in kentucky, democratic caller, we are in open form and so far the calls on gun legislation. what is the public policy issue on your mind? caller: i will stick with the gun legislation. if i understand correctly, the

ak-47s and ar-15's were designed for military use. where is it going to stop next? berserkers, hand grenades, flamethrowers? certainly we can get together on the flamethrower and i'm not naive to think this gun violence should be blamed on rap music and video games. i wonder where it all started. thank you. host: indiana, republican, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that we've got to open borders over here. a lot of crime in the united states. people are scared. they are scared to death. no wonder and why would anybody think about it this time right here with open borders? about taking away people's guns. and the way the crime is. in the united states. it is ridiculous.

it really is. it'll be no sense at all. -- it don't make no sense. host: why is that? why do you feel threatened mowing the lawn? caller: because of the violence. i live close to chicago and look at the people in chicago can't even go to the store without being threatened for their lives. you know? host: ricky in brooklyn, maryland, independent, we go to you next. caller: i just wanted to [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] host: hard to hear you there ricky. philip in michigan, democratic caller. caller: hi, greta. this is a weird one. people using these little red pens to tease their cats with and i got a problem with people trying to down airplanes by using these red pens. if you give your teacher a box full of these laser pens and had her dump them in between the chairs and desks so the students could scramble down and pick up these pens, so that when the guy

with the gun enters the door you could teach them to chinese laser pens into his eyes and you would blind tim, it is kind of weird. if everyone would get a roll of electrical tape and put their laser bag and send it to ukraine and blind the russian with -- russians with laser pens, you combine 10 people ought to one time and would give you claim you claim time to shoot them. host: the house is about to come in as we said for a pro forma session. they are not in washington today on this friday. they will be back on tuesday, june the speaker of the house announcing they will consider gun legislation, including the "protecting our kids act." we will take you to the pro

forma session. we will be back with open forum right after this.

the speaker pro tempore: on behalf of the majority and minority leaderships, the official objectsors for the private dald for the 117th congress. the secretary: ms. jackson lee of texas, mr.on of tennessee, mr. correa of california. for the minority, mr. mcclintock of california. mr. tiffany of wisconsin. mr. roy of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the

speaker, house of representatives, madam. on february 15, 2022 the committee on ethics, committee, received notice of fines imposed upon mr. clive, by the sergeant at arms. rule 2, clause 3-g. on march 17, 2022 the committee received an appeal from representative clyde of the above fines of house resolution 38 and house rule 2 goss klaus 3-g. the appeal was received after the committee adopted its written rules. a majority of the committee did not agree to the appeal. signed, sincerely, theodore e. deutch, chairman, and jackie walorski, ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on tuesday, june 7, 2022

journal." we continue on the open forum. terry in tennessee, republican. we will go to you. caller: good morning. i have two quick points. the first is they took prayer and the 10 commandments out of school and the courthouses. they are weak on crime. the second one is i compared the drug deal to drugs -- gun deal to drugs. drugs has never been legal.

there's more drugs now than ever. that is all i got to say. host: thank you. maria in florida, democratic caller. caller: people think it is safer. instead, everyone feels less safe. people that look for solutions for making schools harder and whatever else is turning our schools and other buildings into semi prisons instead of allowing us to live the lifestyle we had before the guns, the proliferation of guns. we did not have the guns, but we felt safe. i don't abide this argument that we need guns to feel safe. the decision for everyone to

have a gun was wrong. the interpretation of the second amendment was wrong. host: ok. princeton, democratic caller. caller: this is for -- good morning -- this is for the nra. if they think guns are so safe, then how come they did not allow guns at their convention? they are just hypocritical. they did not even -- they will not even allow protection for our own children, the same protection they afford for themselves. they are just kind of talking out both sides of their mouth. so is that guy you just had on, the guy doing all the talking.

if guns are so safe, why can't we protect our babies in schools? thank you. host: more economic news this morning. here is political with a story that opec has agreed -- here is politico with the story that opec has agreed to pump more oil. the white house offered measured praise for the move pushing opec to boost production. there's also this story in the "wall street journal" this morning." social security reserves seem depleted in 2035 according to a government report. there is also this in the "wall street journal." the majority of americans polled fact upholding roe v. wade. that is also another decision by the supreme court that we are waiting on, whether or not they will uphold roe v. wade in the

latest abortion case they heard this term. from "the new york times," this announced by the biden administration yesterday, if approved, vaccines for children under five could be available this month for the covid-19 virus. tony koufax in louisiana, republican, good morning. caller: i just wanted to say about the gun laws and stuff, they want to always focus on the gun. if they would focus on the person committing the crime, maybe reinstitute the death penalty, i think we would have a lot less crime. they are letting murderers out committing crimes. people shooting people for no reason at all. we just need to take those kind of people out instead of feeding them year after year for the rest of their life. one statistic i saw on the

internet, it costs 42,000 some odd dollars to house one inmate. why are we spending all that money for that when we could be using that money for something else, and get rid of the problem permanently? host: marion in grovetown, georgia, democratic caller. caller: thank you very much. i have two things to say. the first one is i keep hearing is not the gun, it is the person who fires the gun. well, couldn't that logic be sent also for drugs? it is not the drug, it is the person taking the drug. i thought i would dispel that. i am tying the abortion issue in with the shooter. the shooter is dead. in one of his emails or text, he said he wanted to rape and kill children. well, what if that rapist --that

shooter -- had raped one of those fourth-graders who could have gotten pregnant? can any republican who is against abortion even in rape and incest, but they honestly say they would want their child to carry the baby? i know that is a sensitive issue. it is one i could not help thinking about. that is all i had to say. thanks. host: john, johnstown, pennsylvania, democratic,. -- democratic caller. caller: chief justice burger said it best. the second amendment perpetuates a fraud on the american people. i have 7.5 years of college and still don't understand the wording of the second amendment. it is very vague. it is not understandable.

it is the second amendment. amendments can be amended. it is not a commandment. it is an amendment. i think it should be updated to our way of living today. when it was first instituted, i think we used muskets with round balls that were not even bullets. the whole thing about the second amendment, they hide behind that, they say they are trying to destroy it. countries that have good gun laws and low death rates generally do not have a second amendment. i think the second amendment should be updated or done away with. thank you. host: last year in minnesota, republican -- lester in minnesota, republican. caller: i'm an 89-year-old vietnam vet. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022]

ok -- host: ok. your thoughts on public policy? caller: a good guy with a gun is the only chance to stop these so-called mass shooters. host: all right. that does it for our open phones this morning prayed we are going to take a break. we are going to come back and turn our attention to the real estate market. lawrence yun will be with us, chief economist for the national association of realtors. we will talk about recent trends in the housing and rental markets. >> sunday, the journalist will be our guest to talk about immigration issues and the drug epidemic in the united states. he is the author of several books including most recently "the least of us." it is about the neuroscience of addiction and the deadly impact of synthetic drugs.

join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets on "in depth" sunday at noon eastern. >> sunday, the iraq war veteran discusses the impact of the wars in afghanistan and iraq on american society and the chasm between those who served and the rest of the country. >> one of the things marines use to say is we are at war and americas at the ball, which is a way of putting down civilians. i was thinking about that a couple years later and thought, ok, america is at war. i am at the mall. this is where i am supposed to be. i'm getting baby clothes for my son.

the contempt i felt for a certain degree of civilian life is kind of crazy because the whole point of joining the military is you see normal, civilian life is worth defending. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen on our new free c-span now app. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter recaps the day for you, from the halls of congress to daily press briefings to remarks from the president. scan the qr code at the bottom to sign up for the email and stay up-to-date on everything happening in washington each day. subscribe today using the qr code or visit c-span.org/connect

to subscribe anytime. >> c-span's online sure has the latest line of apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan and helps support our nonprofit operations. shop anytime. >> "washington journal" continues. host: mark sheehan is back at our -- lawrence u.n. is back at our table to talk about the housing and rental markets. let's begin with the overall state of the housing market. what does it look like now compared to a year ago? guest: good morning. thank you for having me. the housing market has been extraordinary the past two years. the covid environment completely

made the housing market boom. one of the reasons was exceptionally low mortgage rates. when the fed cut rates to zero, mortgage rates fell along with that. the second big reason was covid itself where people said work from home is a possibility or maybe i need a new home with extra bedrooms to turn it into office face prayed that also fueled the housing demand. everything changed. we are in a transitional space. sales are coming down. home prices are still hitting new highs but the pace will inevitably begin to slow down. host: let me give some numbers behind what you were talking about. purchasing a home now is 55% more expensive than a year ago. new home sales fell 17%.

this is april of 2022 creek pending home sales fell 20%. the highest on record at an increase of 15% from a year ago. median home price was 620% higher than 2021. 19% of sellers dropped their price in april-may. what do you think with the last point happens to prices of homes if it was 55% more expensive than a year ago but people are starting to drop prices? guest: first, we have to clarify what the dropping of the price means. people are looking at the local market conditions and listed their home essentially 20% above one year ago. now they are saying we don't see so many buyers so we have to do a price drop. some people are doing a 5% price

drop, maybe 10%, but it is still above one year ago. the fact that the cost to buy a home for people taking out a mortgage is up more than 50% from one year ago. with a combined factor of higher prices and mortgage rates, people have a mortgage calculator, punch in the number, and they will be shocked at how much extra monthly payment is required on a 3% versus the current 5.5% mortgage rate. that is pushing up costs, especially for first-time buyers. host: the vice chair of the federal reserve said yesterday they do not see a case for a pause in raising interest rates. what is the impact of that? guest: mortgage rates are the lifeblood of the housing market. given the broader economy, consumer prices running at

40-year highs, one has to address that. the federal reserve is raising interest rates and will continue to do so. if one looks at the difference between what the fed has already done which is essentially one percentage point increase in interest rates, versus how mortgage rates have responded, more than two percentage points in mortgage rates. the mortgage market has priced in all of the future action by the fed, so it is possible mortgage rates may be topping out right now. they could certainly go up a little or down a little. i think most of the rate increases by the fed plan have already been priced in. host: was this cool down needed in the housing market? the fed raising rates and cooling things down because you have seen prices go up all over the country. guest: and has been all over the country. some people ask which market is

the hottest, and i say it is the whole country. specifically, the rocky mount time zone areas, superhot, along with southern states because of migration patterns. the market has been superhot. one has to look at people's income. people's incomes are rising 3%, 5%. this morning, it is showing 5% wage growth, which is good. it is getting wiped away by higher inflation. home prices rise at 40% at a time when incomes are rising at only 5%. but is not sustainable. some degree of calming in the housing market was clearly needed. we are seeing this adjustment. sales are coming down, but it is coming down to pre-pandemic activity in 2019 before the pandemic. host: how would you describe

that activity in 2019 before the pandemic? guest: in hindsight, it was somewhat boring. at the time, i thought it was healthy and moving along nicely. now we are retreating back to 2019 in terms of sales, but prices are at record highs and still inching higher. i hope the pace of the price increases can slow down. we have a housing shortage. we have to address that. anything to boost supply, whether through funding, rehab, disused property, and empty commercial shopping malls or office buildings can be converted into residential units, and maybe some kind of block grants to say here is money to build more affordable housing. rents are rising very fast. it is not only about buying homes. people are renting. they are also facing large increase in housing costs.

host: where are we seeing the housing shortages? guest: predominantly in the hot real estate markets. places like utah. when i speak with realtors there, they said i have only three homes on the market. if we had 100, we could sell 100 based on the demand out there. now that things have transitioned a bit, it may not be 100 people wanting to buy, maybe it is 50, but still not enough supply to match that condition. generally in the midwest, it is much more affordable because the supply has been more adequate in the midwest. if one looks at the expense of markets, one has to say these are the areas where there is an acute housing shortage. host: are there areas where there is a housing glut? guest: not really.

one area that suffered for decades was a company factory town where factories shut down and jobs. youngstown, ohio, prices did not move for 20 years. affordable median priced homes. but during covid, many people said i can work from home. i don't have to live in cincinnati or new york. i want to go to my hometown of youngstown and buy a mansion. home prices are beginning to rise respectably in youngstown. the housing glut would be related to local job conditions. host: what has been your experience? have you bought or sold? are you trying to rent? what is your rent price? this is how we divided the lines, if you are a homeowner, call 202-748-8000.

all others, 202-748-8002. what is the trend? guest: the first few months of the lockdown, rents begin to decline in major cities. new york city, san francisco. people were going to the suburbs or exiting. we did not know about the nature of covid. people wanted to take precautions exit the big cities. rents declined. nationwide, rents were still rising but at a very slow pace. we have to remember, there were major job cuts during the lockdown. as the economy began to reopen and job creation came around, good news today on the job market, another 300,000-plus jobs, so with each passing month, more job creation means

increasing rental demand. now those rents which had been decelerating have moved upwards, accelerating. according to government data, rents are rising 5%. according to private sector data, rents are rising at double-digit pace, 10%, 12%. this is a burden for renters in current housing markets. host: why? guest: because there is a housing shortage not only about buying a home but the rental vacancy rates at historic lows. america has been under producing housing of all kinds. single-family, multifamily, apartments. we have been under producing for the past 15 years. the cumulative effect is we have a housing shortage with home prices rising fast and rents beginning to accelerate. host: talk about your proposal of taking malls that have closed down, huge amounts of property,

and turning that into housing. guest: anytime there is a disused property, i think it is good to consider, can we make it more useful? like the emptying out of some shopping malls, can it be converted into an educational facility or medical facility? maybe one third could be housing, whether an apartment, condominium, anything to boost additional housing units will relieve the housing shortage. the office market is still wobbly with the work from home flexibility hybrid model. people really do not know what the equilibrium would be. some companies began to downsize square footage usage and put it on the market so we may have more empty office buildings, known the market in the future.

rather than let it be empty, can we consider repurposing it to residential units? host: is that a concern for commercial realtors? guest: it is not a concern. it is an opportunity. the big obstacle is financial. when you do the financial numbers trying to repurpose a building, it does not work. all of the issues require money. this is where the federal government can help with funding or tax credits so the numbers work better for the private investors to consider repurposing those empty buildings. host: let's get to calls. peter, in lakeland, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i am glad you have discussed on. i am going to give you a list of issues because florida is a nightmare for people trying to buy a house or people renting.

we are losing our workforce in florida because they cannot afford rent if you are paying $13 an hour. the elderly people who are renting are being evicted if they don't have family to go to, they are sol. i would like to ask your guest, let's talk about blackrock and blackstone. these folks are catalysts that can take $10 billion and buy houses all over florida at $10,000 over asking prices and just park the houses and watch everybody else scramble. that is what is happening. foreign corporations are buying any house. somebody passes away, they are buying it. they will let it sit empty. that is what is happening. disney, british papers are doing layouts on all of the homeless in florida congregating around disney.

it is every city in florida right now. politicians do not even talk about this. host: let's take your points. lawrence yun, are you hearing about investors buying properties and letting them sit empty? guest: definitely, the wall street money is flowing in. they are looking at accelerating, rising rents and chasing after that. wall street has much more financial power to purchase above asking price, as the caller mentioned. they are buying single-family homes to turn it into rentals or they are buying apartment buildings and raising rents. the housing shortage. for the long-term, we have to see how to bring about more supply so the rents do not rise so fast and wall street will back away because they are chasing rents long-term. host: how do you do that? how do you lower rates? guest: by increasing supply.

it takes time. it is not an overnight situation. the short-term possibility is they have seen a great inflow of new residents coming in from other states, which is the reason for the additional housing shortage. in the short-term term, one of the considerations and we are speaking to congress is there are many mom-and-pop investors in florida owning property. wall street is gobbling up. why don't we incentivize some of the mom-and-pop investors to release the property onto the market? the reason they are unwilling to release it is rents are good. if they want to sell, they are hit with capital gains tax. maybe lower the capital gains tax temporarily so we have more supply coming onto the market so florida residents would have a better chance to buy and rent. the mom-and-pop investors said i

have cashed out and i am doing fine. host: what is the capital gains tax on selling your rental property? guest: i think the long-term capital gains tax would be the federal rate. one can even hone in more specifically to say if it is sold to a first-time buyer, the rate will be much lower, say 10% rather than the current 20% or 25%. host: would you consider prohibiting a large investment firm or foreign investor from buying that property? guest: that is more difficult given america has a free-spirited idea to say the market is responding to financial incentive. certainly, wall street is responding to the increase in rent growth. we have very few foreclosures. those that do come to the market, especially in f.h.a. mortgage which means the government would

take over the property temporarily, hud is saying we will not sell it to wall street investors. we will keep it for first-time investors. those inventories are very limited. we have to consider more impact. i think mom-and-pop investors will be willing to bring additional supply if the capital gains tax even temporarily were to be lowered. host: leon in fayetteville, north carolina, homeowner. caller: good morning. my concern as a homeowner is what the gentleman mentioned in florida with blackstone and wall street purchasing these homes and then they turn them into rentals. i have been noticing a person's mortgage around $1600 in north

carolina, if you rent a home, you will pay more than $1600 and possibly go up to $3500 or $3200 just to rent a home which is sloshing the middle class, the mom-and-pop's, because your home is your bank, your investment, your equity in your home. i really am concerned about the fact that this scheme is that people may not be able to rise up and develop generational wealth for their families. turning properties into rentals also adds to crime because they are not invested in the

community. host: lawrence yun? guest: the gentleman is correct. homeownership provides the opportunity to build wealth over time. we are finding for a typical homeowner, the net worth they have accumulated is about $300,000 including recent buyers, longtime buyers, averaging that figure. for a typical renter, is less -- it is less than $10,000. there is a staggering difference in wealth build up from homeowners to renters. part of the american dream is i want to be a homeowner, i want to build wealth. if wall street is gobbling it up, it provides less opportunity. a way to temporarily boost supply that would be helpful is to lower the capital gains tax

for mom-and-pop investors to sell their properties, especially to a first-time buyer. host: eric in las vegas, what is it like there? do you own a home? caller: yes, i do. it is wonderful now. in 2004 when my wife and i purchased it, we paid about $440,000 for a home. by 2008, it had gone down to $210,000. we got wiped out. we lost everything. we got back into the housing market in 2017 and paid $240,000 for a house. now it is worth $500,000. it is cyclical. i'm sorry institutions have driven up the market, but i have benefited from it. host: when you say you were wiped out, did you lose the home? caller: at the same time, two, i lost my job, my wife lost her job. it was a bad situation.

if we had held onto the home we purchased in the beginning, that home now sells for $900,000. i was not able to ride the wave unfortunately. host: lawrence yun? guest: the gentleman makes a good point. there are winners and losers. the winners is people who are owning the property. i'm glad he purchased in 2017 to enjoy the good home prices. that is the wealth build up for the owners. the bad news is people who want to be owners are getting priced out, making it very difficult. let's consider this to-year housing market boom we experienced, homeownership rates did not change. it was falling in california where homes are super expensive. if it is unattainable,, the

owners join the wealth, but renters, it feels like the possibility of ownership is out of their reach. we have to address more supply, including possibly re-examining some laws and some regulations that go into homebuilding may be too excessive. in california, they say just to get a permit is $100,000 or more just to get a permit. naturally, that will boost home prices. we have to look at all angles. how do we remove obstacles to bring more supply? host: remind our viewers why there was a housing bubble in 2005, 2006, 2007. what was the cause of it? are we in a similar situation? guest: those are questions everyone is asking. what happened in 2005 in the bubble period and subsequent painful crash was massive

closures, price depressed for four or five continuous years, what happened was the subprime mortgages, people said don't worry about it. mortgages for people not financially qualified with funny characteristics so you get a 1% mortgage rate but after two years, it will be 8%. obviously, people cannot adjust to those changes. it was a very strange mortgage product at that time. in addition, homebuilders went wild. they said everyone wants to buy, so they overproduced back then. when the market crashed, the situation was that we had housing surplus. we have a housing shortage today, but back then, it was a housing surplus, and we had the crashing of the mortgage market. today, it is fundamentally different. we have a housing shortage,

accumulation of multiple units of under production. second, we do not have those funny mortgages thank goodness. people getting mortgages have to meet strict underwriting criteria. one of the hottest markets, boise, idaho, i spoke with realtors. prices have risen so much. how are the buyers able to buy? they are saying we are not sure where they getting the money but they have to meet tough underwriting standards. but when they meet it, they have the necessary income to make the mortgage payments. that is implying to me that the market is on a solid foundation now compared to the wobbly, risky situation of 2005-2006. host: matt in dallas, texas, you rent. what is the rental situation like? caller: good morning. it is tight. i talked to my friends who want to live near downtown dallas.

they are willing to pay the higher rent because they make good money and the job market is strong. i was able to find an apartment where my rent decreased, but it was in a neighborhood that was not my first choice. with utilities, i still pay the same as before. i lucked out because a realtor had access, so i was lucky. i had a question for mr. yun. the fed is starting to raise interest rates. i think jay powell is saying the rate will go up .5% the next couple of meetings. at some point, it will filter into the mortgage market for rates. wouldn't that bring prices down? if the cost of borrowing goes up, it seems like that has to go down. i understand there is a housing shortage could how do you see interest rates figuring in two

home prices with the cost of borrowing going up? guest: rising interest rates means it is a higher required monthly payment. therefore, the pool of eligible buyers shrinks. we are seeing that. your home sales transactions. some of -- fewer home sales transactions. people quickly realize they are priced out. mortgage rates are too high to qualify. we are already seeing that impact. consequently, the home price growth of 40% from one year ago, those days are over. we should only anticipate price growth of only around 5%, which is currently the wage growth. if we can maintain this level along with bringing more supply, and homebuilders are volatile, but the overall trend appears to be they are producing more homes

this year compared to the recent prior years, so we will get more supply. the combination of the shrinking pool of buyers because of rising mortgage rates and increased supply will moderate prices. as to the price decline, it is less clear. home prices, some people have been waiting for prices to drop in 2016. now, they have missed out on the boat. price increases from this point will be more modest. but the price decline based on mortgage underwriting standards, people are homeowners in a tight job market where they are able to make their mortgage payment, it is implying it is unlikely. could it happen in some markets? sure. could it happen in phoenix where prices have risen by 30% in a single year? price adjustments in phoenix may occur.

it will not have any damaging impact to the banking system. homeowners may view some price decline as a second chance opportunity with fewer buyers. some people view it as a second chance opportunity. host: ana in california, you own a home there. what has been your experience? caller: we can no longer become mom-and-pop owners because there is such competition with investors, with foreign buyers, and with just foreigners who come here and get other family members and groups and they purchase homes. i was trying to purchase a second home just for a little

additional income in retirement. it is almost impossible to compete against these investors here in california. they offer cash. anyone selling a home now, there's all kinds of commercials. your house does not have to be nice. they say we will come and look at it and buy it, almost the same day. how can an average person, average american, compete with that? i feel that this country is being out. it is being purchased by corporations and foreign investors. host: how can that not potentially be a bubble? guest: there is huge excess demand. if it is an all-cash purchase,

there is no chance of foreclosure because the home is owned outright. in california market, there is a more acute housing shortage which is the reason it is very elevated. for the caller looking for the second property, investment property, maybe for retirement purposes, to get the study rental income, it is difficult and expensive markets like california or boston because home prices are very high. she finding investors -- we are finding investors are widening the geographic search where the next county is more affordable. it is a competitive market out there. last year, a home is listed, 30 offers. by definition, that means one

winner and 29 losers. they were very unhappy about that situation. now maybe the intense multiple offer situation is winding down. but there is still to some degree ongoing multiple offers. when we steadily boost housing supply, rents will begin to stabilize. if rents stabilize, wall street will not have that incentive to chase after the properties. host: what do they do with the properties they own? guest: they say let's find the rents. the rents will cover the wall street borrowing money. two years later, their intent will be to sell the property. host: if the rents come down. guest: if the rents come down or they reassess the factors with tom price conditions. right now, there are institutional investors in the market. they are not a heavy player. most of the homes are still being purchased by owner occupancy, whether for

first-time buyers, trade up, trade down buyers. investor activity is around 25%. wall street may comprise 5% rate there are many mom-and-pop investors. also, there are many mom-and-pop investors, we can give them incentive by lowering the capital gains tax, and then we will have additional supply. host: michael, go ahead. caller: just in the way of background, i am a senior citizen, i am disabled. i was in the u.s. during the vietnam war, and i just purchased this house in february of 2021. mr. yun, your organization is very much responsible for this debacle that we have. you are not the only player, but

my real estate person lied to me, misrepresented thanks, steered me to a house inspector that said this place was ok. and then my furnace, my air conditioner, and all of my appliances broke down in the first year i was here. the electricity is bad. and just about everything else. now, here is the solution. massive, massive government control of what your people do and what householders do because they are just couching people left and right. the competition for this property that i bought was a brand-new development in plano, illinois, which is 25 miles to the west of me. you know what? a brand-new house, what do they do? it went up from the basic 1, 100

$70,000 in the summer of 2020. by the fall, in december, it was already up to $234,000 starting price. there was no time for there to be any shortage in building materials because that particular market is massive. it takes about nine months for them to respond to anything. there is so much inventory in the system. those kind of jobs people were working during covid. there is no excuse for this, except the fact the government has sold out to the 1%ers. and all they do is they sit there, and they want these high-priced houses so they can get more property taxes. host: ok. lawrence u.n.?

-- lawrence yun? guest: i'm very sorry to hear about your extremes. i would be very angry. we have 1.5 million realtor members fit they are competing among themselves for the next client. when consumers choose realtors, sometimes they get the wrong recommendation from friends and colleagues. about 80% of consumers when we take a survey say i love my realtor, 20% were not satisfied. we are very concerned. people come into the industry, people go out of the industry. i am very sorry to hear about your experience. when i mentioned about the housing shortage, you may look at the field and say they are building, what i mean by housing shortage is america has a population growth every year.

based on the population growth, we need to produce about 1.5 million new housing units, apartments, single-family. we did not do that in the past decade. we have been well under that figure. with each passing year, you add up the gaps and we find we are short roughly 5 million homes in relation to the population growth that occurred in the country. consequently, when you have a housing shortage, that means home prices will be higher, rents will be rising. we are reaching a point where building activity is picking up. at some point, we will have adequate supply. it will still takes some time. my view is the equilibrium market is still 18 to 24 months away. in the meantime, can we get

temporary housing supply? the capital gains tax reduction may be a way to bring additional supply. host: the central bank is trimming asset holdings by not reinvesting proceeds when securities mature. what is the impact of that? guest: what happened during the early months of covid, when everything was uncertain, was the economy going to go into depression, the federal reserve said we will buy mortgages. a consumer takes out a mortgage. generally, they are backed by freddie and fannie. there was something called quantitative easing, purchasing of those mortgages. now they want to reverse that process. by reversing it, it makes the interest rate a little higher. not to be too technical. the 10 year treasury borrowing

rate is currently at 3%. the mortgage rate should be about 4.5% normally. today, it is 5.5% because of the policy you mentioned, the undoing of the quantitative easing. host: what is that extra percentage about? guest: it means there are less people willing to buy mortgages. the fed said with small additional interest, we will buy it. the federal reserve was buying all the mortgage products. now that freddie and fannie cannot sell it to the federal reserve, they have to find other buyers. is it goldman sachs, wall street companies, the illinois teachers pension fund? they have to find other buyers. they have to offer slightly higher interest rates to attract the buyers. host: greg in illinois, you own a home in your town. what is the name of your town

and what is the market like? caller: south malloy, everything is high. i guess as far as what my house is worth from what i bought it from, i'm doing good. i am 64, some going to retire. -- so i am going to retire. it feels like we are repeating from one house and collapsed from when wall street was buying all of the mortgages. and now, we are going through that again. they dropped all the rates down so that lit everything back up. housing prices go up. it was not that many years ago when you can drive through subdivision and there were for sale signs and foreclosures all over the place. what are we really talking about now? we are kind of doing the same thing we did 10 years ago. what started that was congress

was going to sue all of the banks because they were not giving the money to the people that could not afford it, so they've threw all the money out there, gave it to them, and they could not, they realize i cannot afford it. now, everything is getting jacked back up so interest rates are going back up. now, we are worried about it. it is kind of the same thing today that we had back then. you are complaining about rents going up. you cannot have it both ways. everybody cannot live in a 3000 square-foot house. when i was young, you lived in a 1000 square-foot house. everybody was happy, everybody got along. mom and dad took care of you. you went to school preview did what you were supposed to. now, they feel entitled. host: greg, i'm going to have lawrence yun respond to what you

said. guest: it is somewhat different. we don't have the risky mortgage products. people have to meet strict underwriting standards. a second part is the housing shortage today versus the surplus back then. they were overproducing thinking it would always be there. for several years, we have been under one million production. now we are back to over 1.5 million. those are just averages. for people concerned this is a repeat of 2005, a bubble crash and they want to unload, i would say that right now the market is welcoming inventory. there is a massive inventory shortage. any inventory that appears, even by people who have concern about the market and want to unload,

the market needs more inventory. people make their own decisions regarding that. we need more supply. host: from boulder, colorado, you own a home, go ahead. caller: i'm wondering what affect the climate crisis is having on migration rates and what result the description -- destruction of 1000 homes in boulder and the wiping of towns off maps in california to the coastline, and in the midwest. host: we are short on time. we saw lots of stories in recent days about the homes on the north carolina coast falling into the ocean. climate change question. guest: when we ask consumers, do

you consider climate change in making the decision, many people say, yes, climate change is an important factor in my decision. people say that in a survey question. in terms of their actual actions, waterfront properties are carrying a huge premium which says people want to be at the waterfront property even though there is more risk related to climate change. in some of the wildfires in california or the west coast, that has led to a great increase in property insurance. some people are saying i can make the mortgage payment, but i'm not sure i can make the insurance payment. sometimes, it is not even available. we also have to address the insurance availability. we need to assess the risk criteria to determine what the appropriate premium should be. host: were you watching for in the coming weeks? -- what are you watching for in the coming weeks?

guest: a turn in inventory. i think that is coming. that is for multiple years of falling inventory. that will stabilize and begin to slowly increase. we will still have some housing shortage. but that is what i want to see it, upturn in inventories. host: lauren, we appreciate the conversation this morning. thank you. guest: thank you. host: enjoy your friday and your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy visit ncicap.org] ♪

>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. ♪ >> buckeyed broadband supports c-span, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> here's what's ahead today on c-span. coming up in about half an hour, president biden will comment on the may jobs numbers. the labor department reported today that employers added 390,000 jobs. the 17th straight monthly gains. the unemployment rate, 3.6% for the third straight month. near half century low. live coverage of the president when he begins. he is currently scheduled for

10:30 eastern here on c-span. following that, live remarks from federal reserve vice chair. she's part the panel discussion on updating the community reinvestment act which ensures that banks meet the credit needs of our nation's communities. it is hosted by the urban institute, also expected to begin at 10:30 eastern, and we'll join it in progress after president biden. coming up a little later today, vice president kamala harris will be speaking at the u.s. conference of mayors meeting in reno, nevada. she is expected to talk about the administration's efforts to curb inflation. look for live coverage of her remarks starting at about 3:40 p.m. eastern. and this evening, it's the recent national cannabis policy summit. chuck schumer and dave joyce expressed their support for cannabis legislation and reform. they spoke during the event along with journalists, industry stakeholders and cannabis