tv Capital News Today CSPAN April 20, 2012 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
but for the sandoval decision years ago that took with a private right of action to utilize the desperate and packed for federally funded line for department. if the new legislation cannot be sold. if it does and i don't think it well. it was educated for 10 years at the question of selective enforcement in seattle drug arrests in the most extreme picture in the country about the private grant budgeting to do this. we had the next sociologist working with us and i think we established as i said the majority of people delivering serious drugs in seattle including open-air drug markets are white and i must everyone arrested was black.
i can also tell you what we would've been able to demonstrate how we ever fully litigated this case was that nobody -- you you would not have been able to demonstrate anyone in the department from low-level officer to the highest level commander had any intent of that. in fact we did not know. he would've told you quite differently. they genuinely were not been able to approve and prioritize crack enforcement even know i'll drug delivery arrests were for cracked delivery also cracked representative only one third of the open drug transaction is a seattle department was addicted to crack. [laughter] i wanted to use that for so many years. we started collaborating. they did not know that. they would sit in outmost
sincerity though it could not dislodge on cross examination and tell you that it was not more important than powder, methamphetamine and they say that's more interesting. i just don't know why. we documented there were white people delivering drugs in the drug market and after we published, commanders read it and said that was fascinating. i've been lazy ago i and they were down there appeared for going to take a look at that right now. so the invisibility of the exact same behavior conducted by white people was true. they did not actually see them as potential criminals. they thought they were waiting for the bus. so we could show an impact standard the actual instance of the behavior racially and we can show who was arrested for it. if that was an operational because standard we could get somewhere. short that the question is why, i don't think it useful to work.
>> so as a former prosecutor, what you think of the idea that in order to deal with the problem of racism we should ratchet back the rap? >> well, i want to say something. maybe we have alluded to it a little bit here, when we think about the war on drugs, it starts fairly. if we can kind of get away from crack and math and some not the people selling the things that we focus on finite crimes, maybe we will have some headway there. that's about as controversial. >> i think we have time for one more question. yes, man. >> so you mentioned the seattle response focused on how back on felony drug cases, but in new york and i'm assuming seattle,
two for every felony there is going to be 20 and here in new york even more people getting arrested for low-level misdemeanors with the same disparity. has there been any focus on not? because that massively criminalizes communities, people of color, leads to loss of the planet,, days of work, kind of civil rights issue we have in new york city. >> absolutely. in new york, there is a police decision to categorize them in in in demeanor. it's not due at demeanor. in saudi with the same phenomenon. back in 2008 for budget reasons only the prosecutor decided to file as misdemeanors felony drug possession cases. but she only got attracted to misdemeanor if this demeanor if you flat. he took the case to trial it would not be turned court. you have to go mainstream. as a result of that -- most people to plead misdemeanors. as a result of that, we experienced what people refer to
as discouraged officer syndrome. phenomenally, the drug arrests rate for drug time -- practically every drug offense is a felony in washington not. only possession of marijuana under 40 grandison misdemeanor. so there's been a 63% reduction in drug arrests from 2000 until 2010. this is not the results of any intentional policy. this is purely an officer reaction to incentive ensor do materialization of these cases by other players in the system. but what is fascinated with the advent of this law-enforcement diversion program, an ideological structure has now risen to provide support for these opposite decisions such that what they used to talk at and be the discipline of taken misguided joke on another look at you and say why would we make an arrest for possession of a crack pipe? they look at you like i would be
insane. you're right, although you did it. and they're now just like i'm urging a really profound value shift in almost a misha about that would make no sense to do it that way. messages via great deal of hope is that there actually is, if we can provide a policy level consensus in the community level consensus that it's okay for the police to police these crimes differently with different outcomes, officers are more than willing to do things more rational and less harmful and put the incentive structure around their change. >> i think it's a great achievement of economic panel depend on recently sent a it on a note of hope. so will you join me in thanking our panel. [applause]
this is 40 minutes. >> joining us right now, bill horn of the u.s. sportsmen alliance, the federal affairs director, hello. >> guest: good morning. how are you? >> host: tell us what the alliance does. >> guest: hunters, fishers, founded in the mid-70s, basically to combat the anti-hunting on the anti-phishing county and protect the rights of sportsmen and women to engage in these long-established traditional activities. >> host: so i comes to activities, with the intersection of federal policy? >> guest: obviously the federal goveolicy? >> guest: obviously the federal government has major landholdings organizing various publicly and systems. burgesses gruffly in management, 500 plus u.s. forest service with over 190 million acres of national forest wildlife refuge system.100 million acres of wildlife refuge and its managed at the fish and wildlife service and even within the park system
elements of the national park system expressly open to hunting as well. all of the public lands provide enormous opportunities for fishing and hunting that most of us are dairy committee to protect them the rights to continue to fish and hunt on those plans as we have for nearly century. >> host: while the threaten those rights? >> guest: basically radical animal-rights groups, anti-hunting groups, sunset the nickname like the humane society united states who are just committed to basically running the anglers and hunters off public lands and private lands to do. obviously washington context is the intersection to federal public lands that we care about in this legislation was desired or designed to address. >> so if this is the sportsmen heritage act of 2012. what is the purpose? >> guest: is really for folded. and a modicum of four different bills to fix different problems. title i come which started out as a separate bill called h.r. 2034 and has a senate
counterpart s. 2066 essentially establishes them on that public lands in forest service lands are present to be open to hunting and fishing. that doesn't exist in present law. most of the laws written years ago it was so radical animal-rights movement. teddy roosevelt and company saw no need to put an express provisions for angling and hunting because the concept someone would be opposed to those traditional activities was just off the radar screen. so this essentially establishes that those plans at hunting and fishing are legitimate activities in those lands are present if we open until the agencies can exercise their retain discretion to make closures as are necessary if the closures and restrictions are based on facts and evidence. >> host: some of the democrats are opposing this bill and say there are laws that mandate as far as when it comes to federal land whether to open or closed. >> guest: they don't. the law does not expressly
provide for the type of access for angling and hunting. the fish and hunt these lands for entire countries existence largely as a matter of tradition. not so much as a matter of express provisions of law and that is what this is designed to correct empire. the second part of bill codifies recent epa decisions and determination that the toxic substances that of 1976 does not authorize epa to either ban lead fishing thinkers and lovers like but pales are led and ammunition notwithstanding the fact that a variety of activists have been petitioning epa to take that step would epa said no, they have now filed suit in federal court. these provisions in the bill codifies the recent epa determination that they do not have that authority under the 1936 back. >> to allow blood products to be used in this? has played hurt animals?
>> guest: that is regulated and averted circumstances. in some cases is determined that it does -- for example when i was assistant secretary of the interior we took steps to prohibit the use of lead shot shells for migratory waterfowl ducks in use. it has been replaced in that context with other types of non-toxic material. but in other circumstances, there is no good science demonstrating the use of the fishing thinkers causing any appreciable problems for the use of traditional lead ammunition is causing any major problems. and so there is that policy issue. the other side is a legal one, which is to donate 76 toxic substances that give epa that authority? this administration's epa said no, this provision in the bill would codify that decision and confirm it. to other parts of the section involving recreational shooting uncertain blm lands.
this is provision determined necessary because the bureau of land management in recent years has taken a series of steps very hostile to traditional recreational shooting out there, particularly in the west. >> host: this is land of structure in place to allow you to hunt or fish? >> guest: this would basically be recreational shooting. you go someplace, obviously far out of town, put tin cans on iraq and use them plinking and target shooting and that type. the provisions of the bill are designed to overcome some recent decisions by blm that are very hostile to this activity and even though the agency later backed off on a lot of that, but lucian was we need to codify that. we need to make this fix and statute. the fourth feature is a very specific six. canada for many years has allowed hunting of polar bears because withstanding the fact that they are deemed threatened
under the endangered species act, present polar bear our record highs. canada allows hunting. here is americans are not there before the bears are put on the endangered species list, took the bears and in the listing occurred they had imported 41 of these trophies. and this bill essentially allows those 41 hairs taken pre-listing but before they could be brought into the country post listing to come into the country and get them out of the legal limbo and red tape their present accounting. >> host: talking about legislation passed with sportsmen issue you if you want to ask questions of bill horn, u.s. sportsmen alliance, federal affairs director. number on the screen. someone for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. 202-628-0205 for independence. c-span.org is the e-mail and send us a tweet at c-span wj. what reasoning would you get
about the need to make sure it beats remain open for hunting and fishing purposes? >> guest: there's a couple reasons. long-time traditional activity people have engaged in and there's no reason not to continue this. secondly, we adopted in this country under the leadership of teddy roosevelt and the folks of his air what we are referred to as the north american wildlife model. most people don't appreciate that the fastball to funding for wildlife conservation comes from anglers and hunters in the form of license fees, duck stamps, other types of stamps and very specific federal excise taxes levied on hunting equipment and fishing gear. you could buy a fishing rod, there is an excise tax on there that goes into a special fund that is later dispersed for sports fish restoration projects. this makes it anglers and hunters, fees and taxes exceed a billion dollars a year. that is what drives wildlife
funding. it doesn't come in large measure from general tax revenue. and if you obviously cut off and begin to restrict access and opportunities for angling on hunting, the license sales drops come at the duck stamp sales drop, the excise revenues drop in the money that goes in the conservation begins to dry up and we are fearful that we live in an ever-increasing urbanizing society. most urbanites are not going to want to basically pay extra taxes or have their general tax funds direct you to wildlife conservation as a set for 100 years has been basically pay for that antonin hunting community. >> host: north van, oregon on our independent line for bill horn. >> caller: how you doing this money? >> guest: fine, thank you. >> caller: i live in a state of oregon, which is owned about 60% of the federal government. and they are constantly,
constantly shutting those down, blocking roads, digging ditches, putting case up, restrict access to public lands for hunting and fishing. and you know, what can a person do -- poster what reasons do they give commissary? >> caller: what reason do they give? >> caller: they want to protect the wildlife for the trees where the drainage or the river system or whatever. but it's like you have some cheap bureaucrats in some area just decides, had, i want to block this area off and i don't know what they want to do?
make a park to where you can blog, but but not touch? >> host: let's let our guests answer. >> guest: part of what is driven this bill, which is there has been levels of increased hostility from the federal land agencies that a traditional access and hunting and angling and a lot of frustration in boiled up i think the color is an example of that. and the decision was radigan fittingly for these problems to continue to build, let's take some type of preventive action right now and begin to codify about the hunting and fishing are very important traditional activities on this plan. agencies are supposed to provide for these activities. you can make the closures and restrictions are necessary and where appropriate, but the presumption is they are open for his come a close second and we hope that having congress sends a very clear signal to land managing agencies that take steps to facilitate traditional access to these lands.
housecoat is it only to hunters? >> guest: this is a bill that is about fishing and hunting. some of the critics have raised what are my mind red herrings that are secret provisions in here to open the lands to oil and gas and mining and offered vehicles and categorically untrue. that was very carefully put together by the committee folks, very carefully put together in cooperation with the hunting and angling community and it is the hunting and fishing though. this is not a mining or oil and gas are raising or any other form of commodity development. >> host: ohio on the republican line. carlos next. go ahead. >> caller: i'm here. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: i have a few questions. yes or no responses. have you ever shot a polar bear? >> guest: i have personally not. >> caller: have you ever shot a wolf? >> guest: i have n->> caller: ht
a wolf? >> guest: i have not. >> caller: have you ever shot a snow white not go? >> guest: no, but a friend to have. >> host: let's stop the question and tell us why you're asking. why are you asking these questions? givest the reasoning. >> caller: i'm trying to establish the credibility of your guest is the hunter. >> guest: i can tell you i have been a hunter for probably 40 plus years. primarily a bird hunter and that connor. on rough ground, woodcock, like well mostly in the western mountains of virginia. duckhunting quite a bit. i don't do much big game hunting, but i'm an avid or hunter and lifelong fly fishermen and angling to do. >> caller: >> host: one follow-up. >> caller: do you own a bumper sticker that says save a buck --
>> host: will leave it there. most of the activity you do on public or private land? >> guest: private land in virginia, west virginia i hunt in the george washington national forest and of course talk about we pay special fees to be that an obviously from a personal perspective, i am really interested in making sure that we maintain access to public lands so we can continue activities. >> host: what type of oversight with recreational hunters like you from shooting or capturing endangered animals? >> guest: that's heavily regulated by the states. one goes out to hunt, the state sets the seasons, bag limits, established methods and means. you have to have the requisite licenses and fees in order to go on to those public lands, you have to comply with the rules and regulations that are enforced by game wardens, fish wardens, for service personnel
are out west. it's very heavy regulated activity and i think we have found over the years that the vast percentage of anglers and hunters are law-abiding citizens who live by these very carefully established rules and regulations. >> host: democrat line shot from yesterday and north carolina. >> caller: good morning, everyone. mr. horan, you mentioned the humane society was sort of mislabeled. i think when it comes to your organization, sportsman minds, and must be mislabeled because to me it is an unfair business. you walk up there with high-tech gear. you have night scopes, night vision, tree stands, computer, engineered devices. that is not hunting. that is murdering of animals. i mean, where's the fairness? when you talk about roosevelt and all those and you go back to bb crocodile does, they were hunters. there was a level playing field. now you could be a hundred yards
away and kill an animal. how is that sportsman? what is so sportsman about that? >> guest: i would simply say not everything is high-tech. we have all hunters are in the field and go out and out without when arizona state provides special archery seasons and most of us to do our bird hunting are using shotguns and shot at what she is effectively same technology in 1880 and really hasn't changed in the last one or 20 years. i would reject the notion this is sort of a high-tech killing exercise. anyone who has done significant hunting appreciate the difficult. he spent more time in the woods and you bring home not as much as you would necessarily like. a lot of folks spend a lot of time at the bringing of a deer or turkey or the dark. it is a pursuit. it is not necessarily about bringing home dead critters. >> host: what is the difference or at least the amount of people who hunt for recreation and then for food?
>> guest: the only parts of america where you've really got genuine subsistence hunting any longer is in remote parts of. some of the villages where they really don't have access to other forms of food. for most folks, you know when the lower 48 states, this is a choice. obviously, you can augment your diet with the venison or ducks and a lot of folks catch a lot of fish, put them in the freezer and provide an important part of the annual assessment, but most of us here have a choice. and this is a choice. it is the ability to engage in this traditionally dvd. there is a long heritage of it. folks who engage in a find it is its interaction with nature. it is connection. you become part of the process. you're not just a watcher anymore. you are participating. we have discovered that level of
interaction, connection and commitment brings a commitment to conservation. so beyond a billion dollars the angling and hunting community provides every year for conservation to the licensees, you look around and look at the wide array of organizations that are supported by the sporting community for conservation, whether it are national wild turkey federation are the rocky mountain elk foundation for the trout unlimited people, the ducks unlimited folks, the laundry list of organizations than a commitment to conservation supported by the hunting and angling community are as long as your arm. >> host: environment california, the u.s. sportsman association. >> caller: yes, hi. i was curious how complicated me for duck stamps, licenses and when it comes to california we are limited in the number of her that we shoot and then when they
get to mexico if there is limit? how do they figure that out? >> host: caller, how much to pay for stamps? >> caller: i would say the whole thing is a couple hundred dollars. >> guest: that gives you access for the season or whatever the season is quite >> caller: yes, it does. >> guest: if you want to go duck hunting you have to have the federal migratory bird stamp, better for twisted accent. it now costs $50. a proposal to raise it to 25 in each of that stamping or physical possession to hunt ducks and geese. the caller's question is a good one, which is we don't set the fish and game laws in mexico. that is the decision of the different of our country. we've been called the migratory bird treaty at canada, the united states and mexico are signatory to it we can make suggestions about what the limit should be on hunting decks that may start in the united states
and end up in canada. but those decisions are made by mexicans, not by our fish and game personnel. >> host: greg, democrats lined. >> caller: i am democrat politically far than anything else. i am an avid hunter and fisherman and sometimes the democratic party does teach way to imposing a few of these two activities in the second minute rights and i think we all should have access to a noncriminal citizen. as you have one comment to make about just hunting ethics. you know, my family, we harvest probably eight to 10 year a year and we do eat them. we do hot bird on a lot of fishing. and my will but i have taught my children this list and come if you are going to kill it, you have to ebay. and so from my youth, i don't
understand why someone -- you can certainly eat air, but like those guys would have to canada and shot those polar bears, they didn't effect me. maybe they donated to something, but just the specific lot to get these polar bear is back in the united states really just seems like it's directed at however many individuals who are obviously very wealthy enough to go up and do a trick like that. that seems a little ridiculous even though i do understand the bears are now dead, so they should just be used in the way that they were. so i understand why the provision is there. it always seems like some of these organizations are tailoring some of their laws or something like that is very, very. anyone who can hunt the web is slow in africa or lion hunting first of all to me is completely, ridiculously unnecessary. they're just doing it to have something to hang on their walls
and to me at the plate that just doesn't really go for what i think the original projection for hunting and fishing really is, which did start with sustenance. >> host: thank you are brutally that >> guest: people make ethical choices about what they want to hunt and what they don't want to hunt and whether they want to hunt or fish or not. we all respect people making those types ethical choices. one in most states, they're what are called want an wastefulness. if you take a deer, and this, not you are under an obligation to basically take out the meat and put it to use. you can't just take off the horns and the antlers and leave it there to rot in the woods. that is a violation of law. the second aspect when it comes to the trophy hunting exercise particularly from overseas countries in africa, it is the dollars that come from sport hunting. it could support the conservation mayo3
hunting. it could support the conservation mayor. a lot of places, animals are a nuisance if they are not available to be hunted. they get killed, shoveled and left out someplace. where is that they are subject to a regulated hunting and conservation program and folks from europe and america are willing to pay fees to conduit, those dollars go in the ground and provide bona fide nomogram economic and conservation benefits that otherwise would not be derived locally if there was not a hunting program. >> host: puller -- polar bear pelts her included? >> guest: it was probably donated to wait the bears were taken and frankly prior to the canadian polar bear hunting programs are operated by local native tribal groups. they said the regulations, establish the hunting levels. the other recipients of the license fees and they derive direct benefits from allowing the hunting to continue.
>> host: richard in milwaukee, wisconsin an independent line. >> guest: good morning. i have a question. a couple years ago i was deer hunting with a friend of mine and we parked in a national forest. two other guys show up in the group they are and we were stopped by the pa people because they didn't want us to hunt on a lan. the big argument was almost a fight. now i would really like to get rid of those people because they are completely and even in our annual meetings from the dnr, a comair and trinket on the board and everything and they are completely off-the-wall about a lot of things. also, during fish in a try and stop people on the boat landings. how can we get actually get rid of them?
thank you. >> guest: we agree that people would see that in the united states are pushing a radical animal rights agenda that the body politics fully appreciate what the agenda was and the level of public support would drop substantially. they really don't support you mean activities and don't take care of the local cats and dogs. i would say virtually every state as what are called hunter and fishing harassment laws, there is a counterpart federalize as well, which makes it a crime for folks to interfere with people trying to go back. you are allowed to exercise and you can stand there as a sign that you can't interfere and get in someone's prevent them from exercising their hunting and angling privileges. >> host: vivian shepherdson says what is change the sportsmen can't hunt?
>> guest: there's been no change. but we have seen is the absent at the express references to angling in hunting and some of the older publicly and those has generated a variety of nuisance lawsuit in which people are not arguing because these things are not expressly provided for committee agencies have to to vannatter jumped through a kind of costly and time-consuming procedural hoops to provide for hunting opportunities. this is designed -- it is basically preventative medicine. we want to fix the problem before it grows bigger and before we have to face more nuisance lawsuits. let me add quickly, two successive administrations appreciated this. the clinton administration, president clinton issued an executive order, order and the federal land agencies to facilitate angling access to the land. president bush executed a comparable executive order on
hunting. this though, in essence, codifies those executive orders i take it from the executive order status and putting into statute, which is utter in the hierarchy of federal law. >> host: another and sasha says overpopulation is the problem and she gives the example of deer. some parts of the country, but not all. >> guest: absolutely. in some parts of the country, hunting plays an important role in keeping the deer herds at a manageable level. so we have less disease. they were about or for lyme disease and takes. we have less accidents. the d.c. metropolitan areas, classic case in point, one of the earlier callers talked about how you can take eight or 90 or in a year. virginia has very liberal deer seasons. most of the eastern states do because of the explosion in our deer herd and escalations on the highway end of post some of the deer starve to death and in very unfortunate circumstances reared
as i said, there are about or for the deer ticks. controls an important part in some parts of the country. >> host: anthony and republican line. >> guest: good morning. i was wondering what today is current economy and the lack of people to pay for some of these licensing fees and such, how can a local family supplement their food source is with a local game and still, i guess, not be a would've paid for the license says? i also want to say that, you know, i think hunting for a trophy is just that. i'll take my answer offline if that's okay. >> guest: i would say a couple of things. one, states are the ones that fit the licenses and license fees and requirements. some states have special provisions that if you
demonstrate a level of economic hardship you can get your license at a reduced rate. most states have hunters for the hungry program, where the hunter can donate me from deer, fish, what have you to an organization that will in turn provide those food products are eligible people. if you're someone who is low and calm, they can basically get it some of the donated meet your hunters for the hungry program. as a probably be the best ways to deal with someone who is suffering economic hardship and is not in a position to show that the 50 to $100 a year to make the cost to buy a full array of licenses. [inaudible] >> guest: the senate has passed as 66 which was cosponsored by lisa murkowski and senator joe mentioned democrat from west virginia.
that replicates title i of h.r. 4089 and then the other versions are also sitting over there. the question is going to be, will he be able to persuade the fact two similarly aggregate those different bills to create a counterpart to 4089. time will tell. generally most of the opposition and the house came from the democratic side of the aisle. i think of the 107 he some know vote. two republican of 174 or five are democrats. we did get 39 favorable democratic votes in the house. i would expect a similar type of partisan split in the senate and mr. reid has not shown a predilection to be terribly interested in the types of bills or reissues. so i think we are hoping we can persuade democratic senators from some of the key states where we have big hunting population in pennsylvania,
ohio, montana, missouri the hunters there can reach out to senators and persuade them that this is good necessary public legislation and talk to the majority leader if he if the get is scheduled. >> host: democrat from san diego. good morning. >> caller: i have a question. i'm and an avid backpacker and there's a trail that starts here in san diego county and runs all the way to the canadian border called pacific crest trail. it crosses multiple types of domains, meaning state parks. it goes through counties, goes through national land. and the reason i am kind of worried about your bill trying to get through and how it protects people hiking here at my brother was shot in the head with 50 pellets from a guy hunting quail back in the 70s and sammartino mountains locally here. this annex county or two.
herbicides and sammartino and an affair with lots of trails. if you're just a hiker, how do you know you are in shooting for quail? are not going to get shot by yahoo! sukhoi affair, like my brother did and he died a year later. they couldn't launch them all out in the spring. i am a fisherman myself. so i'm back i cannot tell i.e. i catch a fish and usually either now or later. sometimes do because i don't have refrigeration. i am all for that. this means there's going to be out these yahoos coming out of places that i'm hiking now? thanks. >> guest: i would say at the outset that most of the public lands are presently opened. this is designed to essentially ensure that they stay open and fixed that issue. obviously safety is always a concern. anybody who goes out into the woods and fields of the firearm is always extraordinary conscious of that.
you know, the only advice i can offer someone like the caller would be to find out what time if you're the hunting seasons are. mostly hunting season early for a couple months of fall and winter. most of the year the hunters are barred from the land and the non-hunting users have free access if you're going to be in the field during the hunting season coming to like the hunters do. wear bright orange or other clothing do you stand out and it's not going to be x family and some of line of fire. >> host: the legislation want to remain open, but this was the first line of their response, saying that h.r. 4089 as a solution in search of a problem. >> guest: we had a simple response, which is where you seen two things happen. we have begun to see this proliferation of nuisance lawsuits from the animal rights radicals seeking to restrict enclosed lands on the grounds that the old statutes don't
often make express references are provisions for and clean and hunting. we see a problem coming. i guess i got tired you don't pilcher defense when the barbarians show up at the gate. they build the defense before they get there. this is an attempt to be as and provide the sort of ounce of prevention now to prevent these problems from occurring rather than wait for the problems to be at the doorstep when i have to try to apply the pounded the cure. >> host: pennsylvania, mark, republican line. >> caller: i'm going to make a couple comments on the people supposed to be managing these lands. introduce the rules and rules to operate times. they don't know where they're supposed to say. they're having trouble with them. also, when people have pythons and chinese jumping fish, carp
in our waters, now there have been problems with them. they never do anything about that. could you make a comment on the damage they allow to happen? thank you. just to leverage the muster with the second part, which is the invasive question. yes, you have another person a country where bases pcs have come in sometimes deliberately and sometimes by mistake and then they take over. and the great lakes, to see lampreys got into the great lakes to the women canal around niagara falls many, many years ago when they first came into surely decimated the upper great lakes. the united states and canada have to think of the great lakes fish commission, which is dedicated to sealand control and because of the successive control program that is now 50, 60 years old with no training fisheries in the upper great lakes and i know about that because i had the good fortune
to chair that once in my life. and for a good folks let pythons go from i guess pets that were too be every at the everglades are full of them. they are controlling it. this goes back to the whole north american model. a lot of the work, control of the invasive species, various games, snake, fishes for the conservation dollars go. you're not the conservation dollars, you're not going to have control and in some of these invasive species, which is one reason why continuing to ensure access for anglican hunting and ensure the comparable sale at the licenses and stamps and payment of this tax is to continue money to the conservation is so important. otherwise one of dollars to engage in the control. >> host: hunter education is control. no one should be a job without taking a class. >> guest: datastream went to rule through and virtually all states are now.
you have to go out and at some point to secure license you have to sit through a class. i can tell you in virginia and is a two-day class you have to go through. you have to pass a written test before you're allowed to purchase a hunting license. i can say that one of the problems the hunting community has faced is that we want to be in favor of hunting education. we have been, but we don't want to create a barrier by bringing in case. and at the sportsmen alliance we put together a program called families afield in cooperation with many other states to create basically apprentice programs so we can bring children into the program, exposed them, take them out and at some point if they want to proceed from there, they have to go to the hunter education programs to do it on their own. >> host: what is commonly hunted? >> guest: depends where you are. the common species would be white tailed deer, wild turkeys, pursley the rough grass up in the mountains, chesapeake may have been one of the famous
hotspot for goose and duck hunting for a hundred years. those would probably be the most popular species and is part of the world. >> host: sherry on our democrats lined. >> caller: i grew up in the south and my father and brother in law all day hunt. but when they announced they would shoot a deer and my brethren now if it are cheering he would cut the deer affair and we ate it. and that was what it is for. in fact, that is the total thing of the country was when it started was to hunt the meat for food. now, people are hunting animals that can't protect themselves and for money to hang their heads on the walls. the thing for the polar bears is to be disgusting. i cannot believe the way the polar bears are now they can't survive on there and you've got people going up there and shooting them for no reason at all.
and i guarantee the only thing they took most polar bears with their head so they can mount it on their walls. and another thing, the nra -- if they want a bill passed committee would get a bill passed because they will buy it. my cousin was shot by a 3030 riflemen as a teenager. they were out hunting deer and another that couldn't wait had on his orange vest and he shot him. he's dead. and they would shoot each other. they didn't care. they just went crazy when they got out there. >> guest: i don't know quite where to start. obviously that is why we at the hunter education and safety is very. and a statistically hunting is safer than bicycling in this country.
and let's be honest, there is always some inevitable small percentage of human reasonable person to the rules and act safely with you put them behind the wheel of a card or in the woods with a firearm. it leads to unfortunate circumstances. i would say overall the vast majority of the american hunters within the domestic united states take aim and take it home and ebay. i go duck hunting and attacks do not go to waste. they are really good. in context to the hunting, most dominantly and overseas enterprise provides a very important local source of funding. the poor poorer as a large measure upon by the native inuit people in northern canada. they set the season in the back limits and collect license fees. it helps them sustain programs. >> host: she said 3030 rifle. what is that? >> guest: is often used in the list for deer hunting.
>> host: dislodge dictate what type of firearm you're allowed to use when you hunt? >> guest: sometimes some places. particularly when you get into some of these closer urban areas and you've deer hunts to close the deer population, you may be used a shotgun with this book and save in a rifle days. when we got conned, and they must have a plug on mm. no more than three shotgun shells even though you can buy shotgun for home protection that will hold 10 shells in a magazine. within the states as a whole variety of limitations in terms of the firearms you can use, where and when you can use these things. most are tuned into regulations because the vast percentage are law-abiding citizen. >> host: is a more expensive for those who hunt rather than fish?
>> guest: more complex and comprehensive than those fishing regulations. >> host: if the senate hasn't passed a version of the house bill, what happens to those like you who want to hunt on public lands? >> guest: we will continue to work with the alliance and continue to stand up there and try to continue this heritage in these traditions. if we don't get this bill passed, congress would come back. with a similar circumstance about 12 years ago. we passed away at life refuge built to make hunting and fishing priority uses on the refuge system every passed the house wonder, could get it to the senate and came back the next year and passed it to the house and senate and president clinton signed into a 1997. would like to get it this year, but we know perseverance is the order of the day. >> host: bill horn is with the u.s. sportsmen alliance. u.s. sports fan.org is the website if you want to find out more about the organization and legislation involved.
between 49 states and five banks. the conference featuring national urban league president and former new orleans mayor marc royall and the former ceo of fannie mae, franklyn raines is an hour and 40 minutes. >> thank you for coming. both of you got a chance teacher entrée already. just to show you they don't favor the head table. will have to be more animated in the next invitation. so c-span is ready and the other cameras are ready, just give me the? i just want to say my name is john taylor, president and ceo of the national coalition. welcome to this important discussion about the center of housing. the experts will join us in this critical conversation about
homeownership, mortgage market and foreclosure. our panelists this year include joseph smith to my right, the former banking commissioner of north carolina, critical acclaim -- you can also pause. [applause] energy once the path now, but if you can hold the applause -- [laughter] until we get through the six speakers, that would save us some time. i appreciate that. he received critical acclaim for his work and north carolina is the predatory lending laws most important has been appointed by the states attorney general for the monitor. we now call mr. monitor that $25 billion agreement. franklin raines to my left, farmer wrote caller once served as the omb to her for president clinton and is also recognized
as the first african-american to become a partner of the private wall street firm and the former ceo of the government enterprise at fannie mae. so to my also was cheaper van tol on economic justice for past sound and ncrc that provides funding housing, job training and other services and states and puerto rico. the nurse, also served in the federal research consumer advisory council. she may further, mark calabria. [inaudible] he is from the cato institute. he's the director of financial services studies at cato. and before that time he served six years on the senate banking committee working for republican senator and alabama. to my fire last.
i almost forgot about this seating arrangement. at foster has represented a low income homeowners since 1994. as an attorney serving the federal reserve board and consumer advisory council, also on the board after yours have been crc and is currently counsel to the national law. mark morial to my right, former mayor of baltimore [inaudible] >> baltimore louisiana. [laughter] dorland's, sorry. but more importantly, for a he's the president and ceo of the national urban league and under his guidance has become one of the countries most respected, affect and influential national organizations. so thank you for joining us. now please help me in welcoming.
[applause] so ncrc is asking the question of whether our country has a commitment to building an inclusive society in which all people who are willing to work hard, play by the rules gender, race, age or physical challenge that we have the opportunity and for their families. the pressing problems of massive debt, high unemployment and economic growth have increasingly divided our country into the boring political camp, if you made coming up the current endless debate between the free-market capitalism and government driven solutions for economic progress is reaching real commonsense solution third-biggest economic and social problems. let's consider how deep is that
challenge. media while for working-class people of all races is declining rapidly. the classes in peril and the poor are getting more desperate. first site if you would. i want to show you how this manifests itself. it's over there. i don't know if the cameras are able to capture it. essentially what you are at is the wealth disparity to the husband has not and this is really very much part of the problem. the top 10% of the households, the big piece of the pie over there is 80% of other financial asset, leaving the 90%, the rest of us in north america to scramble over the remaining 20% of financial wealth. next site. for black households, african-american households,
with wife having 20 times the wealth of lax and medium and hispanics, 18 times the low of hispanics. final flight. a similar disparity is true when you look at homeownership rates in the united states. for whites versus blacks and his parents. 10% of the population most folks losing while nne at an accelerated rate. i believe as you can see from the five digested. but the homeownership rate for whites in this country is 67%, approaching 70% and for blacks and latinos is below 50%. a very significant difference. so as i said, the extension of the 10% with a wealth of concluding including concluding to grow in an accelerated rate, the rest of the country are disproportionate to many folks
losing while for many an accelerated rate. so is it any wonder that midflight occupy wall street -- am i doing something wrong? occupy wall street with a tea party event, others such as hers are designed to give voice to those who are worried about the financial security proliferator landscape. today our panel will help us understand solutions to alleviating some of the persistent tracks on the u.s. economy. our housing industry in crisis. one thing is certain. economic recovery will not occur as soon without a housing recovery. the federal reserve bank estimates that american homeowners have lost over $7 trillion in wealth from their homes alone. in the past two years, over 5 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure, creating not only devastating impacts for each of these families, but also for the
[applause] [applause] >> so, my fellow panelists, please share your immediate thoughts about this challenge. is it really possible for our political leaders, policy makers and decision-makers in corporate america rise above and put america first? is it a two-party system -- are we capable of having a dialogue about this crisis in the housing market? >> two thoughts. we were discussing before the panel the settlement, which is a
result of work by the attorney general of the united states. in case you didn't know, and i did not know until i was told, 25 democrats and 24 republicans. in fact, the 24th republicans and 25 democrats work together with the federal government. a government that is democratic to get the settlement them. the idea that it is not nonpartisan. there is no doubt about it. i will say that the other pieces is origination. it was put together by my colleagues and myself, and again, democrats and republicans, and we work with the sea of tb. i think there are examples on a practical level of people working together on party lines
of the united states. it is nice to see the states taking a lead of that. >> it is a great point. what joseph is saying, we have 25 democratic -- democrats and 24 republicans. why is it so difficult for us to have at the federal level is kind of public discourse? >> let's keep in mind that we didn't get to the settlement very quickly. there was quite a process to it. there are certainly a handful of things that could be debated. there are substantial disagreements over the reasons
for the problem. all that said, i think when you can have a small number of areas where people can come together to agree, i'm hopeful that a few things can get done. >> you know, i was going to make a point. tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. [applause] [laughter] >> and we can argue about diagnosis, but you can't argue the facts. you can't invent facts, although this town is excellent at skimming facts. taking half of the fact and put it out there. and you just identified what is really a challenge for the country. coming out of a recession, how can there be great disparities of wealth, healthy profit, yet extreme difficulties for poor and working and middle class people in this country. my own take is that we have to
recognize and reconcile that we need a plan to rebuild the country, and that this argument about government versus the private sector is an ideological argument. and we need to have government plus the private sector working together. [applause] >> what i learned at the local level, republican private partnerships are real. people are concerned about results. and i think that sometimes people -- it's important to have philosophy, the people hide behind philosophy and ideology. we have a challenge. one of the things that history teaches us is when this nation is facing great challenges, we are willing to try new and different things. when this nation faced great challenges, one of the things they've put at the heart and
center is -- is a step going to be helpful and important for the working and middle-class middle class americans. we have to push all of these policies to that very important plan. >> thank you. >> i am a pessimist. as a pessimist, i'm a pessimist because i was working back in seattle many years ago. the debate many years ago was about affordable housing. as you know, that has been a struggle for a very long time, but there was never a debate about home ownership. there was never a debate that we have a national policy to expand homeownership, to all who qualify. for all of the reasons that we all now. including the hard-core economic reasons that john was referring to. it is the central source of wealth for the average american could not be average minority
american, -- but the average american in their home. what happens now, the extraordinary thing, we have lost our consensus about homeownership. the biggest problem that america faces in the financial crisis is that too many people wanted to own their own homes. >> i actually do want to get into that question. before we jump into that, that is the first question i want to talk about, is what is happening to this notion of being a homeowner -- it used to be a solid component in the american dream. i think that is under jeopardy. i don't want to leave the line of what it's going to take to change the quality of conversation. mark mentioned it's an election year. regardless of whatever happens, that means someone -- whether president obama continues in january, and whether there is a change, but that is still the
better part of another year that we can expect to see. i don't think we can live with that. i think the movements, occupy wall street, rebuild the dream movement, the tea party -- the point of it was that bears mention there is grass roots efforts. we are kicking the can down the road and not creating this kind of solution. go ahead. >> just to clarify, i'm not suggesting that because it is an election year we should not do anything. i am suggesting that if i was a betting man, i would not put my money on what is happening. i think we should try to push to get something done. but i also think it is in an election year. people can shape while public officials are responsible. that is why i hope people in this room will not go silent.
they will continue to advocate. i think that franklin raines made a very important point. it strikes me as absolutely wrong to suggest that homeownership is not essential to the future of the american dream. and it strikes me as an important and public change in a narrative for which there was a consensus for decades and decades. when that consensus emerged, in the post-world war ii period, we grew a middle class. we built strong neighborhoods and communities. it was not absolutely perfect, and there were many mistakes made. i challenge those who suggest that homeownership should not be a central part of the american
dream. it is their policy to house the nation. why is it that whenever we go to some old south, apartment flat? is that what they are suggesting? is that what it is? i call the question. i call the question for those who say that homeownership is at an american dream. what is that? we have to recognize that there is a nation that has to be housed. there is a growing nation that has to be housed. >> so this is a question that i interrupted franklin raines about. let's go to it. >> there is a notion of homeownership in america for fair opportunity for people to
use that as a vehicle for building wealth and building a secure, safe environment. it is really in jeopardy now. the compensations we hear that when an organization like ncrc or the national urban league are in sync with the national association of realtors and mortgage bankers association and the homebuilders -- that homeownership is critically important, because we are all concerned about the levels of conversation of throwing the baby out with the bathwater on what happened in this financial crisis. rank, sorry for interrupting you. put you back on the point. >> the point is, i think, unless we get a consensus, they don't leave. the politicians only -- they
don't leave. >> my experiences that somebody has to start the parade. but right now, it's going in the wrong direction. there is a very serious argument although i think it has been lost from a housing standpoint. there are many people who save homeownership is a bad thing economically. it is not a good thing for the country. but too many resources into housing. people don't know what they are doing by investing so much and housing -- this is a standard economic analysis in this town and throughout much of the country. this is what those of us who have been involved for the last 30 or 40 years, we have been having this argument for many years. we want for most of the period of time, but we are now losing. unless the argument is turning around, congress is not going to do anything to expand homeownership. indeed, we may find in the guise of corporate tax reform that the largest source of funds supporting a portable rental
housing -- the low income housing tax credit could be eliminated. remember, that is a credit that is going to corporations. when they say take away credits for all corporations, that is the biggest one. we are losing the argument in washington and it that unless we can begin to win the argument, there are not going to be a lot of brave souls fighting the political fight. that is my major point. that is why it is important to understand the need to make a positive case for housing, particularly for homeownership. [applause] [applause] >> i think that is exactly right. i apologize for my voice. i think that where we are in the community organizing movements around the country, we really missed the boat at the time of obama's bill. there was a time when the people of this country were really on
fire about a problem. because we lost it temporarily, the tea party took over and absorb some of that energy, and we lost out. but we have to be preparing very quickly for the next time we get that opportunity again. it may be this coming election. we must be ready to help start this process by working to get the money out of politics. doing all that we need to do to start building a big enough movement to make sure that housing is on the top of the agenda as we would like it to be. >> so one of the things that struck me as interesting is when ben bernanke, the chairman of the federal reserve bank, when he produces paper that spoke to the housing issue.
usually, the federal reserve chairman, we certainly weren't used to chairman greenspan producing papers on this issue -- it kind of surprised us. when the paper came out, it was very heavily weighted towards what we should be doing with this problem. it is essentially creating a lot of rental situations. i refer to this paper as let them eat rent. perhaps that is not as fair as it should be, but i am concerned about that as a nod in the direction of homeownership is out of the reach of people. maybe what we ought to be doing is promoting rental housing. it's not that we don't have a need for quality, affordable rental housing. a lot of these situations, particularly, the segment of the market that is being encouraged and supported to require these properties, it these investment
needs companies, we want to turn them into rentals long enough to wait for the market to improve, which they turn around and flip them and sell them. you know, i'm sure that is not at all what chairman bernanke he had in mind. but i am concerned about that tone of that suggestion. other suggestions from well-meaning people that rental is the alternative to home ownership as opposed to rental is a need that we have in this country and that we ought to have a housing policy and commitment that has both private and public sectors. >> the inherent type of thing is rental for some and homeownership for others. in herdingmac -- inherent to that is a return to yesterday and a return to a long time ago. when the return to the 20th
century was one people put money down for homes. also inheritance in that is what washington revels in. the truth at the community level is that you need competence of housing policies. where do we place value? is it going to be on homeownership, on asset building. i would like a neighborhood in my beloved new orleans where an eyeball inspection was all it took to see the neighborhoods where people owned and the people who rented. sometimes, the discussion is also dominated by an eastern
seabird view of the world. new york is a city with a little homeownership rate. it is a city where people are used to comfortable living in apartments. no cities in america are like that. people want to live in detached homes, they want to have a driveway and graphs. even if it's small. we need to say that we can accommodate a conference of housing policy. a combination of rent and home ownership. but we need to reaffirm the value. this is a discussion of value associated with the american dream. what is it going to be? >> i think it is also a discussion of -- there are a lot of images that came out of this period of nonfeasance and predatory practices. this is part of it.
there was a time when a lot of the loans were done to people of color and in 1994 and 1995, fannie mae, looking at their statistics, but had a 50% jump in rich nations, home loans to african-americans. in 1995, they had another two -- 10% jump. 100% into your spirit they were not these two things were no documentation, piggyback loans, balloon payments, credits were a nonsustainable kind of loan. somehow, that got lost in the notion that home ownership is not for everyone. but it is fair in the terms and ambitions if they are right.
>> that is the point i've been thinking about. what got lost in the conversation is remembering what those kinds of loans were, and what led to the crisis and collapse and financial play midi across the world. it was the loans. largely refinanced loans. when you look at the numbers, african-americans were more likely to get subprime loans than a white person. those were the ones. they were mostly refinanced loans and they were sucking wealth of communities where they had built up well. even before the crisis, those loans had foreclosure rates of 30 times higher in some areas. it was the kind of loans that
were made. we have forgotten that when we have this conversation. [applause] [applause] >> i think that that is exactly right. i think one other point that can be illustrated, during this period, the homeownership rate went up. when we did the most stretching that we have ever seen. the homeownership rate went up 64% to 70%. the african-american rate went up to 50%. we never had a policy in this country that everyone was going to own their own homes. we thought it would be it really 70% grade. that would've been something we would have said with such an achievement. but there is no one out there now that thinks that african-american loans have gone on to some incredible number -- it was absolute craziness. we made some progress.
but where we didn't make progress was not loans that were aimed at folks who didn't have a chance. if you look at the areas in the country that are most devastated by the housing collapse, there are areas in which you had this highest percentage of loans to investors. some of you might call them speculators, but the official name is investors. in las vegas, 30% of all the ones made were made to people who were investors. that is assuming that you believed when they said they would really live in the house. i really think it was more like 50%. you don't have to have a complicated theory to understand why it collapsed. if that 30% all of a sudden said, i'm just not going to buy another house, 30% of the demand of the entire market goes away overnight. if they decide, well, i think i will lighten up a little.
you can see why housing prices collapse in all of these areas that we have very high investors. it has nothing to do with the average american family wanting to own a home. this has nothing to do with it. this was speculation that was being financed out of wall street with no questions asked. that is what caused this crisis. blaming people -- ordinary people who try to own a home for this crisis is simply wrong. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] i think frank is absolutely right. to go back to something you share, it has to do with who got the subprime products. many of them, most of them, were not for her first time homebuyers. many of them were to people who already owned their homes. those who are refinancing to take cash out and most of them, were white, and many -- a large
percentage were middle class. what i ask each of you to do is to counteract the false narratives. counteract the weapons of mass destruction which seek to deceive people. let's, at least, have a discussion about public policy that is based on facts. we cannot build the future without understanding if we allow false narratives, misinformation, spins and lies. to color our understanding, but what, in fact, happens -- and i think that is why this panel and what you do, john, is so helpful. it helps to get the real facts to people in the community. that way they can share this. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> i'm just thinking that one of
the challenges for us now today, in promoting home ownership and making sure it is available for those who are creditworthy and can pay their mortgage, the options on where lenders can go, lenders, of course, no longer keep these loans in portfolios. they sell them to somebody, and right now, that someone is the u.s. government. it is interesting that this is such a monolithic call order fannie and freddie to do away with fha. of course, if that were to happen, if you think we have a housing problem now -- that would really collapse the housing market. as bad as the depression. we don't see folks in wall street -- these private-label securities, the ones who buy the mortgage is when the government is not securitizing were putting their stamp of approval on them. i just don't see this pent-up demand of wall street firms
saying that we will buy them. it is more than -- it is sort of a deception issue. it is more a case of where is the physical market that is going to step back into this arena to make sure that quality loans that are sustainable and done on proper terms and conditions -- that indeed, the private sector of wall street, which has obviously played a huge role in this -- where is the mechanism for them to step in and begin to help alleviate this problem? is there -- am i missing this? are all of these private-label securities out there just waiting to get into this? >> i don't tend to think of it as a choice between freddie and fannie. quite simply, i wish we could go back to the jimmy stewart is where you knew the banker, if you need any modification, he
went to him. he knew your circumstances. he worked it out. a lot of the problems we have today is the fact that we do not have loans on portfolios. they are securitized somewhere. when a bank sells 1000 miles to a gse and buys back that thousand in a mortgage-backed security, that is not much of a securitization in my opinion. you have only made the situation more comforted. i want to go back to a simpler time. certainly there were problems in the past. it is not a perfect model to have. the assumptions are, the estimates are, that we need a chilean dollars over the next year in originations. well, banks have one chilean dollars doing nothing. the question is how do we get those dollars into the mortgage market? >> i think it is likely that we will end up -- that we will not
end up in the jimmy stewart days. if i remember correctly, there was an evil banker in that timeframe. [applause] [applause] >> securitization is a function of law. it is something that shows us that it is important that we think about risk and risk potential, all those things are important. i agree with mark that the gse is has not been good in addressing this crisis. the oig report shows that they have dropped the ball on monitoring services, costing billions of dollars by failing to make sure that services are modified appropriately.
it is no secret that the gse's have been the major impediment to implementing principles, which we desperately need. [applause] [applause] i think with securitization, and it's part of what our lives are and we have to make sure that people are held accountable. >> i think we need to start with our friends in the administration as well. some of that happy talk is a little too happy. [inaudible] there is an inherent conflict of interest in that market that is being addressed. that has to be dealt with at some point. >> i think this is an important front. some of this is also chicken and
egg. we have a persistent problem of unemployment in this country. a person at work can't afford to pay much of anything. not a mortgage. not a rent payment. you have large numbers of people and there is a debate about a housing comeback. we have to have job creation. it's not at the level that we can bring it back with. i am always torn as to what has to come first. my sensibilities say that jobs have you primed this, and housing can accelerate it. [applause] >> but that is a real challenge out there in creating demand. demand comes from supply and demand.
>> perhaps it is not a chicken and egg in the sense that they are simultaneous. we have a housing crisis. according to the gao, 11 million properties are either vacant or in need of serious repair. there is a terminus amount of opportunity in the construction and building trades that could put people back to work. bring these properties back online. how can we jumpstart the home building industry in america, which is a major driver of job creation in the country, if we have this pent-up inventory -- some 3 million homes that are just on the market for sale. it seems to me that project rebuild is a suggestion from the president that might be a viable alternative. i would think that in terms of a simultaneous act of creating jobs for the purposes of addressing housing, and as we
stabilize housing prices, we stabilize the mortgage market. >> i think that is right. we have to reestablish a stable market at the lower level. there are ideas out there that i think make sense. but there are some perils as well. you mentioned earlier the whole issue of taking reo and moving it into rental. if you're going to have a foreclosure, let that family rent. don't have -- don't turn this into a business or hedge fund. let that family rent a the home. if you are concerned about the issue of principle reduction, and if that is the only way to modification the modification can work with that family, 50%, as i understand it, 50% of the homes that are underwater today have second liens. those second liens are called second for a reason. the largest source of funds for principal reductions out there is the one chilean dollars of
second liens that are there, instead of their participating -- we will take 10%. in my view, i would have a program that combines all of this. the program, should get rid of the second lien. to me, you need a policy that works. not just at this macro level, but really at the individual family level. then you build up housing and the community and the local business. it was 20% of our economy at the peak. how can you have a recovery in the overall economy in 20% of the economy is. [inaudible]
>> bless you. [laughter] [laughter] >> i think that franklin raines is done. a. [laughter] [laughter] >> that was a great point. >> the second liens mean that the largest banks in this country are in sullivan. hasn't this been the problem all along? that we have been kicking the can down the road all along hoping that these things come back to solvency. too big to regulate, too big to prosecute, when we do about that? >> i don't think that recognizing that these loans are worthless makes the bank insolvent. i think the fact that they are worthless makes them in sullivan. it is not a recognition of reality. if you are looking around for
sources to fund principal reductions. look at the deals that the people made. this is an old-fashioned, libertarian idea. they all sign these contracts and signed that it was a second lien. this should not be a surprise to them if someone says that they are going to enforce the contract. trust me, all of these families who are being foreclosed upon our being reminded that they signed a contract. and you did not adhere to it, and therefore, you are being foreclosed upon. why should this be new to those folks who may have second mortgages which are now back. why should they be looking for someone else to come in and subsidize them. if we simply enforce the contract, all of a sudden, you have the largest principle reduction program you could ever imagine. >> even if we did all of the second liens, i think that only gets us about one third of the principle reduction that we need to get to the precrisis lcd
level. we had also looked to the first. i agree with you that the second liens have to take it but that is not sufficient. >> if you look at the people who have the second lien come and number they tend to be more underwater than underwater borrowers who don't have seconds. we are approaching about 200 billion of these 700 in equities that are solely so. if they are not worth pennies, they are worth zero. we need to have a process to review that. one of the unfair things we have seen, when you treat seconds and for us the same, that is a violation of what everyone agreed to in the first place. if you take the risk, you take the loss. you raise a point. hubert is not part of the heritage foundation or cato
institute -- but this could actually make the bank insolvent. that is certainly something that we have heard from many of the financial institutions that if they had to take these off their books and suffer the loss, that they would collapse. now, i don't know whether that is crying wolf order whether that is accurate. but i have heard it for more than one. >> there are those of us who push for principal reductions before january 20, 2009. our earliest positions on what needed to be done around the housing crisis involved in aggressive principle reduction to try to reformulate the mortgage. our rates use the example of donald trump. donald trump got in trouble with his real estate back in the 1980s and 1990s, the banks not only reduces principle, they
gave him support to five years of forbearance on payments, and then gave him more money to go do more deals. [laughter] [laughter] >> i think, when you think about this from a commercial standpoint, -- >> and no one fired him. >> and no one fired him. he trusted the fact that after that happened, he came back and paid the banks off in full. and he was wealthier and more successful than ever. i think the average person who sits out there is not immune or unaware of what happens in the commercial space. i think some of the lessons in the commercial space, principle reduction, reformulating mortgages, reorganizing payments, a combination of principal and interest, if we had done some of that early on
-- maybe we would not have stopped the crisis -- maybe we could have a bait some of the cascading -- maybe we could have updated some of the cascading. the gentleman sitting to my left is going to make sure that that will happen. [laughter] >> we will see what we can do. what i don't want to leave is the notion of how we could use the market -- whether it is the banks in the market to reduce principle -- one of the things on this crisis occurs, the national committee of reinvestment coalition, went to secretary paulson and subsequently secretary geithner. we post something about going to
wall street, you can buy the securities at a discount. they are not worth as much money because the market has collapsed. buy at a discount. instead of buying mortgages at 100% of the value of the mortgage -- you could buy them at, we thought at the time, 60 or 70%. i remember talking to josh solis about this. i was at a meeting with a number of people in new york city. we told them about this proposal. he said that is the craziest thing i have ever heard in my life. where does this thinking come from? it was a tough moment. [laughter] >> and then just yesterday i was talking to lou [inaudible name] who was an outstanding republican citizen, a player on wall street. he is making part of his living by buying these securities. i told him this story.
my point is that neither administration listen to us at the time. but lewis and are now buying securities paying 40 cents on the dollar. imagine, if you buy a mortgage, a package of mortgages and each one is a 200,000-dollar mortgage, you are paying less than $100,000 for it. are you looking for principal reduction? there it is. it's in your hands. by the way, investors invest. sometimes they make money. sometimes they don't. somehow what we are trying to do, especially with this idea of forbearance where you are setting aside some of the mortgage for it while i'm at this, of course, is advocated by fhfa into micro, you take the mortgage and said it aside, they say okay, we won't charge interest on that portion of the mortgage. but you are still liable and responsible for it. if you refinanced and you sell your home, you have to pay that
back. the entire amount of that mortgage, even though the investor has lost, and i want to point to one of the services. one service has figured out that it is more in the interest of investors to principal write-down. mortgages are lost or so than writing them down. i'd kind of like to hear people's thoughts about that and why perhaps the government should be more engaged in trying to acquire these mortgages. honestly, fannie and freddie, under the conservatorship in the direction of ed dimarco has to play -- diane pointed this out earlier. it has to play more of a role in principal write-downs. we have a lot of work to do. it seems to me that that is something that could really stabilize the market. not necessarily think of the
banks of the at the same time. >> i will start with this. despite the fact that i was not a fan of the time, that is not what was done. i do think one of the core problems you testified about is that these mortgages are on the back of the books of institutions that carry them. therefore, they don't want to recognize any wrongdoing about it. moving and getting these mortgages to institutions who do buy them at a considerable discount, they will modify in way that i think the larger banks will not. >> we have to have a standard that goes along with his purchases to ensure that what they are not doing it is simply putting or adding that whatever they say. >> i just want to say that people in the field are telling huge stories that are talking about debt collecting processes.
there is a tremendous amount of room to modify mortgages. if there were 40 cents on the dollar, that is a heck a lot of a principle reduction that the homeowner could get. people don't need that much, but they need some. that money needs to somehow go to the homeowners. the only way that will happen is if the government is involved. part of my concern would be that we would be sacrificing the good by doing things that would take longer than if we get properties out there. there are bad actors in every part of the market. i don't know if you want to stop the majority of them that are doing good. again, it is a trade-off. i would rather fix the problem sooner or later. we impose a lot of standards on the people that buy them and modify them. again, the immediate important thing is is to try to move the process along. >> mark makes a very good point. and that is the bait and switch.
the original plan presented by secretary paulson was to refill the mortgage process, which was turned into a cash injection program. i think we remember, because we evaluated and decided the public statements that have been made to promote it. this would be a good idea, particularly, it created an entity -- a centralized entity to take on the mortgages and then you would have somebody responsible for the reformulating mortgages. i believe -- i still believe that we could have all the standards. but we need a better organization of mechanism. companies that can buy the mortgages and be responsible for principal reduction and reformatting the mortgages. it would be more organized, it would be a better way. we worked through this early process of all these voluntary
programs. many of them did not work. i think that there is a lesson to be learned for what was done to the savings and loan crisis. a mechanism used their -- and there was a great fear about too much government. look, give me an order. both were sinking. i don't care if it was for government or private sector. we needed a fix. could we try something like that ? the political appetite might not be there. but maybe, it is a continuing example of good policy. good policy, lessons learned from the past might be helpful to us. >> i was adhering recently at the brookings institute where ed dimarco spoke about principal write-downs and forbearance.
i left that session shaking my head. i could not understand why he was so opposed to principal write-downs. then i picked up the paper the next day and it said he supported it. then i went back and looked at the document. he really is pushing this notion of forbearance as opposed to principal write-down. even though it would save the american taxpayer a lot of money, which is huge, as a first objection of him a programs would save more. the problem is, whether one is more effective than the other. the other problem was that he thought that by principal write-down -- and this is the gentleman who heads the government agency that oversees fannie and freddie, who controls -- hundreds of billions of dollars of these mortgages. his feeling is that the principal write-down would
trigger this series of strategic defaults where people would automatically go into default because they could somehow get a better deal. i tried to imagine the folks we deal with in homeownership -- people who are waiting on the sidelines to go into default and destroy their credit history. the 85% -- almost 90% in fannie and freddie are current on their riches. all of a sudden, there will be this plethora of people who somehow are changing their habit of living up to the contract, they're good personal policies of paying off their loans and being responsible homeowners. somehow that's all been a change -- >> all you have to do is build a sense around who's eligible. you can back the eligibility. that is where sometimes in these
discussions, people are not completely intellectually honest, you could say the eligibility date. it is i -- that it is of the state. you can put in standards. you could put in standards, controls, and mechanisms to be against that. i just believe that from the beginning, the idea of principle reduction in the reluctance to embrace it -- the secondary market and read valuation -- they have created the biggest barrier into principle reduction. in the early days, the investors would oppose it because they would be afraid to lose money. but that market is already
reselling itself. the principle reduction is absolutely available throughout the chain of the holders and the market. but we need to do something different. >> i want to bring joe smith back into this discussion. obviously, i think -- [laughter] >> i think he would be happy to sit there and let us talk out the rest of the session. but obviously, in the news is this 25 billion-dollar ag settlement. a lot of questions from a lot of people about how it will work. both realize that even you as a selected monitor was not official until 10 days ago when the federal court in dc approved the ag agreement. i don't think everybody exactly knows what the role of that monitor is going to be, but what everybody is most concerned with
-- what is going to be the impact? is this really going to help in the foreclosure crisis? take it away, joe. >> apparently, ray? [laughter] >> i think it will. i would like to clarify a couple of things on 10 things to begin with. first of all, there are $500 billion of cash, and i don't have any of it. but i am not the custodian of the cash. what i am -- i am the monitor of the remainder of the agreement. it has two parts. the first is the new service in standards. it is across the board, not just. [inaudible] the second thing is the so-called consumer relief
provisions. [inaudible] my job -- it is really a traditional supervisory job. which is to say, i agree with the banks about a structure they are going to set up to monitor their own performance, both servicing standards and consumer relief. and then i am going to higher experts who will work with me. and if we need to do additional testing to confirm what we are told, we will do so. there are every indication that the banks will work with me to get this thing transacted. i think it is likely that we will see a lot of you who are interested in principle reduction and other kinds of restructuring, there is going to be a front load on that.
i think we will see a lot of action on that during this year and a lot lighter and. >> how do people find out about that and get in touch with you so that the groups out there can -- >> okay. i have a way for them to get in touch with me. i'm so glad you asked. i thought you were trying to trick me, but you are trying to help me. [laughter] [laughter] >> you're on candid camera. [laughter] >> www.mortgage oversight.com. that website has a consumer section and a portal for experts like all of you to be in touch with me about a couple things. first, i can tell the banks what to do. i monitor what they actually do. i'm going to be working with them to try to get an agreed program to work so they can do what they need to do. i believe the biggest job i have right now is to do it in
monitoring job and have the banks do a compliance job. how do i do that? well, i will do a thorough and rigorous job of oversight. the other thing is that i need your help. i need confirmation from the real world about what you are seeing out there. the professionals website that we will have a -- it is still two weeks out -- it will be here in two weeks or i will know the reason why. we need you to give me information about what you experience out there. i'm hoping this will be a new approach. a new regulation -- quasi- regulation. that way we can discuss market data. [applause] [applause]
>> www.mortgage oversight.com. i think the long-term important thing is for the servicing standards -- to that should be implemented in a way that will continue well beyond the three and a half or four years. his industry ought to be a better steward of people's hopes and dreams. i will, anyway. that is the hope. >> in light of the website, i will give you a little bit of feedback right now. [laughter] >> i knew i was going to get this. [laughter] >> a week after the agreement was reached, one of the large banks in the group, and i'm sure there representative is there. they sent a representative proposal to an organization. there was $18,000 worth of interest that was put back into
principle in the agreement. then there were $5000 worth of fees. much of those feeds were claimed in the agreement with this gentleman. and i think those -- to me, what it was -- it was the bank. [inaudible] [inaudible question] >> do you think the bank did something? >> i think two things, first of all, i do want to know about that. we are going to enforce this thing as a rule. the other thing is, as you know, your client has -- there is no way for the client's legal rights to be. [inaudible] anyway. we all would like a situation, but frankly, this stuff doesn't happen. hopefully, we will have it soon. i'm not here to apologize or to defend that.
>> i am going to try to work with them so that stuff doesn't happen in the future. that's about all i can say to mark. i understand where you're coming from. before i took this job, i was in north carolina. we had legislation that was adopted this. like last content on 10. >> if they distressed borrower could find a lawyer or counselor or someone who could work with them to get their stuff together, to determine where the real problems were. there was a lot better chance of getting a resolution. not always, but a lot. i will say the other thing that we have discussed previously -- if you look at -- there are directives on why the people --
[inaudible] end ended his job loss, health, or domestic. it was the holy trinity. [inaudible] i agree with the comment that there are other, more systemic issues with regard to people's lives that we have to address. >> another question you may not be qualified or want to comment on. you begin by correcting me about the 25 million. 5 billion, not 25 billion. >> 20 billion. >> my point is that this is obviously going to be going to a different state. twenty-five democratic and 24 republican. the stories we are hearing is that a number of those 80s working with the governor's,
trying to pummel this money into things like infrastructure and roads and education and not to deal with the foreclosure problem itself. again, this might not be a question you want to answer. in which case, we could point to someone else. honestly, people work so hard on this. people suffer from the fraud and the abuse. to have that money go to another source justice and seem fair at all. [applause] [applause] ..
what happens at the state level is between state officials and their citizens. so the important thing with the defense at the state level to take actions to present this. >> this is a very big issue for all of us. [applause] ended as to the necessity for us to focus like a laser on the actions and activities the state attorney general, understanding that in some cases, state
attorney generals have never been near a housing program ever before. in other cases, state attorney generals have been intimately involved in seeking redress on behalf of the citizens. and i think our message should be that the state attorney general should follow the letter and the spirit of the settlement, which was about housing, [applause] not about asphalt, not about thinning trees, some things that i am for, too, but we need to really be vigilant because in the scheme of things, this was an interesting settlement because it was a settlement before any real law was improvised. so it's parameters for shape. i think the best of the ability
of those who have to be at the table. we cannot remain silent. we want to see the money that goes to the state invested in things like housing counselor. hot not so that people can be equipped with the help they need to be taken advantage of the programs that are going to be created and the opportunities that will happen as a result. this is where we can all come together because the ultimate success of the phenomena depends on one, the ability and good faith of the bank, but to have the ability of constituencies and consumers to understand and how to help they need to take advantage and opportunities they believe ps3 already at the national urban league encourage you to do the same. we encourage you to go have meaning for state attorney generals to get to know them,
share with them your thinking, i appeal to you from my state legislators because attorney general after the state legislators are we've got to recognize that we have got work to do to make sure that tout those deployed is accountable to the letter and spirit themselves. >> okay. so let me ask this. one of the things is a settlement with the five major banks, but should we -- obviously at ncrc and urban lake and nancy alcee, we feel the financial institutions that to be signing the agreement and making commitments to help homeowners and avoid foreclosures bigger than the two shins. any that in your conversations with the attorney general's a will there be more signings, more help on the way? been that great now my hands are
full. i've got plenty of business right now. we be able to handle them in about ex-nun. i think there will be conversations about it. but other than that i don't know. >> that's one reason why we have to keep pushing. we have to keep pushing for national service and standards. as good as far as it goes, but doesn't cover all things. >> and joe, which you mind talking a few moments about the servicing standards. i know you mentioned earlier. >> was only 300. >> every 37 pages. >> nevermind. i am hopeful of course and ultimately the jurisdiction, the ability to promulgate national standards of the copd and i'm
hopeful frankly the settlements will begin to generate a record about the implementation of this is helpful and also will inform further actions at the level. i don't feel that this is going to do it and these aren't the final solutions. they think they are a part of the solution. they are the first step forward in october going to try to do. i think there is an issue about 300 requirements. some of them and i know, why they had to be requirements is a little crazy. like you got to know if that's a requirement. if the standard. but it is a concern to me slightly that if we have a very complex and expensive system of service regulation and we may need it. we may be required to make sure that people are fairly treated, the impact, influence, shape of the industry itself and how many can afford to do it, who can
actually afford the consultants and take the time and spend the money to do it properly. and so i think like a lot of other things the first thing you do is build it now, let's get it. i'll be gone, but the rest of you may be here. and then try to pare back and make it efficient. i try to balance efficiency and fairness. but let's start with what we got and work from there. i also think either way they are safe harbor of disorder. other institutions not to be looking at them as a way you can pretty much assure yourself of at least -- you can mitigate regulatory risk. >> certainly is a lawyer i'd look at any service or didn't follow the thinking. [applause]
>> as a business guy, let me say a word in favor of regulation and particularly in financial services and i'm hopeful that the servicing regulation will follow this guide. one of the problems in financial services is that it typically is very competitive between the companies and small differences make a big difference in your market share. and what happens and i think this is really what happened in the overall mortgage crisis, the service is an example. if one service to begin to stack it off and not use the highest standards and not check to see if the notice really here, did someone really send the document are not? and they are getting a competitive advantage the other guys and the other guys say, gee how are they to do so much more quickly than we are? well, they are not check in the know. then we will check for the noteworthy signing. so then you see this race to the bottom. and i think that permeated would
have been during the crisis, that there was this race to the bottom. people knew how to say this falls properly. they've been doing it for decades. when it became economically disadvantageous to do it correctly, they followed the back. so there is a benefit and a benefit for the businesses in having standards or if they're outlaws in the industry, to be the first one to drop the dime on them said they will be stopped rather than becoming the example. and this race to the bottom is behind so many financial crises that we've seen. and so ordinarily most people would say regulation is always bad and always impeding. in this case is to be one of the best things that happened to the mortgage industry is to have some common sense standard which you cannot fall below and so you don't have to worry about competing with someone who is just cutting corners all the time.
[applause] >> either way, back where we used to have the model and brokers in the independent mortgage bankers and my guys and i were regulating that piece of the industry, our best source of enforcement information, when we found out from the competitors, and seriously got more leads that actually resulted in civil penalties and sometimes prosecutions from competitors than we did from everybody else. that's the truth. >> one minute question, joe, as you developed this database pretty important information about services and what is occurring and what has happened to bars and so on, is that something that might be available for groups like us because that would be incredibly valuable for us in our analysis of what needs to be done. >> is a lot of discussion with agencies of government and others about one level of data. and i'm interested. i've got a discussion when i
want in, which is good and i get a lot of help. i actually am waiting to hear from another other advocacy groups about what exactly -- it's almost a buzz phrase. what exactly are we talking about? so i'm interested in hearing about what you think, would you and your colleagues think that is. and i can promise you with the mortgage investment this morning. i promise you i'll take it seriously and i work on it. i don't promise you joy. i promise you i will work on it. [laughter] and so, i agree with you they would be a sad state of affairs if we went through this whole process and did not collect information in the wake of its usable. it would be credible because it won't be credible if i keep it in the medically sealed mayonnaise jar.
>> so we're probably going to have time for questions. i think there's some cars on the table if you just try to write them legibly and not too long a question. and then we'll have stuff to do not. in the meantime while we are doing that, i am going to ask our panel for briefing yet if you were put in charge, what were the names -- the first thing i do, first two or three things immediately to try to address this for bush or crisis and to jumpstart the housing economy. we will start with you, mark. >> that's a tough question. i tend to think what's going on the housing market is a combination of weak demand in excess supply. and i think i try to address those issues to the various ways. part of the demand equation is got to be the availability of credit. so obviously some of the credit we don't want to come back, but
i believe there's some credit we do want to come back that has not come back. along those lines -- the next hearing church. how would you make credit combat? >> for starters, i would take a good look -- >> we agree with you. >> douglas in the details. let's talk about details on this staff. i wouldn't bother to fix the? rn. i would just get rid of it. it's going to be more disruptive and i don't think with a time to figure out how to do it right in terms of it hurting credit. so that to me would just go. this is going to be a counterintuitive one, but quite frankly if i could do it all, the numbness anti-semite can direct mr. bernanke to do what i want to do as well and counterintuitively we can start raising rates because i think the reason we have today are discouraging banks from taking loans onto balance sheets because of interest rate risks that we have rates will go up on point, which will depress housing prices so i would rather
have that pullouts like a band-aid and take up the price today and move forward. so those are some of the things i would do to try to do it. there's a hole of a variety of things. for instance, senator schumer and leahy have an immigration bill where you can come in and buy housing. i don't think it's going to be a small number, but it's a smart ideal. you certainly see in las vegas canadians buying homes and people friend you are buying homes, trying to figure out ways to get the demand action. there is a very difficult prior to getting back to something franks said earlier. speculators are big part in attention and how much speculation do we want to come back in terms of getting prices. we can take none. there's no speculation that prices are going to be weak for a while. if you want to look at suspending capital gains on someone by now for the next five years are some thing in those regards. i don't know how you says las
vegas with second home buyers, for instance. shall i summarize? >> thank you here we gather. >> take out my magic wand endocrine automatic install reduction reset for all mortgages for every homeowners underwater to take those loans and reformat them so that people can confidently pay on this going forward. number two, i would take the concept of a comprehensive program to take the abandoned foreclosed property to work with construction companies, construction unions, community based organization to get those properties fixed in looking back in the commerce, either as rentals that lead to home ownership or homeownership opportunity. it would be comprehend it.
it would be directed with strong leadership and it would be a public private collaboration. the third thing i would do is going forward i would place a renewed emphasis on home buyer education and housing colleges. because some people are financially literate and educated, they make that decision. and that have to be part of the dna of the mortgage market going forward because we live in a complex world and helping people that become more financially educated to other programs has been proven, proven time and time again to reduce that decision-making and secondarily to the two are in foreclosure rates you control the job loss.
>> thank you. it seems to me that the financial education really belongs in early education and the fact that we can many groups have to keep doing this and working with banks or churches or others is good because it's not bad. but it seems to me it shouldn't just be about mortgages. it should be about compound interest, everything in our building ju'veot the magic wand. ignacio antiphon banking commissioner simon yuen first and type predatory lending laws have given you a bigger job that comes with the lawn. >> alltel u.s. trying to get the president of carolina to do before i left. it's an obstruction of my former fellow regulators. i'll go around and talk to civic leadership since they look at,
our banks and all banks particularly said banks have concentration real estate and this favor shall we say of real estate land team. it is to say to have an actual community plan. look at everything you've got. sign up the neighborhood. where are they? what are they? and then how if -- then present to the banks. local community banks, everybody. here is our local idea of what the credit needs of the community. at this era. so the credit needs of the community a repair repaired to deal with foreclosures, to refinance commercial projects that are otherwise going to not roll over and be foreclosed on next to do all this stuff. but then, concrete seafarers and
go talk with the federal columns about let's quit this -- what should i say? mania of real estate fund team unless he is and get banks credit for addressing the credit candidates, which is addressing these problems. [applause] >> thank you. back in charge. well, the first thing i would do is roll back the clock and undo some of the things that were done over the last 10 years, particularly in dealing with the crisis once it has been. i think the failure to use t.a.r.p. as the basis for principal breakdown was a tragedy because davis know her to to the banks. the families with t.a.r.p. money can't come to you is sort of don't. but the most thing i can do in
some of the disk earlier as jumpstart the economy. get people jobs. jobs all most paragraphs and most people live and then you've got to begin to attack the problem in pieces. anytime you deal with someone and how to deal with all of it, you can't. you really have to break it down into pieces. you've got to do with issues of origination of loans. today is hard even for a credit worthy person to get a loan. it takes so long. it is making it very difficult for people to buy homes because of the long period of time it takes for origination to actually occur. people who assault onto what they've actually soldier not because he got a can tangent see. the origination process has got to get over the fear taking a mistake and originate loans in a normal businesslike way. the underwriting standards themselves, you know, particularly by banks on non-fana, freddie fha loan have been jacked up to a level, basically saying we don't want
this business and i don't want the government telling him what there will should be, but they need to look themselves in a lot of the banks are in shock about what has happened to them because a lot of them didn't know about the mortgage business when they brought these companies, so the whole thing has been a great revelation to them. the next step in servicing we talked a lot about that. we've got to get a handle on how we can turn the modification process and to some a much more streamlined and get the ideology out of it. i understand the moral question and moral hazard issues. i understand the reo. but all we are doing this depressing value for everybody. everybody's focus gone down as long if it here, we've got to do things to fix the problem and sometimes you just have to swallow and make the problem
work at the family level. we have to find a way to revive securitization. our mortgage is too big. it is bigger than our banking system. and they lose contact statements there is about a trillion dollars of credit card debt outstanding to $11 trillion of mortgages. we can't do it without access to worldwide capital. we have to make securitization work again. [applause] >> as i was put in charge come the first thing i do is resign it to mandate fire the fool who appointed me. [laughter] but other than that, you know, i agree with what mr. raines said about mr. morial's head.
for the long-term, i think we also have to make sure that consumer finance or protection bureau stays strong, that there is no ways for that to be weak and going forward. you know, we do need quiet her probably doc holliday to join white earth to cover in the financial is to to shins going forward. so i mean, does it be that things decide taken the money out of the political system. i think that it started the linchpin that is corrupting our politics than we have to figure out a way that our federal elections can be federally financed and we cannot the corporations pouring in the future amount of money into our elections. [applause]
>> diane. >> my focus to be on the homeowners at risk of losing their homes still. i think what i would do, the first thing i would do with the to say that before a service or can foreclose, they have to actually evaluate the homeowner for the modification. and if this is a really radical proposal, as the one edification would return more value to the investors in receiving with foreclosure, they have to offer it to the homeowner. and if they don't, then they can foreclose and that would be my proposal. [applause] >> thank you, diane. i was looking at some of these questions that are tickling me. the first one is for you, joe. joe smith, how much are you relying on self reporting service is in your enforcement of the settlement? to which you determine accuracy of those reports? >> well, documents require a receiver pours the banks and the
banks to the self-analysis first. the important thing they need to start is the banks have internal review groups that are independent and not, big enough and competent enough to do a job so that we don't have to do much additional. if they aren't, will do more. i think frankly this is some thing where i hope we will be left behind after the settlement is over, which is to say the banks will do a better job with quality control so we have an industry where they correct error quaker and go on down the road. i'm an optimist connecting that can happen. we'll see. >> why not allow principal reduction for borrowers who are severely under water and in default? why not allow that? nobody?
broad agreement? why not. what keeps financial institutions -- unless someone wants to say more than not. what keeps financial institutions from paying the portfolio loans, from pershing portfolio phones in minority communities before the final settlement? perching their portfolio loans in minority communities before the final settlement? >> it's not a question. if this statement. i don't know if that's true or false. >> anybody? >> can we call upon banks to voluntarily stay foreclosures until borrowers are reviewed for principal reduction to be made under the eg settlement click is there any reason we can't just call for voluntary state foreclosure? >> well, standards themselves
require that there is one of the 300. that's one of the better ones, right? >> it's not as tight as it needs to be. >> thank you very much. [laughter] it's a start. in a number of situation, service persons, service members than all the things sutterfield writes another additional field rights. three of them in that direction and i know to help me, which is good, as we are going to see how the enhanced servicing standards and software when they have been impacted all. is it enough? we can go from there. >> final question. can someone make housing counseling mandatory prior to homeowners receiving assistance quiet >> great question. [applause] >> i do think count going in my own experience is crucial.
i don't think the settlement requires that. and i know the industry -- not so much the banks that capital markets have opposed because it inhibited economic efficiency and cost money. but i think there is a clear coalition between counseling and whistles. so i think is a good idea to have on hand. >> when we first introduced our affordable housing loans that fannie mae, we require counseling. and not terrific support from the counseling industry and not a lot of resistance from lenders who wanted to make the loans without counsel. so over time, those requirements got watered down and became a judgment call for the lenders. personally i always believed by someone with the credit that on
the counseling is a value add because it turns out in real life, for example, some lenders say why are you even requiring a down payment of 3%? that is so little. the snake is zero. my concern is decisive people if people have a little bit of skin in the game goes a long way. people who are not serious don't show up. you know, if you say you have just counseling, if they're not serious they don't show up. you don't want them to have a loan if they're unwilling to show a. and so to me counseling was important and i believe it's important now. i think it is for a lot of people their success in homeownership icon from waiting three months in saving a thousand dollars more jesting case someone make it into homeownership is a greater chance to be successful. these are the kinds of things that brought economic patient be
in running a business would say this is unnecessary. cut that out. that is just caused when in reality it has a significant impact on credit reform in and out so we thought that. >> quickly. thanks. >> and fha's reverse mortgage products, there is a counseling requirement and this may surprise you it's been a number of years pushing to have counsel expand to a program and it met resistance from friend of ours who will remain nameless, but i ain't fha is 50% of first-time buyers a day and to meet that is the market that needs counseling and that is why you look the part. >> there's also an opportunity under the qualified mortgage standards in doubt frank for housing counseling their prequalified mortgages. >> so counseling honors. we all agree.
i perceive these gentlemen and gentlewomen joining us today to have this conversation. [applause] and i hope that obviously several hundred people in this room, i hope you enjoyed the conversation. sounds like he did. equally important that in america through c-span, allow my people understand the perspective and challenges we have been the need to have a civil discourse, sent the solution, immediate solutions, collaboration regardless of affiliation to do a foreclosures and jumps at the housing market to make sure we get the economy back on track in jobs, housing really matter. thank you iem, huber, franklin, joe and thank you, mark for all your help. thank you. [applause]
>> tuesday, new york university law school held a panel discussion on the topic of race and policing. analysts included university chiefs of police, scott thompson, american university sean richardson in yale university law professor, tom tyler. topics include recent trade on margin shooting and opposed legislation by congress prohibiting racial profiling. the center on the administration of criminal law at nyu law school hosted this hour and 25 in an event. >> i woke up to the center-right administration of criminal laws were the neocon friends, a new frontier in recent criminal justice. for those who were veterans of conferences come you know what important issues they tackle
what a great panel at stake at. and actually, very recently, nyu press published a precedent for the first conference, published last year on prosecutors that the board with criminal law to regulate corporate conduct and i know from my approach that is a very influential set of papers in a very influential volume. i would like to thank the faculty director, my wonderful colleague, rachel barco who is a family director of legacy law and policy and she will speak in a few minutes until you all the important stuff you should know about a conference. i'm a silly to make sure front seat down. and then you also hear from rachel on the third panel on race sentencing in the mass in preparation. ineptly piloting the rachel is unafraid leading scholars and has written some of the most
important work on sentencing over the last 10 years. and has also cast herself and basically started this new academic field of looking at criminal law as part of the system of administrative law and regulation. and that has been an extremely powerful paradigm and rachel's work has been enormously recognized for its past breaking nature. so she runs the center and the center has done extremely significant in, including has written some of the very important griefs recently, amicus briefs in the side of government and both on the side of defendants that have been cited and quoted extensively by our appellate courts, including the supreme court of the united states recently. i am really grateful for all the scholars in part to shooters here today in her keynote
speaker, michelle alexander is the author of the new jim chronos incarceration in the age of colorblindness. so it is a great privilege for law school to host the center in hosting a conference they can have all of you here today. not that it looks ikebana seeded, it looks like an appropriate time to turn things over to our leader, rachel barco. [applause] >> thanks so much, ricky and thank you offer, today for our fourth annual conference. as for ricky mentioned come our center is an organization dedicated to promoting good governance practices and we do that in a variety of ways. we participate in litigation. we engage in public policy outreach and produce scholarships and home defense like the ones we hold today in the hope of getting the conversation started on an important issue. we hope that these efforts will
help dean a lot and positive direction. read more about our website but i have to make a couple pitches while you're here and a captive audience. a couple of recent things to work on. one is the case be targeted at the sprinkler today on how to treat the ratio between crack and powder after congress passed the fair sum of the reform act we filed a prefix leaning on the initial 100 to one ratio past no one gave that any considered reflection analyze how to treat cases in the pipeline. we also five approved by the supreme court and relied upon it extensively in the two recent cases to an effective assistance at the plea bargaining stage and those are important cases where the court how did you get a fair trail if you have an effect discount was the plea bargaining state the trial doesn't necessarily remedy the defect. in terms of policy outreach,
more currently we are working on a report that highlights the best practices and prosecutors for dealing with wrongful conviction. we are highlighting can each and integrity programs that were effectively. i hope you look for the report, early fall. we hope that today's conference will lead to projects as well. today's event i want to thank a few people. i want to thank ricky rood rood as for his generous support of our center. the ford foundation also for its general support of over activities and particularly today's conference we are grateful. the public welfare foundation is supporting our conviction integrity project and we think them and also the manhattan district attorney's office are partnering with us on that. i bet you think the farm executive director designer who is now a private disk, but he was instrumental in planning today's event and invited all these great panelists obese eat
today. my sister, laurie or a cd has worked tirelessly to get this entire event running and running smoothly i owe huge debt of gratitude to distinguish group of panelists thank you all very much the time you devoted to give to this effort and all of you for coming. so c-span is here and i want to tell you that, just so you can be excited by, but also if you choose to ask a question, if you are thereby can then change to have c-span area on television asking the question, so you are aware of that and you can decide if that affects your ability or desire to ask the question. so in terms of today's event, i've had several people say to me recently, what great timing for you that the tree and three martin stories taking place right now because it's really bringing recent criminal justice to the attention of the nation. and ball i agree that very tragic event has been a wake-up call in terms of talking about
recent criminal justice, i have to say the bigger mystery to me why we weren't already galvanized talk about those issues, even before that happened. for all of you who rsvp before that happened i think you have an interest that predated the issue. the reason i think it is important to think about it in a much broader scale than that one incident is statistics alone should really call attention to it we talk about. so we hear more as the day unfolds, so i'll just give you a few. there's more than 2.3 million people who are incarcerated at over seven and under the supervision of the criminal justice system and of the people incarcerated, more than 60% of racial or minorities. one in every 10 black men in their 30s is in prison or jail every day. two thirds of the people who were imprisoned for drug offense is are people of color and those statistics, not just the one anecdote that captures the nation's attention, it is those
statistics that will be talking about today and how the different institutions of government reach of those statistics, what they can do about it and how i want to think about it. we call the new frontiers to address racial imbalance and the united states because our hope is we'll talk today about the best research out there. the best of what we know and what we can do about these problems. we will start that with the first panel in policing and after lunch we'll have panels on prosecution and mass incarceration and theme. our keynote comes at the end for scheduling reasons, michelle alexander is wonderful to make time yesterday, even in even among the personal circus dances in the scheduling difficult so she will close out her card at the end of the day. as you know her, author of the new jim crow. in that book she says the book itself is intended to stimulate a much-needed conversation about the role of the criminal justice system in creating and perpetuating a racial hierarchy
of the united states. so this is the day is the baby boomers ourselves ourselves in the conversation. to get started is the pin on policing. it will be moderated by davis clancy, professor of law at per week how one of the leading experts on policing. he clerked for the tv circuit and supreme court unless the u.s. attorney in los angeles. he served as special counsel in the independent review panel investigating the l.a. police departments rampart division scandal and he is just an all-around really it's an wonderfully human bean and i'm so glad he is moderating today's the panel. without further view, cheney making the panel. -- [applause] >> thank you racial and thank you all for coming today and join us in discussing this these very important questions and issues. we have a wonderful panel here this morning to talk about the issues of race and policing.
let me introduce a mockery fan and would get started started with the discussion. so to my immediate left is to guard in seattle who whose supervisor with the racial disparity project, which works to reduce racial bias in the criminal justice system and focuses on drug arrest in seattle. two were left is all richerson, former public defender at university of iowa and a leading scholar in the role of race in social cut nation in law enforcement. to professor richardson five to seven, former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at a nationally recognized scholar of police accountability. professor simmonds such as scott thompson, police chief in camden new jersey since 2008, chief thompson joined the department in 1994 and has received repeated recognition and awards for exemplary service and leadership. anti-chief thompson leftist professor tom tyler, professor of law at a yellow school who is world famous for his research on
the base for recent practices and conduct of other officials helped to shape legitimacy of and medical institutions. so over the last two months, much of the country has been transfixed by the shooting death of 17-year-old senior, trayvon martin who was unarmed and walking back from a convenience store is much focused on the road for its matches in the shooting that police investigation and the initial decision against arresting the shooter, george zimmerman or charging was crying. and this morning as we speak, the judiciary committee is ending racial profiling in america. and they start by asking you a psychologist while professor were to make up the shooting and how does that relate to race in
policing. >> let me begin by saying i agree with rachel that we need to put this latest incident in context and that context as a whole series of incidents of this type over the last several years, the earlier for the entire history of the united states. and this is just one example. but it is a good example of the attention of her race and policing, both in terms of the degree of outcry, the prolonged nature of the public outcry about this latest shooting and also that the evidence of a clear difference in the way the shooting misunderstood and the white and minority communities. as was true with the key incident, which occurred a while back, when you do public opinion
surveys, you discover that the white community and minority community understands these event and really profoundly different ways, but the motivations of people involved, trust in line force and, those are really no her the end are certainly far beyond this most recent event, although that is a good example. we ought to ask basically, why is there this gap? and i think the things we should recognize is that we are just looking at the tip of an iceberg because if we look at national level public opinion data in the united states, we see a gap of 20% to 30% and the level of trust and confidence that the white and minority community expressed in the police. furthermore, we see the discount has persisted over time. there is no evidence that the gap is closed in.
in addition, if we look at the entire population of the night dates, we see that trust and confidence in the police is not terrible, but it's not great either. around 50% to 60% of the population expresses confidence in the police. and again, that is not increasing. if we look over the last 30 years, we see no evidence that trust and confidence in the police nationally is improving. so we might ask a general question, why is trust and confidence low? why is it not improving and why is there this large racial gap that leads to the kinds of things that we see when there is an incident of this type or receive vastly different understandings of the event in vastly different levels of confidence in the authorities to deal with whatever is a particular incident. but i would emphasize is that
one of the reasons that we see this persistent gap is we do not see that this strategy and practices that police are using are focusing on the legitimacy that police have been the minority community. they are not focused on trust and confidence. if we look at what the police are using as their framing strategy, there are two concerns that are typically addressed. one concern is lawfulness, the police looking to see if the actions that they are engaged in are consistent with the law to go to a police training academy to see the cadets walking around with a manual with laws and make their conduct lawful. and the other is that the witness. police officers trying to do to things that they think arafat is in turn says lowering the rate of crime. suppressing violent crime particular gun crime. less attention to other issues,
issues that, for example, in an earlier area and lawfulness and effectiveness. the interesting thing about lawfulness and effectiveness is that these are not the issues that we and the people in the public are concerned about when they evaluate police. when they think about it they did the police are a legitimate force in their community. what the public is concerned about any particular minority community is concerned about is whether they feel that the police exercised their authority sparely, whether they make decisions and fairways, whether they treat people fairly and when there are these incidents, we see that the concern that the community is often framed in terms of these issues of fairness. for example in the trayvon martin case, an immediate question of consistency rule
application. with this have been handled the same way it does it have been white and the shooter had been black, for example. it's a consistently and fairly applied? what we see when we look at discussions with the police about a whole series of issues in recent years is that they think about these issues from a different point of view, the point of your lawfulness and affect it meant and not the point of view of legitimacy. and we talk about racial profiling, there've been endless discussions about when is that the coin is that affect this? talk about the vast program of street stops in new york. we talk about the question of if it's lawful and does it really suppress crime? and most recently, mosques surveillances seem the same thing. how has the government responded to questions about mosques? really two things. one comment n.y.p.d. didn't do anything illegal.
and second, an assertion in this particular case is no evidence behind it that this program of surveillance has prevented terror attacks. so the police are not really talking about the issue of legitimacy in the community as a factory that they consider their policies and private essays. and as a consequence, they're not building legitimacy and we are not seeing it right thing. because legitimacy is so much lower in the minority community, we're particularly like to see low levels of trust and confidence in that community. and then we see the way that's brought into an understanding of an event like the trayvon martin case. i would go further and say that actually do things that the police do undermine legitimacy because when the police deal with the public in terms of legality or affect us, they're basically looking at the people they deal with on the street has
potential illness, suspects and focusing on suspicion or the application of force or threat of force upon those people. communicating suspicion about their character, undermining relationships with on the community, focusing basic lee on brisk and sanction us the definition of the relationship between the police and the community. i guess it the police would've addressed issues of legitimacy in the community more directly by focusing on how their policies and says shaped legitimacy and if they do that they will discover that it's really a question of what people perceived to be fair in terms of the exercise of authority and principles of fairness, such as allowing people with, explaining decisions, being respectful of people in the riots. if the police do those things,
then they'll really be addressing the underlying problem that's causing the kind of her actions that were seen in incidents like the martin situation. >> so we set a due guard, does it seem to you and professor tyler that the issue of race increasing it's really an issue of fairness and legitimacy? >> yes, country and. [laughter] >> tell us why. [laughter] >> so, let me just give a little bit of background of the context in which i am working. i have this surprising privilege and opportunity to work with the police department and two prosecutors offices, which are voluntarily proving to discontinue techniques that were long established and have
contributed to delegitimize him on first and among poor people and communities of color in seattle and king county. although the seattle police department is less the subject is civil rights division investigation and may be subject to the doj to santa cruz soon, these measures are going to stretch out our very outline form were instituted by reform minded commanders prior to the doj investigation and independent of that in this truly was a voluntary shift. we can talk about why this came out. so what am i talking about voluntarily surrendering techniques that have delegitimize law-enforcement? i give two examples. first, those of you in new york are familiar with the program, operation clean hall and related programs that enforce -- the trespass in person or program basically where police agencies
enter into private property owners to check and purge public areas private property -- privately owned properties open to the public of people determined by the police not to have the business they are. so in an apartment building, this could yet kid who lives there and cannot prove that it is there. when i took it apart and worksheets and came back in the police don't believe he really lives there and so on. the in the ou has operation clean house. seattle had a similar program for decades. in seattle, trespass is a transitive verb on the something the police do to people. you've been trespass. unhappiest grammar would do this to people? for decades the police department has made agreements to private businesses within aviation. they become the agent and the
shoes of the property owner and they get determined what no longer use the property per week, month, lifetime. if they come back are subject to arrest for criminal trespass. many people don't combat. they think that the police can and do regulate where they can go throughout their cities. similar programs have been in place elsewhere in the country. in cincinnati and over the rhine neighborhood. and so recently, legally this is very problematic because this is a state that there depriving someone of liberty without any kind of process and we could have mitigated fátima said that we would litigate that. if we had and if we had one process, what we would have had his assistant morning ritual
could seek a hearing to determine whether or not they could be banned from the parking lot of a stop & shop or something like that. i didn't want that. process legal flaws in the program was a wedge to open a conversation with city leaders on the police department that was remarkable when they had blueprints program down. too much talk about doing things differently? they said yes they did because there had been a series of highly publicized videotapes encounters between police officers and young people of color that was highly embarrassing and department leadership recognized programs like trespass programs were contributing it to the opportunity to say, you could remake this program in court, buddha to remake it more broadly, voluntarily as a matter of policy. so it has been completely revamped. and now, police officers don't
decide who can go in the city of seattle or at least are not supposed to. implementation of reform on the street has been spotty at best and i think there is a very important question to investigate in any discussion of unforced reform translating command level decisions and policy changes to the street. the major work that we have done so has been on partnering with the seattle police department, shares county office and king county prosecutor on moving towards unilaterally bring down arms in the war on drugs. and although we're still working under criminalization paradigm as it said nationally one for his prosecutors choosing not to file felony charges against people who have committed felony drug crimes and instead taking those people directly to volunta d