and that anniversary really talked about the stars and stripes and where it got the beginning. for most of those that know the story, know it's about ft. mchenry. the bombarding was going over and over and over again. for 25 hours, it kept on going. and francis scott key, looking at that, seeing in the morning, expected to see what? a white flag of surrender. and yet when he looked out that morning, what he saw were the stars and stripes still -- still streaming. and when we see that, we can take that vision each and every day as we sing the star spangled barner. that doesn't tell the whole story. because the whole story really is the bombardment that was taking place there at ft. mchenry, was because the british ships couldn't get close enough to really make those boms effective.

and the reason they couldn't do that because 22 people sunk their boats in the harbor so that ship couldn't get close enough to make it effective. 22 patriots sunk their boats for a lost cause. 22 patriots were probably told by their friends, what are you doing? it's a lost cause. you're sinking your boat pipts your livelihood. many of them were fishermen. yet 22 patriots decided they needed to act. now, i share that because many of you may have friends who are telling you that you're fighting for a lost cause. and i'm here to tell you just as we're about to sing the spar-spangled banner, 22 patriots did an act, we don't know their names, perhaps you're

working with 20 of your fellow comrades to work on a particular issue that is not winnable might be winnable. i'm here today to tell you the voice of the american people has never been stronger. it's never been stronger on this particular issue. it's never been stronger really when it comes to just letting people know they love their country and they're willing to fight for it. i see over to my left, you're going to get to hear from a great gentleman. i have a great deal of respect for congressman mike kelly. what can we do to be more pro life and active? i'm here today to ask you, are you willing to be one of the 22 who are will to stand up and work arm and arm with somebody else to fight for, perhaps, what some people call a lost cause?

because if you are on this particular issue there's 60 million lives that could have been changed if we had just gotten to work a little sooner. it's an honor to serve you. it's an honor to be here today. i thank you so much for letting me come and share a little bit from my heart. god bless you. >> thank you very much, congressman meadows. that was wonderful. now i got to introduce congressman mike kelly. the pittsburgh tribune review refers to representative kelly as straight talker. pittsburgh tribune review is my home paper. any encounter with kelly has the ability to erupt into a pep rally for his enthusiasm and rapid fire communication. that's great news for us because straight talk is what we need more of in washington, d.c.

it's the duplicity and double speak people are tired of. that is just very refreshing for us. he's establishing himself as a capable communicator and that is a very good thing. today he's going to talk about the child welfare inclusion act which will protect child welfare providers from being discriminated against based on religious beliefs or moral contributions. the catholic bishop said this about kelly's bill. our religious liberty is to be enjoyed by all americans, including child welfare providers who serve the needs of our most vulnerable, children. the inclusion act would remedy this unjust discrimination by enabling all providers to serve the needs of parents and children in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. we are proud to be strong supporters of this piece of legislation. please welcome the congressman to the stage.

>> thanks. i really appreciate that. thank you all for being here. i spent last summer. one day i had a chance to sit down with dr. forner at a memorial service. really had a chance to talk to the doctor a little more. i think what heritage does is so important. i don't know of another organization that protects the fundamental rights of who it is we are as american people. that was really important for me. and our staff, tom worked here. isaak thong worked here, isaak smith worked here. we have a strong heritage foundation inside our staff. and a young lady by the name of suh and she's been working on this piece for quite some time. i think sometimes it's hard for us to understand why is it you have to enact legislation that basically just says who we are as a people. who we've always been as a people.

yet, we've seen something morph into something different than we ever thought would happen. when we talk about the child welfare inclusion act, i really find it hard to understand that in a town where policy is so important, we sometimes let politics overrun the basic politics. it just doesn't make sense. it's not who we are as a people. it's not who we ever will be as a people. as long as there's people like heritage, we can make sure those thicks go on all the time. in fact, the opportunity for all in favoritism to none is pretty much right in the wheelhouse of what this piece of legislation talks about. i will tell you this though in my family my brother-in-law david and strrnl michelle have a son eric, who's adopted. my daughter-in-law and brother don have a daughter. my brother-in-law and sister

have v.k. and taylor who are adopted. these are all people who wanted to have children. for one reason or another, they weren't blessed with that. but they went to a faith-based organization in order to go through the adoption process. in our own office, tim butler, who works with us every day from erie pennsylvania, his family at one time at one time his mom had three foster care daughters and as timmy -- i didn't know this. we were at a parade one day and he said i want you to meet my brother, zion. i said it's good to meet you. how are you doing? i didn't realize zion isn't his biological brother. it's his adopted brother, through a faith-based organization. so, that brings us today. what is it about the child welfare inclusion act? why is that so important? why would we have to debate that? at times there's times i sit back, scratch my head, raise my shoulders, this can't possibly be happening during our times and our country.

why is that so important? this is so important because there's a move afoot right now. it's so -- it goes against everything i think we believe that if you're faith-based f you're a religious organization, in some states, you won't get to use that funding. if you fundamentally believe that a child should be raised in a home, traditional home, with a mom and a dad, that somehow you're not the type of people who should be aloyaledlowed to do that work. why all of a sudden are we discriminating against faith-based people. why are we discriminating against religious organizations?

what about the children that didn't have a momma or family to grow up in? it's our religious conviction. that's just who we are. we take care of the most vulnerable. some people just feel comfortable about saying part of our agency's work is we believe placing a child in what we consider to be a traditional home with a mother and father is the way we should go. some say no. if you don't believe in some of the things we believe, then you shouldn't be allowed to do that kind of work. you say, my goodness, this is not the way it was ever designed. why would that be a problem? why would you be willing to exclude faith-based and religious organizations?

why would do you that? you don't believe what we believe? you believe in something different than we believe. so we're going to penalize you for being that way. we're not going to allow you to participate or have the funding. it doesn't happen everywhere? no, it doesn't happen everywhere. but it is happening in san francisco francisco. it is happening in illinois. it is happening in massachusetts. and it's happening right here in washington, d.c. really? because of our rjsz convictions? we're being excluded? we're being told you can't participate? you can't look out for these children? you can't give them a home? you can't be an adoptive parent or a foster care parent? why? simply because you don't agree with what we state. now, i don't know why that would be. quite frankly, the piece of legislation that we're talking

about is called the all-inclusive all-inclusive. it excludes none. it doesn't say if you don't believe what i believe then you should be on the outside looking in. that's not what it says. all it says is, everybody, everybody gets a seat at table. if you want to go through a church-based organization, a faith-based organization, then fine, that's fine. because that's fundamentally how it all started. by the same token if we don't stop this now, think of the implication as we go forward. i represent a district back home. there's a place called erie pennsylvania, and a big part of erie pennsylvania is prescow. they worry about sand replenishment. as the whatevers come in the waves leave they take part of the shore with them. the same thing is happening with our policies. it's not the first wave that's the problem. it's the continual battering of

the shores that's the problem. i'm talking about fundamentally what we believe. if we don't stop it now. if we don't change the tide if we don't stand up and say who it is that we are not just from time to time, but every day, then we're going to lose. just fundamentally who we are. our first amendment rights. why would anybody be able to step in and say, no, you don't get the funding? quite frankly, i've never understood it. i don't discriminate against anybody. i really -- i know what i believe. i know how i was raised and i know what works. other people have different ideas. i have no problem. this is america. i'm not going to condemn you for that. i'm certainly not going to exclude you from any conversation. so all of a sudden why would the tables turn? why would we allow that to happen? i mentioned sue ann earlier.

three years ago we sat down and we started listening to what was going on. here's what i thought, and i mean this, i'm a father of four. been blessed with ten grandchildren. and i can't tell you how much i enjoyed being with them. this past christmas the oldest is george. they're all santa claus people. they absolutely believe santa claus comes. they're so excited about it. they're so excited, making their lists. they have to be good. if you're not good, santa won't take care of you. but i watch their faces. and i think, how lucky am i to have that opportunity to see that? that's the way i was raised also. but then i think about, how many children just went through this past holiday that don't have that family feeling? don't have that table to sit at? don't have that tree to look at. don't have that opportunity to come down christmas morning and be just overwhelmed by the joy of christmas. and then the other part of it, and quite frankly, the most

important part for me s to go and celebrate our savior's birth and say yeah, it's fine to be excited about santa claus but when we also understand the other part of what christmas is. then you start to really getting meaning of it. i'm an automobile dealer so i want you to understand that sometimes i start talking about products and i really think have you to be able to sell the features and the benefits and the value. in order to make the sale or close the sale. i want you to think about this child welfare inclusive. the features and the benefits in there are for children. but not only for children. they're also for foster parents and adoptive parents. the joy that you have out of raising children, the joy that you have out of watching them grow, the feeling that you get of having made a difference in somebody's life, it should never be exclude that because you don't believe what i believe

you don't get to do that. federal taxes we collect over the 50 states, i don't think san francisco or illinois or massachusetts or washington, d.c. has the right to tell you that your organization you no longer are going to participate in this funding. if we ever think the smaller fight isn't important, then we're ceding who we are. it starts with one grain of sand. have you to protect it all the time. our piece just says this look if you want to do that, if you want to discriminate, if you want to be that entity here's the trouble, you lose 50% of your funding. i firmly believe until you hit people in the wallet you can tell them, i don't think what you're doing is right. there's a penalty for doing it the wrong way. we don't think you should be discriminatory. we think everybody should be included. every child should have an opportunity.

every family should have an opportunity. to adopt or to be foster parents. it should not be based on religious beliefs. and so i think that as we move forward on this i just -- i look at it and i think we're challenged almost every day now as to who we are. we look back on it. 66 years old, i looj look back on my life and i was truly so fortunate to grow up in the best town at the best times with best parents and preachers and teachers and coaches that a child could have had. they were all people that had to come out of the great depression, had come through world war ii. had made it through the really dark nights and had come through it basically the way most of us do, that's on both knees. my dad used to say all the time, and i can remember gathering down as a family in the bed with my parents, the five of us with my mom and dad saying our night prayers. people say that's corny. no, that's not corny. that's who we are. it's what we believe. i said earlier, we can never walk away from that. we can never, ever think the

fight we fight today is unimportant. that somehow we allow ourselves to be marginalized or to be discredited. i will fight for everybody's rights to be human beings. in this case we will stand up and be counted. we will make sure faith-based and religious organizations are not penalized for believing what they believe. it's fundamentally who we are. our first amendment addresses it very clearly. i want to thank heritage for giving the opportunity to be aring here. i want to thank our staff because, have i to tell you, they do marvelous work. three of them coming from this organization, it just is who we are. it's part of the fabric that weaves our office together. so, heritage has been a big part of what i've learned early on. also what you all do is incredibly important. i just want you to know there's

quite a few people who believe the things we believe. we don't always get a chance to stand up and talk about it, but when we do we have to make the most of it and you've heard is there anything more fundamentally american than that? thank you for the opportunity to be here. and i know -- i guess we're going to take some questions and answers. this is pretty fundamental stuff. what i'm talking about is nobody, i mean nobody, is going to be able to exclude us, nobody. by the same token we're not saying we should exclude anybody else either. ly tell you, the people i've already told you about, i know them. i've seen them every day since the time they were tiny babies. i've been to their baptisms, first communions, graduations and school plays. you would not know they were not the biological children of the people that adopt them. so, i just want to make sure we keep a very broad view of what

we're trying to do. if there is some questions we're going to take, please. one question. >> first time decision is -- >> honestly, i mean this, unless you hit somebody in the wallet, they don't respond. i guarantee you they'll change. it's just -- it's just the way i found out in my lifetime the way things work. what we say is, listen these are federal funds that are collected, given to the states and the state passes them out. we're asking the states, don't mess with our folks. so we try to -- it's a 15% penalty if they do those things. i would hope this starts to sink in. it started off with these four

but doesn't everything start off small and then get big? let's make sure we stand up for who we are all the time. not just partly. thanks so much. tim, thanks so much. pleasure being with you. >> thank you. tom used to work with me. thank you, congressman. sorry we didn't have time for more questions. we're recognizing that we've got two more great speakers here who have to vote very soon, so we'd like to get them on. our next speaker, congressman raul labrador the lead in the house on the marriage and religious freedom act. the marriage and religious freedom act would prohibit the federal government from going after people based on their very simple belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. tremendously important piece of legislation, unfortunately. it's sad we need it but we do

need it. we're at a place in time right now in our country where we need leaders who will stand up and who will protect folks who have -- who basically just want religious freedom. who want to worship and live their lives as so so-called. congressman labrador is a leader among conservative movement. he's a bright young rising star in the conservative movement, who is a very communicator and often talked about as a potential leader in the future. i think all of those whispers are very warranted. please welcome congressman labrador to the stage. >> good afternoon. it's really great to be here and great to talk about these issues. let me start by thanking heritage for putting on this summit. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and talking to you and

sharing ideas what i believe will be one of the most important issues we must address. regardless of where you stand on the political specter religious freedom is one of our foundational values. yet, like many of you, i am deeply concerned that this administration may begin to use the federal government to discriminate against individuals and organizations who believe in traditional marriage for religious reasons. the administration already has a history of imposing their ideas on sxrjs faith-based institutions. we know about the hhs mandate on contraceptions. we remember how the irs targeted conservative and tea party groups, trying to take away their nonprofit status as part of a coordinated agenda. we should not assume the irs or other federal agencies will be any friendlier to organizations that support and want to continue practicing traditional marriage. in fact at the state level

we've seen numerous examples how this is already moving in the wrong direction. in my district n idaho, we had a christian couple who performed over 35,000 marriages in the resort city. recently they had to refile their tax status as a nonprofit religious corporation after some in the city argued they could be compelled to issue same-sex marriages. there are cases involving christian adoption and foster care. i think we heard some of those a few minutes ago. foster care agencies that have been forced to stop providing services because they object to placing children in same-sex households. other cases include a baker a florist, a bed and breakfast a t-shirt company, a student counselor and the salvation army. in 2013 the california senate passed legislation that would have removed from the boy scouts of america certain state level tax exemptions and threatened

similar groups who hold traditional views about marriage and sexual morality. it passed in california by a vote of 27-9 before being tabled in the state assembly. these attacks are creating a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. i realize the examples i've cited concern state law. my intent is to ensure that the federal government could not use federal law to threaten those institutions and individuals who believe in traditional marriage. last year i introduced marriage and religious freedom act. the bill had bipartisan support and over 100 co-sponsors. my looking forward to re-introducing the legislation soon and i expect robust support in congress and a robust debate.

the new bill will be narrowly tailored to prohibit the federal government from inappropriately targeting organizations or individuals who hold that belief that marriage is the belief of one man, one woman. hr-3133 prohibited the federal government from making tax-exempt status contingent on a group's belief about marriage. no group should be denied or tax exemption because it beliefs marriage is one man or one woman or sexual relations should be reserved for marriage. my bill would also ensure the federal government cannot deny or exclude a person from receiving any federal grant, contract, loan license, certification, accreditation employment or other similar position or status. tax-exempt status isn't just for those groups who win the favor of a particular government administration. while americans are free to structure their personal relationships as state law permits, they should not penalize those who think or act

differently. protecting religious liberty and right of conference does not infringe on anyone's freedom. all people should be treated with dignity and respect. to be clear, our bill will protect the religious freedom of anyone who believes marriage is the unity of one man and one woman and does not seek to take anything away from anyone. this is a great bill that conservatives, independents, libertarians can rally around. it can generate support in both parties and that can actually -- i think it can actually pass both houses of congress and become law. and with your support, i think it can. thank you very much. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> absolutely. >> thank you.

congressman labrador. we're actually going to do it. we're going to get all these guys to their vote on time. pretty impressive. as congressman med dose just said, congressman chris smith has been a life-long advocate for pro-life issues. elected in 1980, serving his 19th term -- 18th term in the house, he spent 32 years chairing the bipartisan pro life caucus. he's a lead advocate not just on life issues but on the issues of human trafficking as well. we are very excited to have him here today. we're big supporters of his legislation. please welcome him to the podium. >> thank you, tim. thank you, heritage, for hosting

this important meeting. the elections have made a huge difference. i am more optimistic than i have ever been and i've been in congress. the life issues, the respect for sanctity of human life and for marriage is something especially given the fact that this administration and this president, and he is the abortion president, we are in the process of turning this around. of course, it's been through your help and through the grassroots and the nerve-ending work of the pro-life movement that has been the greatest human rights struggle every. as i think you know on 2009 president obama told lawmakers at a specially called congress that health care reform, under our plan, as he put it no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion. in an 11th hour -- the president

issued an executive order on march 24 2010 and said, and i quote, the act maintains current height amendment restrictions governing abortion policies and extends those restrictions to newly created health insurance exchanges. turns out those iron-clad promises by the president himself are absolutely untrue and ranks right up there with the president's off-stated deception that if you like your health care insurance plan, you can deep it. dubbed politifaxes lie of the year. at at core, the amendment has two indisputable parts. it prohibits direct funding for abortion and funding for any insurance plan that includes abortion except in the cases of rape, incest or the life of a mother. . obamacare violates the hyde funding by funding insurance

plans and by paying for abortion on demand. sdit an appalling degree of nontransparency bied obama administration, an extensive audit by accountability office found in september that 1,036 obamacare exchanges covered elected abortion. again, he said that wouldn't happen. they also found separate billing of abortion -- of the abortion surcharge required by the act is not being enforced and the abortion funding premium -- again, this is in 2015 now is being illegally rolled into the total plan cost. health care consumers are buying little or no knowledge they are purchasing abortion subsidizing plans. in my own state of new jersey, every single plan on the exchange pays for abortion on the plan. when it comes to public funding

for abortion the 2015 open enrollment is at least as bad if not worse than last year. again president obama's solemn promise not to fund abortion on demand has been broken with impunity. it's not just a lie that was done once. it gets replicated year in and year out because what he said got the votes to procure enact enactment of that aggress youjly flawed legislation. obamacare.com -- obamacareabortion.com is a website, and i encourage to you take a look at it. a very useful tool for health care consumers and is created by the family health research council and charlotte loziir institute. the cover upis absolutely unnecessary, unacceptable and it is unconscionable. consumers have a right to know, abortion is not health care.

it dismembers and chemically poisons defensive unborn children and hurts their mothers. and the culture of denial that refuses to look at that fact and the fact these children are killed and their mothers wounded needs to be displaced in this congress as an opportunity to bring legislation to the floor which we will. that will allow to seek to protect and seek to educate. last year the house passed hr-7, no taxpayer funding for abortion -- abortion insurance full disclosure act which would end public funding for abortion while alerting in 2015, while alerting consumers which plans in 2014 had abortion in them. as you all know, harry reid refused to allow a vote on that legislation and the president issued a statement of administration policy saying he would veto it. this congress should be different.

we hope senate will take up the legislation. we will take it up as well and hopefully this legislation will -- even if the president vetoes it, it will be another step and another move in the direction of finally ceasing killing of unborn children. when the legislation was going through the senate, there was a big discussion about the nelson amendment that said two separate payments had to be made by the purchaser of that health plan. one for the premium itself and one for abortion. the abortion surcharge. this administration and the gao has confirmed this but anyone who's in it knows it as well, and has a plan that includes abortion makes no effort to enforce the law and actually has admonished and advise the providers of health insurance on how they can -- how they can conceal this. roll it all into the premium. if they want to disclose it, can you.

certainly not in an effort to follow what the law clearly said now. ben nelson on the floor of the senate who made it very clear and said, have you to write two checks. one to the insurance company for at boergs coverage and the other one for the rest of the premium. that's not happening. that disclosure, we believe, would have made at least some difference with people saying i'm not writing a check to procure the death of unborn children. another important piece of abortion coming up is the whole issue of conscience rights. there's a massive movement in the united states and worldwide to compel all of us to be complicit in abortion. no matter how much objection, whether it be ob-gyns health insurance providers, whether it be a purchaser of a premium, all of us need to be involved and we can't, triindicate ourselves from that complicity. the there was a recent large

meeting at georgetown and o'neill institute and others put out a massive book on this attack on conscience rights. and we're seeing it happen here, seeing it happen everywhere. on august 22nd california, their department of managed health care issued a new decree that says, all of those plans under their authority, and that's just about every plan in california, must immediately effective on august 22nd pay for abortion on demand. that move move as i think most if not all of you know violates the weldon amendment, passed by congress repeatedly since 2004. that legislation was authored by congressman weldon of florida, a doctor himself. and it protects empty tis of all kinds, including individuals, from being compelled to be involved with abortion. the problem is, it has one flaw.

we were unable to fix it for years in the appropriations process. the only remedy for an aggrieved party, an individual like a nurse in new york who was compelled to participate in a gruesome dismemberment abortion took four years for her to get any kind of relief at risk of losing her job and many others who have been compelled. in california all the health insurers including catholics, christian, evangelicals, every faith denomination are being told now that your plan has to pay for abortion on demand. this isn't the exchanges. this isn't obama care. this is the existing plans private sector plans and public interest plans like religious organizations. and the remedy is to go to the department of health and human services have and have their offices on civil rights adjudicate indicate the matter. don't hold your breath on that

one. the remedy also is for hhs to withhold funding in california. do you think that's going to happen? it will not. we have legislation that with strengthen the amendment the nonabortion discrimination act. congressman mremg and diane black, she's the primary sponsor of it an excellent bill we've tried repeatedly to get passed in the senate. we will pass it i believe, in the house. that provides a right of private action so the church the individual, the nurse, the doctor, whoever it might be can assert their very substantial rights contained within the weldon amendment so they don't have to be complicit in any way, shape or form with the killing of unborn children and the woungd of their mothers. that legislation will be upcoming soon in the house. i believe it will get a vote in the senate because it must get a vote in the senate. this is unconscionable to believe pierce are being coerced. what's all this choice talk when

you're coerceing people to be involved in abortion at every stage. funding it providing facility for, it enabling it or as a -- going back several years ago to show you this is nothing new there was an effort that on -- if you wanted to be an ob-gyn before you were certified, there was a clinton administration effort to say that wannabe doctor has to perform an abortion. otherwise you don't get certified. it was a terrible move by the clinton administration. tom delay offered the amendment in the appropriations process into a bill, that stopped that. so, this idea of coercion is imbedded in the pro abortion movement. my wife and i have been in pro life collective for 82 years. the abortion itself is coercive for the baby. it certainly hurts the mother.

they want us to be come police at in it. it is a serious, serious attack by the proponents of abortion. am i out of time? one last thing is our leadership and i want to thank kevin mccarthy for one, keeping us in session for the march for life. something we had pleaded with previous leaderships and didn't always get, so that members can talk and those who march in the march for life can talk to their individual senators and house members. he's also scheduled for next week. important legislation authored by trent franks that will do what some states have already done and that is ensure that capable unborn children defined in the bill as approximately 20 weeks, i do believe pain can be felt before there is some scientific evidence, but at least at 20 weeks onward, those

children would not be subjected to d&xs that are horrific procedures and violence. we know beyond a recent doubt children feel it, at least in the beginning. dr. sonny anaud that was involved in anesthesia for unborn children and many others that have come forward and said, when they do prenatal surgery, microsurgery and do things that are life-enhancing for the unborn child, there needs to be anesthesia because we now know the child experiences pain and it's pain that exceeds what even a newborn or 5-year-old or people of our age might experience because the pain receptors are so close to the skin. and to think that that child would be subjected to a process a procedure that is anything but benign, that dismembers the arms legs, decapitates, it is

barbaric the d&x methods as are other methods. at least under this method under 20 weeks they would not be permitted except in the most extreme cases. that's a huge step in the right direction. trent franks was the prior sponsor last congress. we got a majority vote in the house and this time it will come up and i -- i believe next week, it will pass. because people are waking up. the culture of denial is being replaced with culture of enlightenment and abortion is violence against children and in injure yous to moms. >> thank you for your passion. we're happy to be fighting with you. hopefully you make your vote. now we'll take the two panels we

had combined for this afternoon and -- two panels we had this afternoon and combine them into one. i would like to invite our panelists. ryan anderson is the will yaj e. simon fellow in religion and free society here at the heritage foundation. kerri kupec is from alliance defending freedom. chuck donovan is president of charlotte lozier and heritage alum. and sarah torre is policy analyst here at heritage foundation. we would like to have each give ab introductory comment. we'll go with sarah, chuck, kerri and ryan. any members you have for the panel, can you ask afterwards. >> i'll focus in on basically the details of some of representative chris smith's remarks. chuck here has done an incredible amount of work on the 20-week bill. he'll go more into detail with

that. i would like to specifically focus on the last piece of legislation that representative smith mentioned, the abortion nondiscrimination act. this is not just an issue in california, as he mentioned. over the past five months both california and d.c. have passed mandates and pieces of law that would basically force pro-life americans to enroll in a health plan and pay for a health plan that covers surgical abortions. over the past year or so we've had a lot of discussion about the hhs mandate, about being forced to provide coverage of the abortion, inducing drugs. here we're talking about surgical abortions. the kind of abortions representative smith and meadows were just talking about. these dangerous and very violent procedures. this is a clear violation of conscience for people who believe and know the truth that these children are human beings

who have an inherent life to right, inherent worth and dignity dignity. we've done a couple interviews here with a couple of churches actually, in california, who are being forced to provide coverage of surgical abortions, even though it goes against their deeply deeply held beliefs. just this past month in d.c., the council there also passed a bill that would force employers to cover elective abortions in their plans. there are no religious exemptions to what is called the reproductive health nondiscrimination act, a very ill-named act. it basically would prohibit employers from discriminating in any compensation terms, conditions privileges of employment on the basis of an individual's reproductive health decision-making. which includes very specifically the termination of a pregts pregnancy. this is a clear violation of what representative smith mentioned as the weldon amendment that protects the

conscience rights of americans and all americans to be forced to participate in whether it's through just providing health care coverage or actually participating in abortion. protects their conscious rights not to be forced to that. it would provide the ability of -- for individuals to go into court to have that rectified. you wouldn't have to wait on what is basically the dmv of conscience in the department of health and human services that takes about one to three years to actually respond to complaints of having your conscience rights violated. so, this is one of the primary things the pro-life movement will be working on this year. really marks a -- trying to get back to a truce in the debate over abortion over the past 40 years has been -- regardless of what you think about it politically or morally that we should all agree that no one should be forced to pay for or participate in an abortion.

that's what this law protects against and hopefully a slight tweak to it will protect against even more. i'll let chuck talk more about the 20-week bill as well. >> thank you, sarah. i want to thank the heritage foundation for reserving time today for discussion of the one of the most important pieces of legislation, i think, congress has ever considered. why is there capable legislation pending in the congress? probably the chief insta gags of that was the trial of dr. kermit gausnal several years ago, a physician in philadelphia who committed atrocities regulated in the state where he ended the lives of babies on the brink being able to survive outside the womb a couple of whom he was convicted capable of living did live outside the womb. and he ended their lives. in the international perspective, this is one of the studies the lozier institute has

done and the paper i recommend to everyone by angelina nguyen, we stand in the international stage as a radical nation with respect to our abortion law. i don't think many americans reflect on this, but there are only four countries in the world where abortion on an elective basis is permitted up until birth. canada is the other democracy that allows this. the other two countries are north korea and the people's republic of china. there are three other countries that permit it after 20 weeks so even if -- we certainly hope congress will pass this legislation, will still be among the seven most permissive nations in the world with respect to these laws. it's a mark of shame upon us. i like to think about all the times people a little left of center in political life ahave pointed to international standards and said, whether it's torture, whether it's capital punishment, whether it's a whole set of rights some of which we

have contests over we should adopt the international norm. well, when it comes to this issue, the united states is radically out of step with the international norm. and my final point about this, i think it's pretty straightforward, we never got to the national policy on abortion by an act of the american people. it was done by our courts, same way canada did it. and i think it's apparent from the 230 pro-life laws passed, this policy never would have been adopted by the consent of the american people acting through the congress or through state legislatures. so, what the congress is doing by addressing the scientifically sound situation of pain-capable children, is beginning the process of redressing a grievance when this issue was taken out of the realm of recent debate and turned into an issue for judges to decide. in this case they made a very radical call that the american people are signaling time and

again, went way too far. it's not where we are. it's not our character. we need something better. so hopefully acting -- beginning next week, the congress will adopt this legislation and put the american people and legislation back on sounder footing in defense of vulnerable children. >> my name is kerry kupek. i work for alliance defending freedom, which is a nonprofit first amendment law firm. right now we're seeing a very concerning trend. within the areas of religious freedom and speech. and as representative labrador alluded to, we're seeing the government coming in and essentially strong-arming private citizens to promote or celebrate messages with which their religion and conscience just don't allow them to do. we're seeing this specifically in the area of same-sex weddings. i would like to share a story of one of our clients, which we're

waiting for any minute from a ruling from the judge out in washington state, this is our 70-year-old. she's been in the floral industry for 40 years. the floral industry for 40 years. she loves designing floral arrangements. this is her life and passion. she had a long term customer named rob identified as a homosexual and he and his partner would come in. she provided flowers for them for i think about nine years. they developed a close relationship and she will tell you that they're good friends. well rob decided to get married to his partner and they came in and they asked her if she would do the flowers for their wedding. this was not an easy decision for her. she has a close relationship with this man and she would tell you if she was here she really agonized over it. it's easy to talk about these

things from a distance. but when you're. close to someone who you care about and love this is a hard decision. but she prayed about it and as she told rob when he came in, because of her relationship with jesus, she said she couldn't do it. she felt badly about it but she couldn't do it because of her faith and conscience. rob said he understood. disappointed. she referred him to other florists in the area, they hugged and that was it. well, the attorney general got wind of this in the media and decided to sue her. unfortunately right after that rob and his partner decided to sue her as well. we have baker, florists, photographers, people who have an event venue that host wedding, this is a unique lawsuit and it's very concerning because the attorney general is

currently suing bernel in her business form and in her personal capacity. if she loses this case she just doesn't stand to lose her business and her source of income. she's going to lose her house and everything she owns. this 70-year-old woman who took over this floral business from her mother who had alzheimer's, this is her love and passion. because she holds a christian view on marriage is now looking to lose her house. the judge just ruled last week this this suit can go forward. but this is something very concerning because i think we'd all agree if the government can force any one of us to celebrate, promote a message which our faith and conscienceness says, surely they can force us to do anything. and right now the hot topic message -- i'm sorry, discussion is same-sex. but in 20 years from now who is

to say what that's going to be. at that point it's too late. the door will be open and the precedent set and the government can proforce anyone to promote a message that's at odds with their believes. >> i want to say a couple of things about the two pieces of legislation that were spoke on. the child welfare inclusion act and the freedom act are common sense pieces of legislation that more or less protect the way that america has operated for the past 200-plus years. they take away nothing from anyone and they protect the rights of americans who believe that marriage is a union of man and a woman and they seek to lead their lives in accordance with that belief, to run their businesses in accordances with that belief, and to run their businesses in accordance with that belief, free from government harassment pnlts andenalties

and coercion. these are bills that should garner support from all americans, whether you're personally in favor of redefining marriage or whether you prefer the historic definition of marriage. all americans should agree that the government shouldn't be discriminating against americans to believe what every american has believed about marriage up until a decade ago. this is something the nation can rally around to find a peaceful coexistence, a way of pluralism as we work through the issue. the story that keri just told us out f washington state need not happen. it should not happen. we should see policy enacted at the state level and the local level. the piece of legs las vegas that representative labrador will introduce in this congress would prevent it from happening from the federal government. prevent the irs from stripping

someone's tax status and prevent the government from discriminating against institutions who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. likewise on represent kelly's bill, the child welfare inclusion act this will hopefully prevent some of the discrimination we've seen at the state level. this uses this funding neckism to say in the state is going to discriminate against a cast lick adoption agency they're going to lose 15% of their federal money. you can't take federal money and discriminate against adoption agencies that are seeking hoepgs for married moms and dads for children. this does nothing to help children who need families. all it does a score a point in an adult culture war. these are good pieces of legislation. but i want to close just by saying one thing that kind of

unifyies all of the issues on this panel. and it unifyies it with the theme of the policy summit which has been opportunity for all favoritism for none. one way probably the primary most foundational way that the government can protect opportunity for all is by protecting the opportunity to be born. the reason that chris smith spoke about the 20-week pain-capable abortion ban is to protect every child's right to life. right now the common sense piece of legislation is to protect the child's wieth to life at week 20. ideally we want to see every child welcomed in life protected by the law. that's what opportunity for all looks like. and preventing favoritism favoritism to anyone, favoritism to the abortion lobby couldn't use the government to force

other people. on the marriage front how do we protect funt for all? it's by protecting the institution of marriage, to maximize the likelihood that every child has the opportunity to be raised by his or her married father. how do we fight against favoritism by some? by preventing the government by forcing the evangelical florist to violating her believes. no one has the right to have the government force other people into celebrating their relationships. that's one way of looking at how the phrase unifies the issue. with that we'll open it to the floor for any questions. the members of congress had to go back to vote but the panel panelists will do our best to answer your we. you in the back. >> the opportunity for all why should that exclude the children who are conceived in rape?

>> in theory in a practice it shouldn't. i think we all can name at least, if you've read any large body of literature, a wide number of people who were conceived in rape. their stories are as compelling as anyone. i like to point out the fact that we're all agreed that in terms of planned pregnancyies and so forth a good 15 to 20% in a room, it was a bit of a surprise to parents. i'm not asking you to hold up your hand. you may not know. but if you live any length of time, you know that ideal conception is a little bit different from the real world. we want to translate our revulsion, our appropriate revulsion, complete revulsion at several things that rape exists, that's largely underreported. it is certainly underprosecuted. in terms of things that are

prosecuted it's exceptionally grueling for the woman to have to go through a trial in which everything about her will be questioned. and that's reflected in all of the data. so there's a tendency, i think, and it's proven in polls i suppose, that the public want to make an exception there. they don't want the woman to have to go through that. they also think that the government really can't get at protecting the life of the child. my question for people who say it's okay. would you go back and take the life of ethel waters? how about jesse jackson. well we're conservatives. no humor is permissible here. at the end of the day we protect life because it is life. at the end of the day when we treat children equally accepting some, i think our

country is cheapened by that. and we do need to find a way to speak about it and a way to speak about that we passionately care about the fact that there is no much demeaning of women in our society and that rape is a prevalent problem. there is just something that we have to do an awful lot better job because we're harming women and really disrespect them at all levels by saying these crimes cannot be prosecuted well, we can't prevent them and can't protect the unborn child who is occasionally conceived in these situations, which certainly happens. yes, sir. >> here and then here. [ inaudible ] -- privileged status in the

united states -- [ inaudible ] . >> i would like to respond. the big problem with that statement is that we cherish and value religious freedom in this country. that's the reason the country was founded in the first place. people came oef because they didn't have that freedom anymore. to say that's what is going on with that, it undermines the very core of this nation. but also it's a big concern. right now we're seeing a complete unbalance. there should be a balance. it's tricky. everyone has first amendment rights. how does this play out sometimes. this is where it can get challenging. right now we're seeing the scales sort of go like this where people who have deeply held religious believes and convictions and just these, these things that they have lived out their entire lives are

suddenly being told by judges and state governments, too bad doesn't matter. your first amendment rights don't matter anymore. that's a big problem. that's why the freedom of restoration acts what they do is restore balance in the problems and they allow it to go to court, if it should go there and that gets all diced out. right now there's a complete lack of balance and a complete discrimination, really effort against those people who live according to their faith and conscience. >> one comment to that. i'll read you the last two sentences sentences. it says i support the right of people to believe what they do' say what they wish in their pews, homes and hearts. but outside of those places you must put up with me just as i put up with you. and there are two fundamental problems with this. the free exercise of religion, what the founders intended to protect is not limited to our homes, pews and hearts.

michelle obama said this best when he said religious faith is also what we do monday through sad. it's not just showing up on sunday for a good meal and music. it's what we do monday through saturday as well. we' seeing there's a redefinition of religion to the mere freedom of worship. that what you do sunday morning in your church or home or heart that's protected. but once you step out into the marketplace and the public scare square, you have to leave your faith behind. the first response of the nimes is that you've simply gotten the law wrong. the second, you must put up with me just as i put up with you. but that's not really what he's asking for. what he's saying is ahave a right to force you to bake my wedding cake take my wedding photos, this that and the other thing. the live and let live position here is the position of keri's client. she's saying i'm not going to

interfere with you and your wedding ceremony. just don't make me complicit in it. she's she's not saying no baker in washington can bake them a wedding cake. in this case it's making the floral arrangements. because these cases involve so in professionals. and the pins. ed solution is a live and let live solution in which if you're in favor of same-sex wedding bake the cake or take the flours. but flowers. but if you're against them, don't bake the cake. the bills that the representatives have mentioned would help define that situation. we're going to go right here. >> this is a complicated question. bear with me. i know that religious

conservatives keep expressing indick nancy about having to support latex barriers that hinder the movement but they seem to have no problem wanting the taxpayers wanting to spend billions of dollars on steal steel and concrete barriers. would not a better use of latex preclude having to spend more on seal and concrete layer along our borders? why do they want to be open to the creation of new human life if they decide that life is such a nuisance we have to build expensive barriers to control the movement of that life. >> i'll take a stab at that. i think one of the main things that governments do is to protect our national security and part of that is to protect our national boundaries. protecting the border is a

legitimate function of government. we take no position here at the heritage foundation about the morality of contraception and it's completely legitimate for people to have sues about it without the government coercing them. the problem with the mandate -- the good thing about the hobby lobby ruling is that the government would trying to control people and right now we see the little sisters of the poor are still in federal court seeing the obama administration because the obama administration is 0 coercing them about their believes about contraception. it is appropriate for the government to care about our national security and our borders. yes, right here. >> thank you so much. could you briefly comment probably ryan and keri on the recent expansion of states

writ's become legal to have same-sex marriage due to the supreme court's inaction and kind of where we're headed from here with that? >> i think it goes back to the idea of government coercion. and the thing is, the big picture, taking a step back, again from same-sex marriage and everything else, if the government can come in and force someone to celebrate a message, to paint a picture to design a t-shirt, to create a floral arrangement, to bake a cake that has to promote something that is completely at odds with their faith, we're heading for big trouble. right now that looks -- same-sex marriage is really something that is right there. it's the hot button issue. for instance in colorado our client, jack a baker, masterpiece cake shop, the civil rights commission out there actually compared him to a nazi

on a slave owner for declining to bake a wedding cake for a sairks couple. this guy has his shop closed on sundays. he doesn't create halloween goodies goodies, i guess and now he's being compared to a nazi. this is a big problem and it's very concerning. and again it's a speech issue. it's religious freedom issue. with the government coming to force them to do that who is to say in 20 years what the government can force any of us to do. >> and the smaller question of what are the future of the state marriage laws there are really two questions in this debate. one is who what is marriage and then the other is who gets to decide what marriage is. marriage should be decided by the people and their elected representatives. unelected judges should not be striking down good state marriage laws and then redenining marriage for that state. that's what we've seen in a host of court cases over the past two years is people went to the

polls, debated voted about marriage defined what the marriage is and then unelected judges threw those votes out. the right to vote be a member a participant in the political process has been discarded by the courts. what we would like to see is the courts to respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected representative to make marriage policy and we would like to see the citizens make the marriage policy based upon the truth of what marriage is as a union of a man and a woman a husband and a wife, a mother and a father. other questions. yep. all the way back here. >> with millennials being brought up on a steady dead by of political correctness my concern is the issues you're talking about, we're dying off, you know, like the generations that care about this, they're dying off. and so we have these millennials now. how are you guys winning them

over with this. i don't think the idea of saying that marriage is between a man and a woman to a 20-year-old -- and i had my niece just recently freak out when i said that, like i was a horrible person for saying that and old and draconian. how are you making them understand we're not bad people because we have certain religious convictions or certain traditional values? >> i'll take a first stab at that. i notice you directed that question on the marriage side of thing and not the right to life side of thing. all right. i would put it this way. i could envision someone asking a question very much like your right after the roe v. wade situation, look at all of the young people, they're turning against you on the right to life. the only people opposed to abortion are the elderly and a generation from now there would be a pro-life movement. that could have been a

possibility but instead courageous pro-lifers got to work. 42 years later, next week we'll have another march for life. and when you look at this you'll see several hundred thousand people marching and the vast majority of them will be millennials. that's how it's been more or less since the beginning. what's amazing right now is when you look at the public opinion polling on abortion, my generation is more pro-life than my parents' generation. so there's in reason why the same thing can't happen on the question about marriage. my generation has never had to think through very critically what marriage is. we've largely lived in a culture that's made a mess of marriage. we come of age of the sexual revolution, after the introduction of no-fault divorce where the majority of our contemporaries are born outside of marriage. it's not surprising that we're confused about what marriage is. but that's no reason to give up

on it. serious work can be made. it may take a decade, may take four decades. but that's the work that we have to do. and the way that we're doing that is through a host of medium. it's through panel discussions like this, campus speaking. in the past two years i've been at probably 50 or 60 college campuses or law schools harvard, yale princeton stanford, nyu, there are a variety of ways, adf has produced a series of wonderful videos trying to explain this in short little video clips. there's a m for marriage which has started. hopefully there will be culture makers in film, radio and tv. everyone has a role to play here in bearing witness to the truth about marriage just like everybody everyone had a role in the right to life movement. maybe sara or chuck would like to say some of the techniques

they've done because that movement proved successful. >> absolutely. if you think of the hundreds of thousands of americans that will be here in d.c. next week how a broad cross section of the pro-life movement that. uy eel have people who run the 2,000 pregnancy centers around the country that are providing the day to day material and emotional support to women who are forcing unplanned pregnancies or saving lives sort 0 on the front lines. people who have done films. i think of jason jones and his entire movement with bella and other movies. you've had this fusion into culture of the truth about the human life. and fusion of the ultra sound videos that mr. meadows talked about. you've really had, in every level of culture and law and physical support, you've seen people in the pro-life movement step up and provide that kind of support, provide a witness to

the truth about human life. and you're going to need that in all of these cultural issues especially marriage. it took us 40 years to get here. we're certainly not over. we have many, many challenges facing us in the pro-life movement. but it will take call of those component to make that case. >> if i could do a little product placement for if heritage foundation. they have an incredibly good publication, came out last june. it will be out again. i think people don't necessarily realize that the abortion rate has dropped over a third since its peak about 20 years ago. it is now with the latest data in 2011 sit back to the 1972 '73 level we pre roe v. wade. this has happened through culture change. there's an inverted pyramid with

millennials who are indeed pro-life were more intolerant or accepting of same-sex marriage. but i've grown up with the generation that is less pro-life but has lived and seen the consequences of it. it has not been stabilizing for the family. it hasn't produced perfect privileged children any more than the other generation did. and there's an openness to reconsideration. something like 70% of the american people think the 20-week legislation is a good idea. new york post showing women are more supportive of this. we need to continue to have debates, move legislation that people can agree on and show that it works that it's effective. in the case of the life issue, i think it's an example of how to continue to press on a difficult issue and make progress. because people relisten. they may not listen instently

over the short time but there's an openness to continue to listen. i think we need to advance that way. >> any other questions? okay.. if not. thank you all for joining us for this panel. and i'll invite tim chapman up for some closing thoughts. >> thank you panelists. great discussion. [ applause ] >> all right. we've reached the end of our conference and it's been a wonderful conference. i thank you all for attending. i want to say thanks to our security team, thanks to our events team, thanks to all of the folks at heritage action and heritage who have worked on this. it's been great. thank to our sentinels, many of our sentinels who made the drive to washington. thank you. good stuff. this has been very exciting. i want to rattle off a couple of numbers for you. we had 20 members of congress

here that you with able to interact with. 24 policy experts from the heritage foundation 400 people attend here in person in the auditorium. we've had so far more than 2,000 stories on the wires on the news wires covering this event. we've had 30,000 online viewers on our live stream which has doubled our viewers of 17,000 from last year's event. and we've had 3 million repressions so far on the #optforall. our message is getting out there. we're excited about the favoritism for none message. we look at this i vent as a kickoff to a very important 2015. thank you all for being here. bye-bye. [ applause ]

wrapping up the two-day policy komps at the heritage

foundation. if you missed any of the speakers including senators rand paul and ted cruz you can find those on our website at c-span.org. the event taking at heritage just a couple of blocks from congress. the house taking up bill that would make changes to the regulations passed under the frank law. also including amendment to that measure that could reverse president obama's executive action on immigration. follow the house on c-span and the senate today. continuing consideration of a bill authorizing the keystone xl pipeline. they voted a short while ago to move forward with debate on the bill. you can follow the senate on c-span 2. tonight we take you to indiana for a live discussion with governor mike pence. his remarks will begin at 7:00 a.m. and we'll have it live for

you here on c-span3. with live coverage on c-span and the senate own c-span two, here we compliment the coverage showing you the most relevant congressional hearings. and then on weekend c-span 3 is the home to american history tv with programs this tell our nation's story. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events american art facts, history book shelf, the best known american history writers, the presidency looking at the policiance legacies of our kmaernds in chief, lectures in history op eastern our new series real american features educational films from the 1930s through the '70s. c-span 3 created by the cable tv industry.

watch up in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. the head of the consumer context bureau spoke today about the home mortgage market in the state of the lending industry. richard coredray speaking ings richard coredray speaking ingspeaks of this. this is 50 minutes. dray speaks of this. this is 50 minutes. good afternoon, everyone. i'm norman izan and today i have the opportunity to welcome my friend richard cordray to the government studies program here at brookings. i also want to welcome the many

dignitaries and colleagues in in our capacity audience as well as those of you who are watching on our brookings governance studies live stream on c-span and those following the event on twitter #cfbp. one of the toughest challenges that we research in governance studies is setting up a new federal agency. director cordray has led his great team in mastering that challenge in the three years since he took the helm of the cfpb as its first director. for those of us who knew him before he took on the man mental task, that success is no surprise because of his previous experience dealing with consumer finance issues in an exceptional exceptionally diverse career. he served ohio as a state

representative, a county treesh surer, first ever solicited general, a state treasurer and finally as the ohio attorney general before becoming enforcement director of the cfpb in 2011 and then its first head in january 2012. myself having work in the white house on the administration proposal for dodd frank, including the cfpb i can say that the new agency has done all we hoped for and then some perhaps that is because the agency is being led by a five-time jeopardy champion. when they asked rich how he would use his jeopardy winnings, he said among other things he would pay off his student loans and other obligations. he has firsthand experiences with the consumer finance issues that his agency addresses.

i'm pleased to welcome director cordray today for the announcement of a new cfpb initiative concerning perhaps the most important consumer finance issue home mortgages. as you will hear, the work they're doing is an exam. of how government can do more to help the middle class and all americans. i give you director richard cordray. [ applause ] thank you, mr. ambassador. as norm said, he's a friend and i've also had deep ad mere ration for his public service, not only his innovative diplomatic efforts on behalf of our country but his previous work with ethics, ethics

foundational work for this administration which has been effective and lasting. and before that, as he indicated and noted he is himself an expert in consumer finance. he also has keen sign sight. there was a point that my family visited in at the u.s. embassy in prague and in a few days he summed up the visit by telling me i was now his least favorite cordray. took me a while to reconcile myself to that comment. thank you for having me today. and i bring you best wishes for the new year. i can also offer what i regard who once advised about the new year, ring out the old ring in the new but don't get caught in between. for myself every january marked a significant personal development at the bureau. four years ago was when i joined

the bureau. three years ago president obama named h me as the first director. two years ago we finalized our first set of important new rules to improve the mortgage market. last year after ied a been confirmed as director, thank to the u.s. senate those rules went into effect across the country and this year we're continuing the ongoing work by helping consumers gain greater control over the mortgage process. the american mortgage market remains the single largest consumer market in the world. and as we know all too well, in the runup to the financial crisis, it was the mortgage market that was deeply damaged by reckless lending. the damage caused the economy to crash. while the housing market has been gradually recovering it has lagged over the last six year. our ability to repay rule that took effect last year is to ensure that the lenders will

offer mortgages that only you can afford. they put in place new protections for consumer to strengthen the market while enabling and protecting responsible lending that is sounder and more sustainable. since the time our mortgage rules were implemented almost one year ago today we have not seen dramatic changes. i recall seeing some rash predictions such as the price of mortgages would double and the volume of mortgages could be halved. if you remember the ninja loans, loans so called because they could be made to people with no income, no jobs and no assets. loans with negative amortization made to borrows who couldn't afford the interest accruing on the mortgage. our rules put further measures in place to make sure that

irresponsible lending would never be allowed to reappear. at the same time however we did not anticipate that our rules would affect a broader market in an intense fashion. instead we included a@+-b u)jz that loans bakted we fannie and freddie mack would be protected under the rules. another special provision ensures that thousands of small creditors can continue to do the kind of responsible lending they've always done to serve their markets across this country. in these ways we protected deelements of the mortgage market even as we installed new guardrails to prevent irresponsible lending. the mortgage market continuing to heal from the great damage done by the financial crisis with foreclosure rates and delinquencies continuing to

fall. there are also growing signs of pinup demand among first i'm home buyers which could be a key point. this has been a slow segment of the market for several years. so a core purpose of the rule was to help restore reliability to the mortgage market. when people take out a loan to buy a home they deserve confidence that they're not being set up to fail. they can be more activity engaged in the process of seeking an outcome. they could choose the lender in the product with the ferms best suited to their project. and the vision they want for their families. making the choices effectively will depend on people in weighing their options and understanding how to shop around. but we know it can be difficult to shop for a mortgage. it's hard to understand how to shop and the process can be intimidating to say the least, especially with all of the paperwork. that's why we're relosing our know before you know initiative

called owning a home. it's designed to 'emempower home owners. they'll be able to gain greater control over the process and maximize the benefits of the major transaction. the report we're issuing today on the shopping experience is based on new results in the national survey of mortgage borrowers borrowers borrowers, a joint initiative. when e say that almost half of consumers who take out a mortgage to buy a home fail to shop before applying for a mortgage this means they seriously considered only a single lender or broker before making their decision. they routinely weigh the most basic questions about which house to buy, where they want to live, how many bedroom ors bathrooms they think they will need. but they are not as careful of confident in weigh the economic

aspects of the mortgage. given the importance of this major purchase, almost nobody look at just one house and decides to stop there. the same when you're spending a lot of money, you're literally betting the house on the choices you're making and it can be highly beneficial to shop around. our study also found that consumers are getting much of their information about mortgages from sources that have a vested interest in the outcome. 70% report relying on their lender or broker a lot to get information about mortgages, while only 20% rely heavy on websites and 2% on housing kouns lors. certainly lenders can be valuable resources but they also have an important personal stake in selling the mortgage. what is best for them is not always going to be best for the

consumer. it's in the consumer's best interest to ask questions and get as much information as possible before making a decision. people may well put more time and effort into shopping for the house and also for things like smaller products, such as appliances and televisions than they do in shopping for the right mortgage. the nail your to look around can mean real money lost for consumers. for example, on a conventional mortgage with for borrows with a good credit rating and 20% down payment, the range of interest rates can span a half a percent or more. for a borrow getting an interest rate of 4% instead of 4.5% translates into $60 in savings. over the first five years the borrower would save $3500. the lower interest rate means the borrower would pay off an

additional principle in the first five years. by not shopping around consumers are often throwing good money down the drain. an important and interesting finding from our survey -- i want to emphasize this -- was that consumers with more confidence in their knowledge about the mortgage process were more likely to shop. this was especially true for those who said they were familiar with the available interest rates. they were almost twice as likely to shop as those unfamiliar. we need to try to instill more confidence in consumers and help them make the most of the process. at the consumer bureau we're working to reduce the information gap between learneds who understand the pricing inside out to consumers. it is time to start changing the culture of how people obtain their mortgages. we need to change the process from one of getting a mortgage to one of shopping for a mortgage a more active activity. consumers have much more power

than they realize. they can use the power to take control of their financial outcomes. to held consumers with ear improving mortgage disclosures. our know bf you know forms will become the new reality in the market. the forms are consumer tested to be more readily accepted and user friendly which will yees the process. we'll also be bringing out a new consumer friendly booklet that people receive when they apply for a mortgage. although they limit risky product features, mortgages can have different features for the consumer to understand. key components of the loan including the loan term, type and interest rate. loan terms vary between 15 to 30 years, loan types are

conventional loans among others. interest rates can be fixed and adjustable for the upfront cost for mortgage vary across lenders even on w the same consumer. shopping for mortgage can occur at different noint the process but the consumers are well advised to cast a wide net early on. once the consumer knows more she may be ready to meet with lenders and ask about the products they offer in the application process. once the consumer made an offer on the home, she's ready to. owning a home has great new tools to help consumers throughout the home buying experience, from the start of the process all tl way to the closing table. these tools can be found on our website at consumer finance.gov backslash owning a home.

a set of tools for, a guide and a closing checklist. our tools will be able to assist. if people need help deciding what to borrow, the tuls will be able to help. or if they need help understanding the new mortgage disclosure forms owning a home will be able to explain all of that. we're working to add these and other tools over the course of the year to give people a comprehensible picture of the entire home buying process. one critical feature contained in owning a home a rate checker. a tool currently in beta release to help the consumer understand what interest rates may be available to them. in other words, we're giving consumers direct access to the same type of information that the lenders themselves have.

borrows looking to buy a single family home can use the rate check tore find out what interest rates they're likely to be offered from lenders in their area. plugging in the credit cordscore and location, they can see the rates. this is different from the other websites that quote potential rates with a large down payment. those idealized versions of what you may be offered can be misleading because, of course, not all consumers have high credit scores or can afford a large down payment. the result is that many consumers go to lenders and are quoted surprisingly different rates leaving them confused and uncertain about whether the quoted rates make sense. and of course many of the websites focus on soliciting perspective customers. they require people to surrender their perch information, information they may be used for marketing. by contrast, owning a home has

no hid. agendas and the bureau does not retain any personal identifying information. it enables consumers to have more of the information they need to be savvy shoppering and get the best deals they can. the new set of tools offers an understanding of how lower rates translates into dollars saved. it can be hard to understand what an extra quarter amount to in dollars. consumer wills be able to go to the website and plug in information as often as they like to become more familiar with their options. understanding what rates they can expect to be quoted in the market will help them see the value as shopping and gain more confidence about the crucial decisions they need to make about which mortgage to choose. and it is worth note again from our survey findingings that as the consumers gain more confidence, they become more likely to shop for a mortgage in the first place. when consumers actively shop for

a mortgage they'll be in a better position to make the best decision they can about what is the single largest transaction of their lives. the soeft tools contained in owning a home, complete with aé,sebrbwo lenders early on and ask lots of questions but wait until they

receive official loan offers to make their final selection. is that correct this summer, the official offers will be communicated on the know before you know form. by demystifying the jargon we're making it possible for the consumers to have better conversations. in addition, consumers will have a reliable estimate that can change only in limited ways. this will build their confidence and ultimately empower them to make the right decisions for themselves and their families. this central purpose of the consumer bureau is to ensure that empowered consumers have access to markets that are fair, transparent and competitive. that is good for consumers, for the honest businesses that seek to serve them and for the american economy as a whole. our important new set of mortgage rules is creating a cleaner mortgage market. consumers are better protected

from the pit pitfalls that hurt so many people. but when people fail to shop because they're intimidated by the process, they're putting themselves in harm's way. one of our duties is to educate and empower them. we're seeking to change the culture by making it more possible and more fruitful for them to shop aroun should walk away from the mortgage process feeling secure that they've made a sound and sustainable decision about their future and they should be right to feel that way. we've seen all too clearly that when consumer financial products are misunderstood or mus used they can do real damage to people's lives. consumers need to make the best choices that fit their circumstances and they need to be responsible for the choices they make. we're seeking and finding ways to help them get exactly where they want to go. please join us in supporting this important and exciting work. thank you.

>> thank you, rich. one of the hottest topics in governance is how government can do more to help the middle class and all consumers. in recent days, leaders of both parties here in d.c. have come out with proposals, dueling proposals in some cases in that regard. you in the cfpb team have been

doing that every day since you took the helm three years ago in ways large and small. it seems to me that the owning the home initiative is a large way that you're doing that. i thought we'd start by my asking you a couple of questions about that and other subjects and then we'll open things up for questions from the floor. so tell us how you hope these new online and other tools are going to change the home buying process for consumers in practice. what does it mean to the real lives of these folks? and what els5h can the bureau do, if i9t with push you a little to enchurch shopping. >> the mortgage transaction is for most people the most important transaction of their lives. it's the most money they will ever spend.

it has to do with achieving what we all consider to be a fundamental part of the american dream. home ownership. and studies have shown, even through the crisis and the extreme variations in house prices around the country that sustainable home ownership remains the single most important way that middle class families can save money and build wealth for their futures. partly that's because of the forced savings component of making regular monthly mortgage payments. but it's a very important part of developing and maintaining and improving a future for yourself and those who depend on you. that's quite important. what we found in our report as i said, was consumers are very intimidated by this process. and when they're intimidated they start to not engage. and when they fail to engage, they do not get the best outcomes for themselves. and by making tools available that people can use that are

fairly straightforward understandable and accessible -- and again a lot of this is very complex and often deliberately so because it makes it difficult for consumers to find their way -- we can make it possible for consumer to understand their choices better, weigh those choices more effectively and come to the best outcomes for themselves. that's what we all should want and that's part of the work that we're doing at the bureau not only in the mortgage market but across all lines. >> so understand, waik and then engage as consumeconsumesrsconsumers. what about the owe part of the question. what else with the bureau do to encourage even more informed shopping by consumers? >> so there's i should say numerous things they wer actively engaged in. one of the first set of tools that we put together was called paying for college.

that's another one of the transactions that comes along for families typically once, maybe twice, maybe once in a generation, i guess is fair to say. and it has become an expensive proposition for many familyiesfamilies. and to be in a better position to understand your choices and in weighing them not in the same way you like a school like u you do a house, but being able to make good comparisons and know what the choices mean in the long run, how much you're going to owe, what your repayment rights may be whether you're able to manage that. for people to think about it up front and not fail to think about it and then regret later that they did not think about it more. as many people told us they do, is another way this occurs. weapon ear doing consumer education in many ways across the spectrum of theú[ bureau. ask cfpb is one of the sets of

information we've developed on our website so that consumers who now have a new situation or something they don't understand, it may be that a debt collector is pursuing them and they don't know what their rights are, or they may be trying to understand their credit rating and credit score better hand they don't know how to go about improving that. all of that information is available an consumer finance.government. people can get it in real time when they need it and we think that's helping people gain more confidence in making good choices for themselves. >> one of those web tools the consumer complaint aspect of cfpb.gov stirred up a little bit of a flap recently because of the determination to include the so-called consumer narrative in those web forms. can you reflect for us a little

bit about the brouhaha and the outcome? >> god forbid that people should know what other people are actually saying and complaints about these companies. and they by the way say those things are many websites having nothing to do with the consumer bureau. but one of the things i want to go back, let me just say, the consumer complaint function building an agency from scratch has been an enormous challenge. we haven't always gotten everything right and it takes real time and effort to do that as well as do our work. but it's been a great challenge for us and a great opportunity. one of the pieces of that was that congress said that we had to have a consumer complaint db, consumer response function. we had to build it from scratch. we built it not having any sense of what the actual volume of complaints would be from the american public. that volume is enormous and growing. we've had over half a million complaints so far. we had more than 250,000 last

year alone. so the volume is increasing. and every one of those is a voice of the consumer that tells us about a problem that they're seeing in their lives in real time. each one of those is an anecdote. everybody derives anecdotes not being true stricts in data. but when you have hundreds of thousands of individual instances, it becomes in the aggregate real meaningful daytadata. we continue to push on industry and they're beginning to and stepping up to the plate and recognizing they should look at the patterns of what their customers tell them about themselves and respond accordingly. that's changing the culture at these institutions and it's changing life on the ground for whether consumers are being treated fairly. i'm proud of the people 0 at the bureau who have been doing that work day in and day out from the beginning. >> before we turn it over to the audience for questions, when we

announced that we were going to host you we heard, i heard personally from many of the folks that i had worked with when we were doing our listening preponderance putting together the dot frame. i heard both from folks i talked in the business sector and consumer sector. so i'm just going to ask you a follow-up representing both points of view. first on the consumer complaints, business as they have on a number of things you have done. really on everything you have done. had strong feels about that. what steps did you take to make sure that the complaint process was also fair to the financial industry and to business? >> so that is very important to me personally. i think it is very important to the bureau. we are doing some things that create change in the industry. the change was needed.

consumers need to be treated fairly. and it is sometimes difficult to know the exact parameters of what that means. so we have made efforts from the beginning. and i think everybody would credit this, that we have consistently been very accessible and transparent about people being able to come and speak to us and express their concerns. and we get it from across the spectrum here. and we think hard about that and take that into account in order to formulate any kind of proposal or policy or response to concerns. on the consumer complaints in particular, there was a lot of concern initially that we said we were going to have a public database. that it wasn't enough to have complaints and work them and resolve them and think about what that means as a pattern in prioritizing our own work. but we thought that the public ought to have access to that information and be able to think about it in terms of what it might mean about choices they would make. and notably, we thought it was important for industry to be able to see not only what they

now see which is what customers say about their observe products but what kind of problems exist in the industry for other providers. and they can see about their own problems and see if they are doing better ore worse and respond accordingly. there are various sensitivities around changes and changes that can be pressing on people. and we want to be thoughtful and responsive to that. on our mortgage rules we have several times gone back in and adjusted various things in response to feedback we hear and monitoring the market and seeing what change is our category.ccurring and i believe that's been hallmark to the bureau and will continue to be over time. >> according to emails i received from the consumer activists they requested and some are here, but requested they ask you -- first of all they are complimentary of the work you are doing. and you mentioned had word

"transparency." the cfpb that is really been seen as the model agency for government transparency. >> not everyone. >> that is somewhat of a hobby of mine and i give you high marks t in the world of transparency advocates and experts that you have done a good job on that. no one agrees on everything here but, there would be no need for brookings if we agreed on everything. a question they did get was under the dodd frank arbitration study provision, it's taking you a while to do the preliminary study. we're waiting on the final study study. and folks were curious. to the extent you can talk about it, i know you are in midstream.

but folks ask me to inquire about the reason for the timetable and when we can expect the final study and some rules >> okay. i want to be a little careful about what i would say because as you say it is midstream. it is notable. the dodd-frank act had provisions in it about arbitration in various contracts and it's been the law of the land going back to the 1920s, the federal arbitration act that arbitration has become seen as an forum for resolving disputes to our courts and attitudes on that have e voefdvolved over time. it said specifically, congress legislated there would be no arbitration in mortgage contracts. that that is in there and that is law of the land. it also then went on to say for other types of consumer finance contracts, arbitration was put on the plate as a live issue. and it said specifically that the consumer bureau should

conduct a study and issue a report to congress on various aspects of arbitration, what it means, how it works, you know, what the consequences are. and then based on what that report contains consider policy judgments about what to do or not to do about arbitration clauses and consumer finance contracts. it's taken time for us to do a thorough job of work on that. but it is progressing. and when it is complete we will then reissue that report to congress, be in the fairly near future. and at that point we'll in a position to make adjustment judgments. i wouldn't want to prejudge until the report is complete and issued and that's something we've tried to be careful about. so i'll continue to be careful about it today. >> i think you have succeeded. all right. with that i'm going to open the floor to questions.

let's see. i'll start by calling on dan berger. >> how are you. good to see you. >> good to see you too. >> just wondering whether the cfpb has any initiatives concerning abusive mortgage servicing practicing including abuse of foreclosures. and whether or not it has any initiatives concerning abuse of worst place insurance practices and then i'd like to ask whether or not you have a view on whether the federal government could stimulate refinancing of the millions of mortgages that are under water by making changes or instituting policy initiatives in that respect which would produce tremendous benefits to consumers and a

tremendous stimulus to the economy. >> let me try to deal with both peefs that. the first piece mortgage services. this is an issue that has aggravated me going all the way back to my days as a state and even local official in ohio. i served as our strait treasurer at the time the foreclosure crisis was just beginning to break across the midwest. and it of course became a national phenomenon by the time i was attorney general is when the robo signing broke into view. it continues to be the case that mortgage servicing particularly in a challenging environment is a difficult undertaking and i have not been satisfied with the performance of the mortgage servicers, although it has been improving in some respects, it is not problem free. we now have new measures in place. the bureau the consumer bureau, has adopted new mortgage servicing rules thr fairly comprehensive. they build on a lot of work that's been done by other policy

makers. they are now understood through the industry, they are uniform. they apply to all mortgage services, whetherback sbanks, charted institutions and others. we now back those through an effort which is very meaningful. we have rules in place that are uniform and real teeth behind those rules. we've had enforcement activity around the new rules and we'll continue to police this market. because many people have been badly hurt by some of the problems in that area. and i have seen in it my community and across the country. as for refinancing of under water mortgages you are really more into the realm of programs that the treasury department has worked on and has been developing and states have been working on programs and developing them and to some extent we can jawbone the private sector do more refantasy ing

financing. we've some done some on mortgage asks the student loans also. the nature is you take out a loan at the time you are trying to get through school and you are more in a risk. and as you quitget through school and are in a different place should you have the ability to refinance that loan and build going forward? i think you should. and there are a lot of people who think you should. and industry is starting to step up and respond to this. the overhang of student loan debt right now in our society and also perspective first time home buyers is significant and the dom know effects in our economy are very large and a very meaningful negative factor we need the think b more about the high cost of higher education and what it means for the student loan burdens and how we handle those burdens and how we service those. student loan servicing is also a problematic area we've been forecasted upon. these are all pieces that matter to the future of the country and

important grounds consider how to do better this terms of the public policy and execution. >> question? >> hi director. you have spoken at length about the importance of mortgage choice this morning. given those issues, those benefits, that you see to people being able to shop around, do you have any particular concerns about the one-third to one-half of mortgage borrowers buying manufactured homes who have no choice and are forced to finance with a single lender? >> i've been before congress. and we've had a lot of discussion around manufactured housing. it led us to put time and effort into understanding this market better. and we issued a white paper last year, as you no doubt will recall that kind of surveys ss how the manufactured industry has