tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 8, 2015 12:00am-2:01am EDT
they don't survive well. they are small. and i would say, it gives the assumption that people have perfect information, that people call, investigate, do their homework. and i know as a pilot, people do not. i want to ask, it is my kind of unconsidered opinion that these things do not belong near airports. and to that end -- and what kind of -- and you talked a lot about this in your statement. what kind of training do you think is appropriate for the people that are flying these larger ones or anyone, if you will, that you would like to see? >> well, the vehicle
intended to be operated in shared airspace than i think the standard is very close to established if not already established. it exists for us as a pilot to complete our training, recurrent training, and maintain qualifications. if the vehicle is not intended to operate in the airspace is a matter of putting proper mitigation to keep it off. and that is the importance of the educational campaign that we all agree on a peer. one element of the educational campaign is, we should consider testing were someone goes online,, recent material, and takes a little test that satisfies the parents that the child knows how to operate the material -- operate the vehicle. >> pick a different tune take a different airspace,
do you accept what he said? that you don't -- you should be -- you should have commercial training or training as if aa pilot to fly and airspace that may have the ground levels? >> ii think we take a little different approach to it. we consider all airspace shared airspace. there is always the possibility of encountering amend airspace. >> we talk about flying in closer proximity to an airport. the primary tenants is not.
we have a document the talks about how model aircraft should see and avoid command to the credit there have not been significant conflict. >> why is it important that you operate in the same airspace that would be an airport? what drives you to think that? i am not saying you don't have a right to. >> it goes to the point that not all airports are created equal. we have some and communities where they are welcome to operate. we have clubs that are co- located. >> i have seen many. >> and they have coordinating procedures that allow them to operate. >> i. >> i would suggest there are places where you would say you shouldn't be maybe in c and b space to the ground and places where you could, just general space and i grass strip in the middle of
cooperstown, new york. >> there is no doubt, there are locations where these types of devices should not be flown. it is not as easy and answer >> i guess what i am suggesting is, you have a lot in common here. rather than fight for something unreasonable you may want to think about what is important to the people who operate these things for agriculture and recreation at the types of reports that you just described. thank you. my time is expired. >> to the gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member, thank you for the hearing. mr. larson, you opened the issue of registration. you mentioned picking up his smart phone at amazon. is registered.
and most everything you buy today is registered, at least back to the manufacturer in some way or another. it seemsit seems to me we do not need a government registration program, but we need the government to be able to access the program that the manufacturers probably already have.have. we could spend several years trying to write regulation to accomplish that, which is probably what we will do because it is our specialty. why don't we simply say, all of these you a esses must be registered, held by the manufacturer or the seller of that and the government has the ability to access that under circumstances relating to an accident or some other incident? fairly simple,simple, but probably far too simple for her normal work around here.
if you are flying this uas near significant airport there are some of airport your subject to a fine or jail time. and if you're flying near an active fire your subject to a fine and jail fine. that would immediately educate everyone involved in this sport or commercial activity. the the other way around the study, study, study for those who don't want any interference by anybody. anyway, i propose legislation introduced now today the simply says, if you are flying a uas within 2 miles of a significant airport, you are breaking the law and are subject to one year in jail and a
significant fine. if you are find your an active fire, you are breaking the law and are subject to one year in jail. now, that is a pretty clear message. so, what do you think of that since you tends to fight fires? >> i thinki think we need some help of some kind because but we are fighting fire we are at very low altitude and in very complex situations with a lot of distraction, not the least of which is smoke. so, the sense is very difficult.difficult. if the technology is not there for the sense and avoid, we have to turn to the education a regulation. >> captain. >> yes, sir. >> i love the see it. i can't wait to read it
because i think it is a step in the right direction. with the limitation of 2 miles assuming the threshold is a mile from that point the vehicles could be well above me. from the end of the runway. it should be larger, especially if you look at class b airspace around atlanta all miami dropping down to the surface. we don't want anyone operating officer for said all in less they are talking to air traffic control and being controlled by air-traffic control. >> how about our little hobbyist? >> it has been a long time since i have been called little. the devil, i think, is always in the details. >> very good machines. >> the devil is always in the details. at some airports 2 miles might not be far enough, others it may be adequate or
even too far. i mean, if you are a homeowner within that distance and wish to buy your grandson one of these toys that can be flown in the backyard, i would hate to see him subject to a one-year jail penalty for flying it in his backyard. i would be interested in seeing the language of the proposed bill and having an opportunity to comment on it. >> i will see that you have it in a few moments. we get tied up in details here. in the meantime, a time will pass, and the accident is going to happen. the incident is going to happen. not sure that it is an accident,accident, but the incident will happen. in california we have had numerous fires and we are now facing a situation where those fires have expanded as a result of drones shutting down the aerial operations, operations, and we have also had more than enough incidents in the
airspace around airports as was testified to. so it is time for a simply to lay down a marker here and say, if you are operating a you a as in these spaces, you are violating the law and are subject to a severe penalty. now, that is the kind of education program that someone might pay attention to. and to your grandchildren happen to be near that runway and are flying in they are little you a s that you kindly bought them, that is somehow interfering with the approach of the captain into atlanta airport, i'm sorry, but the kid is breaking the law and as a responsible adult you should also be held accountable. because we are talking about serious, very serious potential problems. i yield back my time and i will deliver a copy of the legislation to you.
>> mr. whitaker,mr. whitaker,mrr , it seems to me that folks in general aviation could work closely with drone operators and owners to help educate and train all these roles that are forthcoming in different, best practices for operation. reaching out to associations >> this question of airspace and how us to find. the small airport association.
>> i could report back to you in 30 days. >> thank you very much. and indiana they're are farm operations 247 starting right now, and the proposed rule only allows day operations. are you considering modifying not at all or will you be strict on the day operations? i could see in a farm field where these machines been used on the clock.
as soon as we can find ways to do that safely that something would like to allow. >> how do your members no, we talk about these near miss sightings and reports, how do you know is what they saw versus balloon that i can't let go a while ago, which i see in my aircraft from time to time. safely, of course, or even a ufo, anywhere from 11 to 3:00 a.m. how do we know we saw you a s, and what specifically is done to verify? >> there are a redundant set of eyes in the cockpit and hopefully both pilots can later eyes on the cockpit. >> not always.
there are small vehicles. >> it's hard to see these things. you were picked on having 20 civil penalty cases. he cannot verify that these were even uas to begin with. you have to rely on the pilot opinion of what he saw. we do see a lot of balloons. it's not like we should accept the premise that all of these are near mrs. >> there are quite a few more. with the proliferation of the expansion, million more, even if a small percentage were us -- uas, we have a problem. >> that may be. there are millions of birds,
too. >> that reminds me, you talk about canadian geese being so much heavier. the assumption in your testimony is that birds are still certainly or potentially more dangerous. the captain says, well, there are metal batteries in these things. can you elaborate on your testimony? >> definitely. it depends entirely upon the platform. there is one that came out last week that can sit on your fingertips and weigh the same as three pennies. therepennies. there are others like the phantom that is a 3rd the weight of the canada goose. there are others that have a 10-foot wingspan and weigh 30 pounds. so it really depends. >> you cannot quantify it. >> and the time i have remainingi have remaining i
want to go into the commercial licensing structure. your organization is recommending a commercial pilots license. the flight characteristics of these drones, the stall characteristics are completely different. i have a commercial license. i do not understand why we need a commercial license. i am wanting to assume it is simply because you are worried about job protection, one day these operators might or unmanned vehicles might take away a pilots job. >> that is not the concern with the commercial operations. operations for renumeration all modes of transportation be a taxicab, airplane, seagoing vessel all require commercial operations. >> because it is revenue generated. >> you are worried about the revenue-generating impact, not necessarily the safety. >> a higher expectation of safety. >> my time is expired.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm not i'm not going to say anything you don't already know. let's be perfectly honest. i just got off the plane. i guarantee you everyone you represent will get sued. if you put me on a jury on a case like that, you will all lose. we can do something. it might not be perfect. i am sure it is not. but doing nothing in the face of clear danger is not an excuse to be perfectly honest. getting it right over time, fine, but we should be doing stuff. i own two drones about big ones. i don't know what i'm doing with them either. i stink at it which, of course, is a danger. i don't know about the 2-mile limit on the airport. i live within 2 miles.
i don't know. i would not intentionally trytried to bring down the plane. christmas presents, christmas days. at drone you could get out of brookstone, nothing special. this is crazy. we can do it to automobiles. we can do it in my phone. if i drop this phone today, right now some smart 15-year-old technology kids to figure out where i bought it, who it belongs to, where i was yesterday, who are called. yet if yesterday, who are called. yet if it happens to a drone, nobody knows. ii saw something. i don't know what it was. come on. you can put technology on it , even something as small as your finger. i can find people who can do it, nevermind the regulations. i am all for those. not a problem. i am am not trying to shut down the technology at all.
it is opening up a wonderful new frontier for hobbyists and professionals on all levels. but it also presents a danger which should not be accepted. just because it is difficult does not mean that we should not do something. so i don't really have any questions because i no that you can do it. i just see a reluctance, especially reluctance, especially from the faa, and i do not understand it. do something before somebody loses their life on this. i don't want to be here yelling at you. that is no fun. and i certainly don't want to be a let you -- the yelling at you over someone i know and love are someone you know what love. this is crazy. just get it done. it done. i understand it will not be the last item and it is an evolving thing. coming up with smaller things and bigger uses.uses. i'm not so sure about the
2-mile radius. i also know that there are some places beyond 2 miles bird does. i am not sure what the answer is. you know it. i am not trying to involve myself will prohibit hobbyists from doing anything reasonable or thoughtful. 99 percent of the people using these things are well intended. automobiles on 15 different places. accidents happen. bad people out there doing bad things, we havethings, we have not done anything i know of to allow us to find them. someone intentionally goes out to logan airport and flies a drone intentionally into a plane to kill somebody comeau we have allow the technology to not exists. to be able to find that perpetrators are you can have the criminal prosecutions in the world. world. if you can't find them it's
not going to help. you can find my phone, my automobile. probably my underwear. i don't know. wewe cannot find a drone owners because we have not required a simple item to be installed. if you want to do size, do size. by the way, and loganway, and logan we get a lot of geese. you cannot control them. but we chase them around. they have a great time. we do something. maybemaybe they are better ways to do it, but we do something, always better than nothing in the face of a known danger. i was not going to say anything you do not already know. >> thank you, mr. chairman, doctor k, let me go to you in your opening testimony you talked about midair collisions and how the
magnitude would be more significant in certain areas and negligible and others. can you elaborate a little bit more on that? you would assume most of it would be safe,safe, but there are a number of small airstrips coming grass strips, etc. >> so when i was at lincoln laboratory we got a stream of data from all of the faa radar and estimated the density across the united states. there are a lot of areas where we just did not see anything in nine months. >> so could we put forth certain counties where we have zone free drone three zones or drone permissible, are there certain counties across the country where
there is relatively little, if no chance of having interaction with aircraft? >> i guess that could be -- >> that is a loaded question,a loaded question, but go ahead. >> it's been so much upon altitude. so that has to be part of the figure. even over rural north dakota or whatever, you should not be at 20,000 feet. >> let me go further than. how would you classify near miss? >> i did a lot of collision risk estimation. itit is a collision avoidance system for manned aircraft. and as part of the analysis we use the definition of 500 fed 100 feet vertically. that is wherethat is where
manned aircraft. there is nothing magical about this definition. >> captain, would you agree with that definition? >> currently there exists a criteria for near miss. >> talking about his definition, would that be satisfactory? >> i do not believe so because it does not reside anywhere near what we would need to avoid the collision. >> can you get to the chairman what you would estimate a near miss would be? >> i am not sure we are equipped to do that analysis, sir. >> can you query your pilots and asked them to opine on it? >> we can ask them. >> let me go really quickly and finish out mr. whitaker. some have suggested your rule-making has not been expeditious. and i believe in your earlier testimony here you
were talking about doing rule-making for commercial drones butbut i guess you said the commercial viability and economic viability increases. did i hear you correctly on that? >> i think the question was around large. >> there is a certain mentality. your testimony is, if you build it they will regulated >> are trying to move in lockstep. >> let me suggest that you are more forward thinking in terms of regulations. the ambiguity creates the kind of dynamics we have here today both on the commercial and on the side of things. the more finite that you can be the better the commercial activity will be in terms of meeting your expectation if we wait until -- to draw the
regulations, until we have problems as we were trying to do today. it creates much uncertainty in the market. wouldn't you agree? >> yes, sir. >> how do we best, and allow us. lose out to the drone technology in europe, other testimony would suggest that. how do we make sure that you are nimble and do that effectively? and i am out of time, so i will yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe there is a definition that is larger
than what the professor mentioned. i would like to direct my comments to the administrative. if any of the rest of you want to weigh in, i appreciate that. i represent las vegas and was a strong proponent of nevada being named one of the original test centers. you mentioned that they are there for collaboration and research. what seems to have happened is, these test sites have fizzled out. they do not know what the goal is go with they should be doing. i would like to get you to comment on that. what can these test sites be doing to encourage and support? it seems like the faa has all of its attention on granting these section 333 exceptions as opposed to working with the test sites.
i would also ask you, when you grant these exceptions, do you continue to get information from these facilities that now can fly? how do you use that information to inform this process of regulation development? >> the private sector can use them and other researchers can use them for flight tests and other testing. we tried to streamline the approval process to a large degree which i think we have done, but at the same time they are designed to be a marketplace.a marketplace. some test sites have been more successful than others. we have been meeting with all the test sites over the next two months to try to help jumpstart and facilitate some of that work.
>> anyone else care to comment? >> i think industry, as they start to see the value of the test site because i'm not a technician or designer. the company that comes up with a small, lightweight, universally powered, active collision avoidance system that is priced at that.that can be placed on almost any aerial system will make a lot of money. the best place to test these are the existing test sites. >> i would like to go back to the administrator. part of my question was about granting this section 333 exemptions which seems to be where most of your energy and effort is concentrated now, supporting technology and testing and data collection. is that accurate? >> i would say those are different functions. it certainly got a lot of attention, but it is a
different group that does not. we have research going on in conjunction with nasa, dod, and the center of excellence. we are focused on all of those things. >> do you get information back? >> we do have some commercial partnerships were we are taking a dating and analyzing it. >> wouldn't that be helpful? >> it is not a restriction. we have issued 18333 exemptions. >> so you don't think it will be helpful? >> it might be helpful. >> it is voluntary. >> that's correct. >> if you look at the way
the agency is set up, is there more priority and effort and energy put into these exemptions? >> i would say that they are not linked. >> a different workforce. >> isn't that where the priorities are not? >> priority would be on both of those. >> we measured at 333's my throughput and on the test site and research it is not amenable to an immediate metric measurement, but there is a lot of effort going in that. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, chairman.
>> if it's not the future, it certainly the next frontier. there has been a longtime fascination going back to the days of da vinci and moving forward to the wright brothers and that we want to encourage innovation on that front and in general government regulation, regulation, control, and other inhibits that regulation and is vital ultimately to american competitiveness. if you want to have kids out there fiddling with something, at the base level kids in the basement or garage working with some of the stuff may well lead to innovations and new developments that i think could have commercial applications and so what has
hit me is how we get to a place that is minimally invasive with regard to unmanned and how do we get to a place that keeps government out of involvement as much as possible so that we maximize individual freedom without in any way interrupting commercial flight or noncommercial flight. my colleague, how do we come up with something that's really simple: there is the kind of legislation we talked about so you don't end up with a bunch of things being tacked onto this how do you keep up with some massive database and we have to hire more. 90% of
folks who would not be a problem. how do they do something quite simple, whether it is think your monday language or something else. i guess i begin with you. any ideas on something that may have seen. >> i think an altitude limit is minimally invasive. very easy to implement, not something that we can do now. >> but it would not solve the problem. you get to 400 feet. >> trying to solve the whole problem is very complicated. >> we will keep it moving. >> your thought.
>> i believe that the community approach has proven for decades to be an effective way of handling model aircraft/hobby environment and would like to that to continue keeping the community-based model. that if there is a way to restrict enabling of the vehicle when you purchase it until account is put in, you have to go online and pass a test. >> until technology catches up to public awareness. >> i would say the most efficient way to get there is industry -based standard so we don't have to go down the regulatory path. >> i like the idea of
industry-standard. one quick question because i see 52 seconds. this would be directed to you. going back to that idea of industry-standard, how would you describe the way in which ama developed their remodeling guidelines how do you do the local club level. they gather in a club and share information. in terms of the broader membership, we do that through our mainstay magazine, through our online presence, and in terms of the uneducated consumer we are doing that through the no before you fly campaign.
that five aircraft were delayed for 20 minutes. >> yes. >> what impact can a 20 minute delay have on your ability to contain or suppressive fire? >> in backcountry fires, not a lot. it gets bigger. enter state fire it risks and depends upon the situation, but it could be dramatic. >> to find dramatic. >> loss of property, for sure, sometimes putting lives at risk. >> so, after we get a chance to review the summary we may do some follow-up with you just to understand better what steps we might take. faa and you all worked on it.it. do you have any value or any of la? >> yes. >> what is in that? >> how we will want to proceed together to try to resolve these kinds of issues.
we know we are an outlier in terms of our statistics and our operating altitudes. andand it is going to be a little more complicated. we need some help. >> how many millions of acres did you say were on fire? >> we burned by million acres. >> what was the other number you had? >> 47,00047,000 fires. >> is that an outlier? >> no. >> i don't think you are an outlier. i don't think so. mr. whitaker, how do you confirm that there have been situations where drones have come and appropriately close to aircraft? there have been some questions about confirming these. >> as others have discussed, they are difficult to confirm. we don't have an ability to
locate on the way that we would with the laser. and that. that is just the nature of the data. it is raw data. we can say that the trend in the data is pretty obvious. the number of reports on a monthly basis now is over 100. you can argue around the margins, but there is no question there is a significant trend. >> captain mcconnell, how do you confirm these numbers? >> the information we get is on a total bases. and here collision report. in their mind, which is the determinative factor, they get appointed to the various links so that they can fill the form out. that is beyond the report that happens real-time with the pilot says, there is one of those drones, called the
tower or approach control says i just observed this. and can warn the aircraft behind them. >> doctor k you are the technology guy. >> it is tough if you rely upon pilot reports. there have been at least one case where the pilot .the hitthought the hit a drone and it turned out later to be a bird. so it is tricky. what you would have to rely upon is some kind of surveillance system, perhaps something near an airport that could actually capture these things. >> talk a little bit about -- and this is the final
question. understand the difference between an engine taking in a bird and an engine taking in iraq composite material drone or drone that is metal -based. >> so, i should clarify that engine ingestion is not my area of expertise, but i have talked with people. and we don't really know. i was happy to hear that is being pursued, but it is not rocket science. itit has probably something to do with the size of the drones and components it is made out of and so forth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield back. >> it is always tough to follow my colleague talking about engine ingestion or ingestion or indigestion. great question, mr. larson.
thank you for being here. i apologize. multiple hearings today. if i am redundant, please forgive me. i have a concern. i represent central illinois, home to some of the manufacturers of our newer type of hobby aircraft in uav technology and also home to many possible users of this technology for commercial use. i know a lot of discussion was on the exemption program that is currently being implemented and run through the faa, and part of my concerns have to do with some previous hearings like this where we talked about the exemption process moving very slowly to offer commercial exemptions to those who have applied. and now says they have sped up but we have seen is some of the older requests being limited versus some of the
newer requests on what can be done with the technology that they have applied for the exemption for. and mr. whitaker, i appreciate that your process has evolved at the faa, but i think they're might be a concern where older applicants and older exemptions that were issued may need to have some of the newer flexibility that some of the newer exemptions being issued currently enjoy. so is there a process in place of the faa right now to look at some of the older applications to see if they need that same tough to have same type of flexibility, and if so, are you going to do that unilaterally or is it se previous applicants have to do? >> this is not a concern that ii have heard expressed before, but it sounds like a concern that they have
flexibility that would normally be triggered by the current holders coming back for some adjustments to their application. >> they would have to come back personally. >> as opposed to us changing the conditions for them, but i we will look into that and respond to your office. >> please do. it is a concern to those in my district that have been possibly granted exemptions that may now be outdated. i do believe and hope that you take this back that we need to have some flexibility in that process because the technology has changed, even over the time that this program, this exemption program was implemented and the technology is being produced in my district and will continue to evolve unless we hear in the federal government stop its ability to evolve and to continue to
grow into what i think shouldi think should be commercial usage in a much more flexible commercial usage for uav technology and to do it in a safe way. while i have time left, i will not put your name. i we will call you doctor k again, too. can you give you give me -- can you give me an idea of how transponder technology can be helpful in avoiding some of the collisions, the issues that i think the faa is facing right now? >> yeah. if unmanned aircraft are flying at the level of transport aircraft or even up with general aviation aircraft, in order to be seen they need some sort of transponder. >> wouldn't that work at lower-level flights? >> it could work as well. i am not sure how many life
flight helicopters have them installed. but it is a possibility. the problem is that the cost of these transponders, including eight est out a pretty expensive. and they consume power and are heavy. so for a lot of these larger aircraft, it makes sense. and they should not be absolutely required. for small drones, maybe a couple pounds -- >> the technology for lightweight transponder check does not currently exist for the newer versions of uav? >> there is a lot of interest in developing this. the activity of google, in fact. >> and entrepreneurial stream or dream. >> okay. >> how do you pronounce your last name? >> it's cooking there.
>> the gentleman yield back. i recognize myself for a few moments. you talked about the difference between going after folks with serious penalties when they did not learn their lesson versus trying to train folks up. i am thinking about the number of incursions on restricted airspace by licensed pilots, trained pilots, pilots flying planes with transponders. i see those incursions into restricted airspace listed in the thousands. do you happen to know how many of those folks have faced serious penalties? >> you are talking about inversion between manned aircraft. >> that's right. >> i don't have statistics on that. our compliance philosophy would largely be the same, focus on remediating the problem and making sure there is compliance is a 1st step. >> i am told the maximum financial penalty is $1,100.
i think mr. mica in florida has legislation to increase that, but i just want to contrast that for a moment with what we are talking about with unmanned vehicles today. you are oneyou are one of my bosses, so i take you at your word when you tell me how we can solve problems, but i have heard a lot about adding technology to these $55 drones to keep them out of restricted airspace commit yet no one is making that same suggestion for 5 million, $150,000 manned aircraft. is the importance of keeping folks out of restricted airspace such that before we start talking about adding technology to $55 drones we should be having it to $55,000 aircraft. >> it is a multilayer problem.
straying into restricted airspace will ultimately result in you losing your license to operate the aircraft. tracking who is the operator of the unmanned aerial system is difficult. that is where part of the conflict is. we have to look at both. i do not know the numbers either, but i do know we have programs in the manned aircraft community or if you make a mistake in an aircraft, we are human and do make mistakes, you have a way of reporting it which is gathered into a database that we can do analysis on which does not exist for commercial operation of unmanned systems. >> having that reporting database might be even more powerful as an dictator of behavior than having some of these technological restrictions across the board. >> they are both important. to have the database, we can look toward mitigations to the problems in this future.
>> doctor, you suggested that one of the easy answers would be an altitude restriction. my guess is we will either have to change the strength of the transmitter or put an altimeter and every unmanned aircraft to make that effective. is that what you had in mind? >> i think that something should be enabled by default when you pull it out from underneath the christmas tree a lot of people just try to see how high they can go. we really want to prevent things like that. but they should be allowed to be overridden because a lot of these consumer drones are used by legislative operators law enforcement and so forth.
>> that was the very 1st line of capt.'s writtenis written testimony. this is obviously an industry that has great benefit, potential for americans for quality of life, safety of pilots and how we can come together on that. i will close with this and ask each one of you. they are an unlimited number of folks who want to do us harm. in this area we are talking about today unlimited number of ways that accidents can happen by untrained personnel, limited number of folks who are out there day in and day out to violate the rules as the faa has indicated. is that the challenge? not to find a one-size-fits-all aircraft solution,solution, but to go after those folks who would intentionally violate what the industry standards are federal regulatory standards? >> i categorize the different kinds of users and
worry a lot about the naïve users and reckless users. i think bad actors are separate category and ii would have to say there is relatively little we can do about that right now. >> should we be focused on the naïve users with the bad actors? >> intentional acts need to be dealt with, and there are existing laws and sanctions for that. the naïve or uneducated community is one that we need to focus on because we firmly believe and experience shows us that users, if good-natured and conscientious individuals they just need the proper information. >> if there are no further questions, then i think all the witnesses for the testimony and indulgence in the committee stands adjourned. >> next on teewun, it is cash in on the us mental health care system.
corruption was not bribery or quid pro quo money under the table, it was putting special interests ahead of the common good, and by that definition washington today is a massively corrupt place. >> sunday night at 8:00 o'clock eastern and pacific on c-span q and a. >> up next,next, a conversation on ways to improve the nation's mental health system. mental health legislation. we will also here from medical professionals at this to our forum hosted by the national journal. [applause] >> good morning,morning command i am welcome -- delighted to welcome you to the forum, improving access to care.
at this time we remind you to silence your cell phones, but please keep them out because we encourage your engagement during the program via social media, and you can use the hashtag in j mental health. the audience q&a portion of the event, there are microphones around the room. please state your name and organization if you have a question, and you can submitted at any time via twitter using the hashtag ask in j. finally, we encourage you to download the national journal live mobile app including the events schedule as well as information about today speakers and underwriters, fellow attendees, and includes a survey that we would love for you to fill out so that we can continue to improve. this morning we will have a robust discussion a moment of health reform.
as many of you suffering from serious mental illness face challenges getting access to care, which can result in homelessness and even incarceration, at both the state and federal level there is recognition that lack of effective mental health care is a public health issue and cost driver as several mental health reforms -- the reform bills await their fate in congress , our conversation will focus on what policy changes are needed and how we can improve access to mental health services. they will hear from representative tim and chris murphy who will each deliver remarks and sit down for a moderated discussion. we will conclude the program with a moderated panel of experts in the mental health arena. now i would like to invite doctor elizabeth fowler to the podium. [applause] >> thanks, johanna.
thank you all for joining us to be a part of this really important conversation about mental health reform. the janssen pharmaceutical company johnson & johnson are proud to underwrite this event brings together leaders and stakeholders from across the policy,, advocacy, and criminal justice communities. for too long we set the bar too low. globally mental illness costs society morning cancer , diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease combined. we are encouraged with the efforts we see underway. we can and should set the bar higher. enhanced collaboration between the mental health and criminal justice systems is critical to improving the health outcomes and reducing the inefficiencies and costly nature of recidivism. opportunities to exist to reform, and innovative for
said -- innovative support programs can assist. we are looking forward to the discussion of some of these promising solutions including diversion of individuals for whom it is appropriate or if the criminal justice system, care continuity and reentry programs that better connect programs. thank you for joining us and we are pleased you are here and pleasepleased to be a part of this important discussion on an important topic that affects us all. [applause] ♪ [applause] >> please welcome the honorable tim murphy. ♪ [applause] >> good morning. great to be with you. thank you for being here on an issue of such critical importance to our nation. last night, when i was
sitting on the balcony i looked at the beautiful sunset and the twilight sky and the clouds with their crimson and gold any great against this beautiful pale blue guy -- -- pale blue sky darkening. i saw the flags lowered to half staff and was reminded why during this week which is mental illness treatment week at once again we are mourning the loss of so many citizens who have a death that did not have to happen. .. this is been a bloody summer of 2015. when many high-profile events occurred in dallas and houston and virginia and the list goes on and on. those get the headlines is a tiny fraction of what has
occurred with of mental illness and treated. we actually make it the most difficult for those who have the most difficulty that it is un treated a and under treated or mistreated. back in the 1950's with half a million hospital beds now we have 40,000 we need to close those asylums we were supposed to have providers >> >> despite the knowledge we have to identify genetic markers of serious mentalbi
disorder was second apparent blood dash psychotherapy anddicn despite breakthroughs of a ticket - - medication thatlect is abusive and neglectful anti-psychiatry and psychology and anti-family. what is worse is made the the most harmful for minorities .oincome and i want to lay that out why we need to change. when we close those asylums we reduced the number of the cost for aw bed some got better with treatment thate is good want them to have health will productive lives over so many they traded force their prison cell the homeless somhelter the emergency room amanda the
morgue. and nathalie this illness go and treated we will have thousands and thousands moree who have raped and assaulted 41,000 deaths by suicide 1.2 million a suicide attempts elp attempts, of 43,000 drug go overdose the list goes on and on.we neeto do. in my bill we address these ehrectly and comprehensivelyncmr the first to most deal with wi bill this in america because of the key federal agencies that has been neglecting to fr take millions of dollars
might find a $400,000singalonseo website and passing along songs for children, recommend drink ami smoothly if you are stressed. and they have workshops theyorkp tell people get off their medication and they also peo tell people how to deal with snow and anxiety and two days ago "the washingtonre post" release to story theytheyl told reporters there would give one of the $75 to the charity of their choice ofrig their right a nice story when they reduced to that type ofo bribery becauseto be they're not doing their job
112 agencies are supposed to be doing that the gao report nc said they have not even metwillg since 2009 and then said we will start now. ng with the sing-along we areill li prevention we will look intoaitg that we're still waiting tosults see the results provided to spend $20,000 of peoplece? sitting on a rock for your office? >> it is no waste of moneyis wah that is with a countryerates operates and why the agency must change now we say we will elevate this. of no more frivolousre frutless workshops to march in a circle and sang songs. can you imagine a incudes could have done if they had that money for treatment?
in a in there 40,000 wordsatemt statement they don't even or mention in schizophrenia or bipolar because they're moretheq concerned talking the people's right to refusefuse the treatment instead of being well. with the sec cannot do anything because it is not illegal to be crazy by sayat whata about their right to be treated? if somebody was delusional not we would not say they have the right to have alzheimer's. alzheimer's or if someone had a stroke and not aware we would say nothing you can do about if they were passed on the street from a heart attack you wouldn't say they have a right but that is precisely what we do with mental health in america. the politics are abusive and neglectful particularly minorities and the port. and medicaid has a rule you cannot see to doctors in the same day that is neglectful
toward the port with as a policy cannot have more than 16 hospital beds that is neglectful to the port we need to address the needs to get them to see the people they need to see if we have a shortage of child and adolescent psychologist when mental illness emerges we don't have enough canadian incentive to get more we need more peer support counselors who have been through this to have like a little help america we will work on people getting the training that they need to be out there. agency after agency have to struggle to get dollars to make sure they have the wraparound services every taxpayer in america should be disgusted with bases
someone go off to jail and see what our government spends money on people should be outraged and i am. once again we will have moments of silence in congress as we mourn the death of these people that should not have died because someone should have been in treatment. congress wake-up lead moments of action not silence the shouting about it enough is enough. here is a brain illness not a difference of attitude hallucinations and dilution are not simply not consensus reality is a brain disease and must be treated as such we will organize these agencies to weed out those who are not doing a good job elevate those that are. to make sure we allows
states to combine the dollars for mental health and substance abuse because the majority of each why would we isolate them if we need more hospital beds will allow the same day dr. rule. we make sure for people in the revolving door of a prison system with mental illness to have a wraparound services for them. this is the time we have to stop wasting our time on morning to put under a sharp microscope treat mental illness or get out of the way to deploy the best and brightest of the consumers of peer support, providers and families and allow them to be a part of this. we are going to stop being kicked out but some interesting we blame families why didn't the parents know? because the laws to not allow them to participate
they have a much higher risk of chronic illness part merely because of poor nutrition or because of the medication they take with higher risk of diabetes and cardiovascular disease we do not tell family members their treatment planner the next appointment then we blame the parents. so we have millions of americans that are not treated on that slow motion road to death. that is embarrassing the only person in congress in mental-health provider currently, i am determined to change the system to wake up congress and say there are answers to this and not continuing to do what we do begin rally have the
"twilight" of 17 setting the way we treat serious mental illness now by one to look forward to that bright new dawn effectively with the evidence based care to make the difference in their lives. today is helping families of mental health crisis stay where hundreds of families will talk to congress him this week people are speaking a to the members of congress over 40 newspapers have published supports with wonder 43 co-sponsors now they need to call this up for a vote but congress vote on this to provide hope for those people who were suffering in silence. thank you very much. [applause]
>> staff correspondent for national journal. ♪ >> i want to start off because he mentioned your the only current mental health provider in congress when did you for start realize there were gaps and issues with getting your clients the help they need? >> my first internship in the '70s when community help centers were beginning to re-emerge i found the things i was trained on but was not allowed to urdu the law does not allow you to do that so it was a matter to recognize even then but it got even worse as chairman of the oversight subcommittee after the shootings at sandy hook we heard family after family in providers talk about the
difficulty of getting care that is when it became very clear much of the policies were in the way. >> want to talk about this in the context of shooting and gun dash talked-about does after a tragedy can you address why they interlinked is that a mistake? >> they do because those are the cases that get people's attention but we have to pay attention to what is in their mind and not the other hand if we miss that we will fail to address the mental-health treatment no other area of medicine is controlled by lawyers in congress the way mental-health is it is restricted air prevents people from getting the care they need. when we book that suicide than the tens of thousands of people that die from
jumping in front of a car or poisoning themselves or a drug overdose we understand that is not what we need to do and to diminish our focus on people with serious mental illness we have set those people inside to ignore them and treat them with denial and diversion of the mental-health provider i cannot let that happen. it is critically important to have the right services for them to get better. >> you think this discussion helps to give your build more momentum? maybe not if on guns but mental health. >> i hope so. most people with mental illness are not violent we all experience some level of transient concerns and we
get better. but what happens is if we recognize people with serious mental illness not getting treatment for 50 more likely - - time is likely to be violent in intent times more likely to be in jail than a hospital getting services for them is extremely difficult. that is why hopes it provokes a discussion not all violence will go away it won't but among this group we know ignoring it is a harmful process if anything meaningful can come out of this for those families who lost a loved one the this will motivate congress to do something. >> i want to talk about the families of those who try to get their family members help there is the shortage of hospital beds. how does sure bill address that? to use the a promise?
>> we left the cap to say as long as the average length of stay is 30 days or less it can save money because it covers 90 percent of people in the bucket the difference between psychiatric hospitals or general bed without full services there they may spend twice as much time with fewer services and in many cases the average wage of state is under a week because they can target right away but there must be a reference service after words medicaid does pay for 70 is is extremely helpful they make sure they have those services secured, housing, job placement, make sure they have counseling but involved the families because many
times parents for generic -- genetic reasons we have ric -- genetic reasons we have to stop telling family members you are cut out of the equation. >> your bill makes those 20 -- changes to make sure families can be more involved. >> one is already permitted to get doctors can talked with them remember the lawyers say they don't because they will get trouble but that only works if someone says he is my friend were my son here is his psychiatrist here is the medication don't try this medication and has been harmful before so that information is vital for a mental-health professional history is vital it is like an x-ray to the orthopedic surgeon.
we would never do that not look at the mri for a tumor but it is a narrow keyhole but where the consumer has diminished capacity can be gravely disabled then have other complications the doctor will make a decision to a trusted caregiver, not a stranger they can get out vital information to the diagnosis and treatment plan the doctor's name it is also forbidden to give any therapy information that at least if they will assist the person that will help and save a lot of lives otherwise you end up with a continuing issue that people with mental illness died 25 years sooner.
>> talk about criminal-justice roughly 20 percent of individuals serving have some kind of mental illness how do we know that jails are not receptacles? what can we do to expand there? >> some estimates put that much higher state penitentiaries are pretty high benefit is the major contributor if you have prevention and early on to make a world of difference not like happy sing-along songs but targeting as a second prevention you can use programs that is authorized in my bill after a schizophrenic episode but you do these early on in
major you have enough providers but if someone is caught up in a cycle we want to have wraparound of services. 46 states have been on the books but they don't always use it if you have a history of violence and you're not engaging in treatment than the judge can order year to outpatient care to stay on medication and treatment. this is very important. bayesian not do involuntary of any kind but to them i say you are wrong. because some people are not even aware they have a problem or that those hallucinations are not in existence so they say i don't need help in a survey has been targeted one to get help but if the state mandates and they provide
that. we one service to be flexible i will tell neil tardive. ed gentleman last week was arrested for $5 worth of theft he went to jail because there is no room in the hospital and stayed there 70 days and treated a and he died and starved. there is no way he should ever should have been put in a jail we should of had services to get him in treatment to work with the state of virginia you need places to treat people change your rules so someone like this was a minority and impoverished it is those services that our vital. >> are there mental-health services is in jail to
prevent that individual to be more traumatized? >> there is but they are weak some try to save money by not giving medication or by shutting down institutions and the money isn't where it needs to be. there was an article in "the new york times" onyoime rikers island people with serious mental illness get in fights with new charges from a minor offense became elevated put in solitary confinement you should never do that to someone with mental illness that with a person with mental illness the same crime the person will serve the term four times longer that is the shame of the system would agencies to anyone to address it and waste money on bribing reporters to tell
my stories it is the shameful story what we need to do instead of saying you have to criminalize it before you get help horsey will kill yourself why deal with them a stage for? we need to save lives them be more compassionate. >> is there a local or state program to get in at the ground level? >> i mentioned the response program that is targeted science evidence based the traumatic stress network at adolescents or adults that have been traumatized one of the reports from the gao said they don't follow through or have standards or have reports that come out this is into the it is gao seven recasts the director how would you score
yourself? she said 10 out of ted this shows how out of touch they cannot even be humble enough to say we need to change. so we will change for them so they elected us because agencies will want there are some excellent programs with on a 20 homeless programs we need better continuity between the department of defense is on the veterans administration i worked at walter reed with ptsd patients there is continuity between the army and of the a otherwise we would see them end up in jail or homeless. >> tell us about working across the aisle on this issue and if you feel confident this time has come >> it has not necessarily from the political insight
because people want to protect their turf but it is a grassroots movement across america of those people there are dynamic leaders you have a wide range of people who were outspoken on this issue we have vocal supporters of both sides but it will take american people to pick up a pen or a phone or computer to contact congress to move this bill we cannot risk again 90,000 people per year die within treated illness or mental health. >> went to give the audience an opportunity we will start questions in five minutes so you can start lining up. i also want to talk about the language that we use
that stigmatizes is the issue to make it difficult for people who don't have loveland's how they perceive it is there a better way to you discuss this issue? >> we do with a couple of ways to develop a stigma by not having services available if you don't have places for people to go, a peer support psychiatrist or psychologist or nurse practitioners, we don't have enough of any of those. it would be easier to get help if you look at of breast cancer treatment center in a beautiful building in mental-health clinic is hidden away not well funding and struggling bin part of it as you look
at breast cancer runs nfl wears pink even rougher rearrest plans -- recipients in the fountain in pittsburgh that is great awareness it is important to me personally my sister died of breast kinzer last year then if you wear green shoelaces to bring awareness to bipolar he is fine for a rebirth in recovery that is why i wear a green tie talking about mental-health after things are sprouting new in the spring and one people to have that kind of pope also family members speaking and people in recovery you have to have the help. >> you have made a few changes to your bill since introducing it one was to
give the incentive to ruth states that assist the outpatient rather than penalize states that do night how you find that right balance to make sure people get the help that they need the civil liberties are not infringed upon? the wreckage is to make sure they have a right to get well we have gone down the road but they should be allowed to be set to be homeless and die. how cool and heartless is that when judges say he has the right to be crazy we would not see have the right to have a heart attack but we is a line that label to people with this is an outpatient treatment states have been on the books but when the york did this the money they were saving they put back into the system so that was good but they found the reduced incarceration by 80 percent and we
hospitalization in homelessness by 70 percent consumer satisfaction above 90% and they cut costs in half a duke university study if they do this that it is more compassionate to help people who are in the revolving door we don't want to read more stories of people with mental illness that involved with a police altercation but to say we will get you help. >> '01 to end on the question of how officers could be trained better to interact with individuals of mental illness because those that are killed by police officers have their mental illness so how could those pds belated? garett we do have the escalation crisis training for police officers to
identify the situation. many times you can tell how they behave or how they dress that they have a different point of view or even in a threatening posture how to talk calmly project the officer and safety if if they're threatening but in many cases if it is verbally hostile or scared or paranoia or hallucinating the one the police to get the extra training so they're not in the unsafe position but also to be treated like a human being so they can be safer and recover. >> now let's move onto the audience questions.
>> i heard about this late last night so i have not done my background information but word is that your bill is highly threatening with a psychiatric diagnosis that more controls are put in place. >> where did you hear that? >> several people. >> organizations get funding like stanford because they find these organizations to make sure that you speak out because he may lose our funding we're not taking refunding we're protecting their right to be well. what happens people have the right to get better nothing in our bill takes that away to mandate involuntary
commitment one organization to hold their audience that if a police officer stops you for a traffic accident can force you to take medications they are creating lies. that is not true we want more providers were places of treatment we want accountability and innovation in grants would with the funding in washington we want to see the effectiveness so understand there is a lot of people in the system that don't want to see the change but while nih has worked so hard with federal dollars we have seen a decrease of death rates for heart disease, cancer, auto accidents, is declining at the same time we see the increase the suicide death going up overdose goes up. crimes were people in prison and homeless those
statistics tell us the system is failing those they are supposed to help. so while it is not people's rights by understand people don't want to change. the current system is failing. go to the parents whose children died at sandy hook i have the parents those in my office where is there rights where is the right of the students you just died where is there right to have a hopeful future? i was with the police officer in houston texas done down from someone with a serious mental illness that was not treated case after case where is the right of those 41,000 that died of suicide? for we to say if you are crazy it is okay? any organization that wants to create an atmosphere of lies. no and they prey upon those
with mental illness by giving them a falsehood. that is unethical so whenever information you have i would be glad to show you but you show me the word for the line in our bill and i will change a but they cannot do that because it is not there. >> a kiss so much. >> -- they accuse so much. >> i am from los angeles i travelled over here read i just to be here to represent over 1500 families globally on this very issue housebroken mental health system has destroyed our family is, our children are dying our kids are incarcerated after incarceration put in state mental hospitals to be taken away from this. but how many of us in here
have had an experience of mental illness with your family? raise your hands. reconsider your part of our family as well. a couple months ago we were invited by congress to speak our voices our story can now in the "l.a. times" to be hospitalized eight times on the ninth time the day before we beg them to take our son and 89 s and left him there the next day he will up and he stabbed to kill his mother and father and also killed our dog. now he is faced with double attempted murder and cruelty to animals now serving a life sentence in san bernardino only 20 years old.
my baby. >> along those lines with a question we have what rights does he have in jail? committee doesn't have any rights. >> that is what i mean the most compassionate thing to do is get people help you were aware there was the case in maine with the gentleman was asked if he would harm himself the advocacy person said make sure that you say no and he said no and they released him and he went home hallucinating thinking his mother was part of al qaeda he chopped her to pieces he had the right to get better for better treatment and thank god you lived and there to help your son in the future i hope things turn around. >> but now he has a psychologist a psychiatrist and a social worker altered
his disposal this is what he needed to have on the outside but he had to break the law to get what he has now so this bill that the doctor is trying to pass we sit here every day waiting to hear congress move forward with this necessity and the rest of the world is watching us to take leadership as we do with other things to fix our problems it is such an old ancient problem it is time the movement of this year. the movement is your purpose we're 1500's strong and growing. not until this bill is passed. >> and want to take a question from twitter. for the american health system what barriers are there how to read better bridge disparity?
>> you cannot see to doctors the same dared not enough beds or services for minorities are limited we don't have enough and to make sure the minority fellowship is authorized so they have access to treatment and the issue of minorities they get their services in present generation after generation are in jail we need to have easy access. >> representative murphy with the national program health directors we will let express our appreciation to you and for all the work all if you are doing on the mental health issue. the administrator that
responded with the score 10 of 10 has been gone for about two months per or understand you have had an opportunity to sit down with the eric minister with your concerns and she has told to about the things they have done to strengthen the system. >> when did that meeting happen? when is that going to happen? we ask for a document we are still waiting months later to tell us about what they have never but to have an open conversation but they have got to change they cannot continue to have this belief mental illness does not exist with frivolous prevention programs to spend whatever they want that passed to fundamentally change i welcome conversation with any federal agencies the american people are demanding that this insensitivity has to change
among providers like you and others the most compassionate and caring people i have ever met let's face separate probe to love the people were working with that type of altruism is valuable. >> we have one minute left. >>. >> it is a town twister. how does your bill insurer culturally competent care with the linguistic standards of legislation? >> so that it is already required? >> different states.
>> you say that is already required? >> i think eight states? thirteen on the table and a couple have vetoed. >> white states to individually is up to them that we recognize that are you saying it is a federal regulation? >> i am sure of the process i am just learning because to that extent we try to pick up the slack i think it is extremely valuable to major there is more access for providers to be part of the communities. and we will work on other things we recognize today that cross-cultural sensitivity so help us with
>> of how to talk about mental health with the mass shootings. this was a crisis for a very long time. for those who had dead dealing with a long time as well. in for many of the rest of us it is personal for close their members to navigate system that simply does not work. to have the long proud history of mental illness i say that because we talk about it. because of the bruises and scrapes and a broken bones we talk about the fact we have a history of behavioral health in our family and we
are lucky enough to have the resources to navigate through that system and that is what this piece of legislation is about to hit a brick wall after a brick wall. with this signature piece of legislation and that was it was the effort with the insane asylum of mental illness and into the community but over the intervening 50 years we have encountered two major problems that we never
and as we increasingly understand by treating this with a wholly different space bar reimbursement system, we really perpetuate that stigma. the legislation that we have introduced myself and senator cassidy in the senate and tim murphy and eddie bernice johnson and others certainly is about building new capacity. we have some major medicaid reforms here which will attack the diminution of 4,000 inpatient mental health that since 2007 which will allow for more people to be able to see primary care and behavioral health clinicians on the same day. but it is also about trying to bring these two systems together. i am particularly proud of the program in our bill that
would provide grants to states to stretch a break down the existing regulatory barriers to the coordination of physical and mental health. in connecticut community mental health clinics and community primary care clinics want to collaborate, but because states regulate them they have aa hard time working together and a harder time co- locating. our legislation is designed not only to have capacity but to try to get these two systems working together. and we hope that by doing that we are attacking the stigma, not just making the system work better but bringing the system together as well. but we also hope that there are other parts of our bill that attack a stigma. we take the next step in parity by forcing insurance companies to disclose what all of their bureaucratic hurdles are to the guarantee
of parity that we passed several years ago. we give the administration knew enforcement powers to make real that guarantee which has been illusory for far too many. we attack the discriminatory treatment in the way that research is done by setting up a new research organization that will specifically focus on best practices for the delivery of mental health and challenge our colleagues to put money into that kind of research just like we do other types of research, and i tell you, we are hopeful that there are serious amounts of momentum behind this bill in the senate. already we have five republican cosponsors and five democratic cosponsors this week. we just added our new pair. next week we will likely announce another pair. we are actually had aa
longer line of republicans than democrats waiting to get on this legislation which is wonderful to have is a problem. and we feel like with the hearings scheduled in the health committee later this month the 1st hearing in the health committee on mental health in three years -- and that is amazing to think about -- that we are poised to move this bill. as my time is up, let me spend two minutes talking about the context of messaging here. i no we are talking about this in a more robust way, but i went to the floor yesterday to challenge my colleagues and understand the mental and behavioral health system has to be fixed because is broken. and we should not fool ourselves that we are going to cure the nations epidemic of gun violence by fixing a
broken mental health system. why? the us has a gun violence rate that is 20 times that of all of our other competitor oecd nations, and there is no evidence we are spending less money on behavioral health or have any greater rate of mental illness. there is something different that is not necessarily an hour behavioral health system. if you fix some of the gaps it will have a downward pressure on violence, but we must be careful over the coming weeks and months of debate are falling into the trap which tries to define america's growing gun violence epidemic as one that is rooted in a behavioral health system. i do not mind conflating the two because i think that it will ultimately help to make our behavioral health system better. if this is our opportunity and moment, we would be
fools not to take it.it. ultimately, we will not fix the gun violence epidemic in this country if we do not get serious about what differentiates our software other countries. this is not a forum to talk about that, but it is not necessarily a question surrounding our behavioral health system and how we fix it. thank you very much for having me. i look forward to the debate. [applause] >> please welcome back lauren fox, staff correspondent and national journal. >> thank you so much for joining us today. i wanted to start out with the bipartisan nature of this bill, a rarity in washington dc. pickpickup behind-the-scenes of how this issue became so bipartisan and what it has been like to work with congressman murphy and others? >> i give a lot of credit to ten, good friend. he really set a precedent
for bipartisan cooperation in the house by building this robust group of republican and democratic cosponsors. when. when i decided to really dive into this issue at a new level i decided that the most likely vehicle that was ultimately to become a law was going to be the one that had the biggest amount of bipartisan support in the house. i said, i don't know that i agree with everything or that i can guarantee i will introduce a carbon copy, but let's try to do companion bills that have the same foundation with different branches that come off of them. bill cassidy was very involved in tim's bill in the house, and someone said to merely on, you should go talk to bill about this because he would walk into tim murphy's hearings with a dogeared copy of the book crazy, which many of you have read and is a guidepost for a lot of us who care
about this issue. and so i approached him, and he immediately said he wanted to diving along with me. we have some things that are different. i have been pleasantly surprised at how fast the colleagues of signed on. they have done the most work on mental health. him, sandra collins, senator better, and then we have added since then senator it on their side and senator murkowski. we will have more quickly, and what this will become is a bill that has bipartisan support, the cross-section of ideologies within each carcass which is important as well.
it is really progressives, moderates,progressives, moderates, conservatives altogether which will be a pretty important signal to leadership. >> i want to give you an opportunity. you address this at the end of your speech just now. we have often talked about mental health legislation in the context of the gun debate, and there always seems to be more discussion momentum after a tragedy occurs. does that stigmatize mental illness? >> this is an incredibly important topic, and, and i have talked openly with my colleagues about how we talk about this. what we know is that there is no inherent connection between mental illness and violence, the people with mental illness are ten and 20 times more likely to be the victims of violence and the perpetrators of it, and we do risk perpetuating the stigma, and we see it play
out in really disturbingly open and blatant ways. the german wings plane that went down in your openly playing out that someone with a history of depression shouldn't be allowed to fly a plane is somehow is a connection between depression and desire to take down a plane in an act of mass murder? is ridiculous garbage shows how easy people make this connection between mental illness and the predilection of violence. it is why yesterday i went down to the floor and give a specific speech calling out my colleagues and saying that if you want to take on gun violence you have to take on the celebratory culture of guns in this country, acceptcountry, accept the fact that what makes us different from other nations is not the
amount of money we spend on behavioral health. we can do better. what makes what makes us different is when people have a dispute in this nation, when people are dealing with internal demons, they go reach for a shotgun to try to settle there disputes. that is not what happens in other countries. i think thati think that it is important to have some lines of clear distinction as this debate goes forward. >> i want to talk a little bit about your bill and what it does to help identify and help young people who are diagnosed with mental illness, obviously getting to individuals earlier can be helpful in their treatment long-term. >> we have a very specific program in this bill which would engage and invest in early intervention. our bill starts the program at three years of age but we have had a lot of feedback. early intervention programs
that identified individuals who are showing those warning signs of mental illness, serious mental illness and get the resources and the parents resources upfront. early identification so that we can find the kids and get them in the treatment. and then it is a matter of building capacity. one of the most important things in this bill is the ability to see a primary care provider the logistics will get too big for families that have economic and social challenges.
symbolically what is that say about how it changes americans view of mental health issues and also logistically, what does the new role do, create organization or are there fears that it could create more bureaucracy? >> we keep them intact in our bill. we certainly think there are ways that we can reform it. we don't think it is productive. we do.
his bills by setting up as new assistant secretary. here is where is coming from. most all of the serious conversation debate is happening within samson is controlling a tiny portion of the federal government's students on mental health, behavior health, and substance abuse. there is no one sitting next to the secretary who is thinking creatively about how you use medicare and medicaid in order to advance new treatment models and behavioral health. the new comparative research center set up under the health care law is actually doing more work and behavioral health research than they are on any other sector of research, and it was unexpected that they