years. i will try to cut it short, but it isn't very positive. the testimony about the loss of leadership focus is spot-on and i could not agree with you more. ...

has the white house engaged with your advisory panel and do you think, i shouldn't say that does it understand the major problems that exist in the nuclear security enterprise? and do you think the president understands it, the "gravity" of it? -- gravity of it. >> that is difficult question, mr. franks for us to answer. >> it is. >> clearly the nation, not just this administration but over a period of years we gradually let our nuclear capability, degrade. the, i would come back to your initial remarks deterrence is in the eye of the beholder as you know. >> i do. >> when other nations come to the conclusion that our deterrent is not what we say it is then we're in great danger and one of the worst things we could do of course is state we have plans that we don't provide

the resources, the management capability to carry them out. if that, if we can't afford more, we need to change the plan but to have plans that don't much the resours is probably the worst of all worlds. once again as we, we've visited in great detail the programs that you cited. there are a lot of examples of poor management. it has less to do with this case, the capability of the people in the system. most of the people we talk to are very capable and dedicated and i might add very frustrated. they know the problems better than we do. it comes down to leadership at all levels. i'm trying to be as candid. >> i couldn't agree with you, mr. augustine, but i don't want to cut you off but i'm out of time and i certainly appreciate your candor and your response. >> separate from the white house

and congress and national level leadership i think there is a lot the department of energy can do within itself. you spoke about several projects that have, we've already expend ad significant amount of national treasure on and we have yet to see a facility. a lot of that stems from a number of cultural issues around technical competence within the department of energy itself. there's a need for stronger cost estimating capability, a much more rigorous analysis of alternatives up front before you commit to a certain program and also real strong, robust program management expertise and i think those three elements to a certain degree are lacking within nnsa and historically lacking within nnsa. you don't knee white house or

congress to fix those things. the president has ability to take on cultural reforms to really make the organization more efficient, to better utilize the resources that have already been given for the organization. >> the gentleman's time expired. i want to thank the admiral for his comments. i want to say he is has his hands tied to that respect going back to thornberry's questions we would legislate loosening up his and a little. as i got my thought process going over. there lane is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would thank our conditions witnesses being here today. i have a couple specific questions but let me start off more broadly. is the nesa and nuclear security enterprise under the construct fixable or do we need to move in totally new direction?

if it is fixable, where would you start and if it is not, what would you do? >> well, under the current structure, at least as it's being carried out it is clear that it doesn't work and probably going to be very difficult to fix. what new structure one needs as a starting point is something that the committee's very much involved in trying to decide. the list of options is not is not great. admiral? >> again i think organizational changes is needed but the lesser fix in the sense that cultural reform is far, far the greater priority and you can move the organizational boxes around all you want but if you don't fix the cultural problem, those organizational shifts will be meaningless. so you have to really address some of these cultural issues

and that's the secretary's challenge. >> well i concure the changing an organizational culture is very difficult to do and many ways is really, two specific things, a, you either have to incentivize and get buy-from the people there to change the culture and have them be a part of the solution, or, you're just going to start over and that's a very daunting prospect if that's what it comes to. let me, let me just turn to a couple of specific questions. president obama made clear in his prague 2009 speech and the nuclear posture review identified the priority of strengthening non-proliferation, making progress on nuclear arms control and sustaining a strong deterrent s there adequate national leadership below the president and above the nnsa level to prioritize nuclear support on these priorities? >> in my mind, the part of the

government you pound the out i think is, is head of the department of energy and i think today that's true, there is that capability. but the capability will need strong backing because there is always resistance to change. if one get as into various management levels within the department of energy i think there are some case that is one would question whether we've got people in the job that are up to it. on the other hand there are a lot of people there that are very good. this is a case-by-case issue. >> i would only add that you can't really separate the non-proliferation mission entirely from the nuclear weapons stockpile surveillance and maintenance mission. the two are inextricably linked in that a large volume of our expertise in our weapons program is what contributes to our understanding and knowledge of what other countries are doing

and how they're developing and all that plays into our non-proliferation initiatives. so i think that they're inextricably tied together and both very critical. >> thank you, admiral. let me move to this, after the disasterous y-12 security incident, the department of energy, inspector general and government accountability office stated that nnsa had a eyes on, hand off approach to oversight. it appears nnsa officials did not have or use the authority to second guest the contractor practices on security. has this major deficiency addressed within nnsa and more generally, does nnsa have the necessary expertise to evaluate and performance proposals from the m and o contractors? >> i think with regard to the first part of your question the answer is no, the capability

doesn't exist today. the, one of the things that's happened is that the responsibility for carrying out a mission, the mission within nnsa has been separated from many other important supportive functions. the important in charge of producing a weapon should also have as part of their job produce the weapon but do it safely, do it environmentally responsibly and so on, securely. but today the staff functions have taken over those latter issues and that should be embraced by the person who has the line management responsibility and the authority. so today you have a separately, separation of responsibilities and that leads to great bureaucracy, delay, and, in effectiveness. >> i would only add that although we haven't seen significant changes in the way

oversight is done and that it's still pretty much a transactional compliance space there is a major initiative underway to, to reduce and to reduce the number of performance element factors that the fees sore are awarded on and focus on mission elements rather than non-mission related elements. i think it is to early to say how successful that initiative will be but clearly there is initiative to change the performance element standards. >> great. gentleman's time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank our witnesses for testifying. we obviously have a daunting task ahead of us and i look forward to continue working with you. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. recognize now mr. wilson from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having this hearing and thank tk you for your commitment to this country and i look forward to reading the report in any way we can be helpful. in fact the issues that we're

dealing with, even going back 14 years ago, there was a report about it house armed services committee special oversight panel on, in regard to the department of energy reorganization and it was ably chaired by soon to be chairman mac thornberry. and in this report he said that the central purpose of the new organization, the national nuclear security administration, and nnsa, is to correct the confused lines of authority and responsibility within the doe nuclear weapons complex that contributed to the mismanagement and security problems at the department and to provide a clear mission focus and accountability for d.o.e. personnel involved in the nuclear weapons program. it also said that there was an intended effect to provide substantial degree of independence but not total independence from the department of energy and admiral, you've already touched on this but with

the 2012 break-in the y-12 facility, do we still have confused levels of authority? and additionally for each of with you, that would be one question. the other, do you think that your recommendations would resolve the confused lines of authority? >> well, separate from the y-12 incident, just the fact that you have a semiautonomous nnsa has created the growth of a number of redundant organizations within d.o.e. and nnsa which have duplicative functions and hence, there are conflicting and confused lines of authority. i think in many ways it's, the creation of a semiautonomous organization may have worsened the problem, not helped it. so, that's why i think we think it's a, we consider at this point a failed experiment.

do you want to -- >> i would just add, as implemented the semiautonomous approach clearly has not worked. the one, one of the things that leads to that, you touched on it, is that the line management has been balkanized such that responsibility for many important functions such as safety, security, health, environmental responsibility and so on is separate. it has major power in the organization such that at the lower levels of management decisions take forever to get up to the top between the staff and the line management. somebody has to be put in charge and held responsible and that just hasn't happened. >> i would only add that this goes back to what we said earlier about basic successful management organizations that clearly define roles,

responsibilities, authority, and accountability in many cases are lacking. and because of that, you find instances where too many people appear to be, believed they're authorized to say no and prevent actions from going forward and to some degree a lot of that, that decision-make something not embedded in line management who should be in the best position to make a risk-informed decision. again, to accomplish the mission safely, securely and environmentally safe. >> well, on both of you have such experience so i appreciate your insight. the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility, the mox facility in south carolina, this is in accordance with the nuclear non-proliferation agreement we have with the russian federation to process high level of,

weapons-grade plutonium, convert it to be used in nuclear reactors but, and the cost overruns, or cost growth has been gruesome but it is 61% completed and, mr. augustine, as you were talking about capable and dedicated personnel, they're right there. and making every effort to complete this facility but it is being put on cold standby. it concerns me obviously, having weapons-grade plutonium in our state, is there any alternative to the existing to this? >> i think there's no alternative to producing a facility that can do what we've committed to do. whether there is this alternative to the specific design or not, i'm not in a position to say. >> thank you very much. thank both of you.

>> thank the gentleman. mr. augustine, earlier you made the reference to the fact that you were in an organization where you took 17 smaller organizations and had to put them together to and get them to act like one. one of the reasons you were successful you were very intolerant of folks who weren't on the team. and obviously in the private sector you had the ability to help somebody get on the road to finding something else to do if they didn't want to be on the team. i know admiral mies, when he was in service, with senior officer or junior officer who wasn't on the team he could find them something else to do. i'm not sure the secretary has that. my question, if we were, go back to mr. horn berry as comment -- thornberry that we could legislate. i think the only thing that would help the secretary give him termination authority at least within the nnsa. maybe not through the department

of energy but at least within nnsa, if he does have people in his organizational effort, or the new administrator that need to either get on the team and move on, do you think that would be a significant piece of legislative authority we could implement or would it really not be critical? >> as a preface i should say what you alluded to in industry, i didn't do alone. i had a terrific leadership team and that's essential. i think what you suggested to give the secretary termination authority would be a very useful step. i think it would also be, very useful to give him greater authority to, in terms of hiring. it would be useful to give him the opportunity to have people who stayed for a specific number of years, to put people in a job long enough to be responsible. i can remember years ago,

testifying beside dave packard at the defense department about this very department and people come and go so fast, really nobody is accountable. so i think those would be very useful steps. obviously they would be very difficult steps. >> let me ask, it has been 16 months. we've had a series of acting administrators. as you know general kloch has been waiting for months nowing by action by the senate. how important in your review so far that we get somebody confirmed by the senate in the position as a permanent administrator? >> in my opinion, very important. >> mine as well. one of the concerns we've seen and it is not just with the director but lack of leadership stability and continuity at the senior leadership levels within nnsa. that is vitally important. if you want to make cultural changes and move on. i would just like to go back to your question. i think it is, it's important as norm i think said, that you

can't legislate cultural reform which i think is the biggest issue. around if you are going to legislate certain initiatives, i would just encourage you work very, very closely with the secretary to insure there is close alignment there. one of the issues that we're looking at and we haven't reached any conclusion on it, is the issue of exempted service positions within nnsa. whether there might be value in that or not. and we haven't come to any conclusion. but again, how do you develop that technical competence, people with professional qualifications, and certifications to really effectively manage the enterprise? >> well, to that point, mr. cooper and i have been meeting with secretary monese asking him specifically what we could do would be helpful. we have to get our colleagues to help us outside of me and

mr. cooper. lastly, y'all made various thought-provoking comments. another one you made a little while ago, talking about how secretary moan niece is the right guy right now, because he has experience in the subject matter and historically a lot of people in that position who didn't. what do we do, the secretary is a good guy and he has got the right background, but nothing to say that the person who follows him will have competence in the subject matter area. what would you all recommend, you may want to put it in your report, i don't know, congress do to try to make sure we at least urge a certain a certain type of person be viewed for that position or do you think it is necessary for congress to address? >> we're keenly aware of that issue and spent a lengthy amount of time discussing that and don't really have a decision but have a few thoughts. one thing, congress appoints people to secretarial positions

and congress has a great deal of authority seeing what kind of qualifications an individual has. this is particularly difficult job because it goes all the way from windmills to photo cells on one hand to, the nuclear deterrent on the other. there are people who have that band wit. the secretary happens to be the one. the one of the most important things congress could do is make sure successive leaders, whatever organization one happens to choose are qualified to dial with this issue. >> yeah. thank you very much. chair recognizes mr. cooper for any comments he wants to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank the witnesses again for an excellent hearing anybody in congress should no, sir give management advice since this institution is run horribly. the anything about the congress to blame the administration, and

congress has been blaming the administration since george washington was president. last time i checked you don't get a imagine wick wand or halo when you're elected to executive office, either executive or legislative branch. it is important to realize, i think you have it in your testimony, not highlighted as it should be, something remarkable going on even within the nnsa today. in fact there is a several remarkable things. one is the naval reactors program which has been largely exempt from any publicity or scrutiny because they do a darn good job. so you don't have to blame the administration about that. they have been able to survive different kinds of administrations. and another common theme has been, well, you can't legislate culture. and that's probably true but can legislate an environment which it is easy to create a good culture. somehow enable reactors has been able to do that.

theirable, for example to, actually have contracting officers who know what they're talking about. you know, imagine that. their scrutiny of expenditures, anything over $10 million, as opposed to usual $100 million threshold. they know what's going on. wouldn't that be nice? so to me when they're looking for bright spots here and we need to find some bright spots, extending that culture would be a very valuable thing, but part of it is avoiding the limelight. avoiding publicity, avoiding political back and forth so they can do their jobs. so, i worry that this institution has a tendency to do the usual thing, press conferences publicity, express outrage. we've got to do better than that. so as you look at new models, there's a pretty good one right there at your fingerprints. i know the admiral's extremely familiar with this already. thank you for your service. we look forward to this report. and look forward to even more

than that, to progress. >> i would just comment that we certainly have formed a benchmarking team to go out and look at what we thought were very successful examples of high-performance organizations and nr was clearly one of those and we certainly looked at a lot of attributes that naval reactors has to try to see if those can be adopted by nnsa. >> thank the gentleman. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you and mr. cooper allowing me to sit in. the only thought i would offer on naval reactors they have had their own problems recently with some cheating, on down in their school. somewhat similar to what we see with the ibm force and maybe it is an isolated incident. maybe it's not a bigger problem but you do worry that this, this, the problems that we've been talking about here, are extending.

the other thought is, for naval reactors in a way they report to both d.o.e. and dod. it's a unique sort of institution. started by an admiral who had a very strong culture that has been able to be continued over the years and has been able to maintain largely that culture over time. i'm not sure what that tells us. it was exactly, as the gentleman suggested, one of the things we looked at in creating nnsa, in looking at naval reactors and why they're successful and what we can duplicate. i think there are more lessons, i agree but there are worrisome signs. admiral mies, as you were talking about duplicative organizations within d.o.e. and nnsa. partly by design. what happened before, everybody in d.o.e. wanted a piece of

nnsa. i don't know if, i can't remember the number. what percentage of d.o.e.'s budget is nnsa right now? do you know off top of your head? isn't it about 40%. >> 40% is about right. >> you have 40% of the budget and everybody at d.o.e. wants a piece of it. that goes back to what you were talking about earlier. the people responsible getting the weapons out were second-guessed by all these folks who wanted to justify their existence in d.o.e. by getting a piece of it. so the idea was, you do separate, insulate, nnsa all those other people except the secretary. he can do whatever he wants to. and last thought is, if the secretary's the answer, and setting aside the increased authority that is the chairman was talking about, but if he's the answer, why hasn't he been doing it? i have the exact same high hopes everybody else has but there

hasn't been much happened now. he is waiting confirming from the senate, i realize. i guess that is just a long way of saying, we got to remember the problems that this was intended to create to fix, i completely agree, it last not fixed them -- has not fixed them but i don't want to go backwards to those days either because it was a, quote, dysfunctional bureaucracy incapable of rerecall toking itself. i'm not sure it's much better but i don't want to go back and be worse. any comments, i'd welcome but i appreciate y'all letting me harangue? >> i would be very brief. i think future secretaries of energy or whomever this organization reports to has to be qualified at the subject at hand and have got to be strongly committed and, without that, i don't think anything we proposed is going to matter.

>> beyond duplicative functions, i do think the semiautonomy has create ad bureaucratic seam between nnsa and other elements of the department of energy, particularly the office of science and the other d.o.e. science labs and when you look at those laboratories, there really is a need for close collaboration between the nnsa labs and office of science labs because many of them work on non-proliferation issues and, and have nuclear expertise and nuclear forensics in other areas. so again to some degree the semiautonomy has created an impediment to hinder closer collaboration than maybe you would desire and so it just isn't the duplicative functions but it is also the issue associated with collaboration.

i would only add too, that we've had several meetings with the secretary and he has moved out and is making a number of d.o.e.-wide organizational changes to address what i perceive are some of the cultural issues that he recognizes. >> i thank the gentleman. did you have anything you wanted to ask before we close it up? first. >> first of all, my apologies. we have a coast guard hearing being ranking member i was tied up there. i wan to thank the witnesses and for the commission and their work. i will catch most of the testimony from the staff. i understand that one issue that was not covered, perhaps this is correct from a 30-second briefing, is the issue of the have sanaa river mox facility. did the commission look at this issue at all, and if so, what did you determine? >> go ahead.

>> we haven't looked at it in great detail. it clearly falls in the same example as the upf facility in tennessee and the cmrr, the plutonium facility in new mexico . . >> how much resources will be requd

to complete some of these major projects, and i think those three elements have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today. >> i really want to apologize to the committee and to the witnesses for not being here. those issues are of great interest to me, and i really want to get into it, but it's not really appropriate now. i'll circle back around at some point. i want to take this up at the ndaa particularly with the savannah river and try and meet some of the issues. >> thank you, sir. i want to tank the witnesses. i very much -- thank the witnesses. i very much want to remind you, i know you're cognizant of it when your advisory panel was established, i know you all realize that, so be bold. we appreciate you, look forward to getting your report this her and hopefully having you come back this fall with some final thoughts. with that, we're adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> and live now to the national press club in washington, d.c. where we'll hear from virginia state senator craig deeds. last year his son attacked him and then committed suicide, and specialists had approved ip voluntary commitment for treatment, but he wasn't admitted because there were no beds available. senator deeds now pushing to improve mental health care in virginia, and they're just on introductions here at the head table. >> for "u.s. news & world report". amy morris, morning news anchor at wnew, all news 99.1. and pat host, a reporter for defense daily. [applause]

our guest today is here payoff an unspeakable -- because of an unspeakable personal tragedy. virginia senator creigh deeds lost his son gus to suicide in november and was seriously wounded himself in an attack by his son. this happened after senator deeds had tried unsuccessfully to get care for his son only to be denied by a system he's since tried to fix, and that system told him there were no beds available for care. in the four months since november, senator deeds has recovered from are his physical wounds and led the virginia legislature to enact legislation adding millions more dollars to try to precept another family -- prevent another family from experiencing the tragedy his did. it insures a bed is available for that person unlike what happened with senator deeds' son, gus, on november 19. before making mental health his signature issue, senator deeds

was a county prosecutor known for authoring a law allowing public access to the virginia sex offender registry. he was elected to the virginia house of delegates in 1991 and left the house in 2001 to join the state senate representing bath county. he was a democratic nominee for governor of virginia in 2009. please help me give a warm national press club welcome to virginia state senator creigh deeds. [applause] >> thank you for that generous introduction. i want to acknowledge my wife. she gave up this for her birthday. [applause] and i also want to acknowledge so many friends and members of

my extended political family, some of whom have been with me since 1991. i appreciate your being here, i appreciate your support. they told we i could speak for 20 minutes, and i'll probably fill that up. so -- and that might scare some of you. [laughter] i'll do the best i can. thank you for allowing me to speak about a critically important, yet overlooked issue. despite the warning signs of a system failure and despite the fact that as many as one in four americans suffer from some form of mental illness, mental health is routinely set aside in our public policy discussions and on our private conversations as well. when i spoke before the senate of virginia, i referenced boo in to kill a mockingbird as a good analogy for the way we deal as a society with mental illness; out of sight and out of mind.

we have to bring mental health out into the daylight and have an open and honest discussion about the successes and failures of our mental health laws and services. my purpose today is not to rehash what happened on november 18th and 19th last year. i won't talk about the specific events of those days any more than passing reference. the issue is much bigger than any one individual's experience. likewise, i will not answer any questions about those days. when i decided to speak out publicly about mental illness and about my family's tragedy, i had three broad goals in mind. first, i wanted to work to detug matize mental illness and bring hi part to bring about equity in the attempt of mental health. second, i wanted to use the experience to change the law to make it less likely that others would undergo similar heartbreak. third, i wanted to make sure my son was remembered more for his living than his dying. i intend to organize this talk

generally around those three points. in every sense of the word, my son was my hero. gus deeded came to this world on may 6, 1989. he was named austin creigh but called gus after a maternal great, great uncle. from the beginning, gus was bright, inquisitive ask a little small for his age. in fact, he really didn't grow into his brain to be average size until his teen years. he was reading simple books by age 3, and as he drew would take volumes of the encyclopedia to bed to read. he amazed people at church, reciting the lord's prayer and the apostle's creed from memory before starting school. in elementary school he excelled at everything. that continued through high school. gus olds the record for the most perfect standardized test sol scores in bath county. but gus did so much more than make good grades. he tore through a drum kit at age 7, began trombone lessons a few years later and taught

himself to play the harmonica, piano, fiddle, mandarin, and he performed throughout the area. in addition to his gunfight with music, gus could learn any language he put his mind to learning. he mastered spanish in high school and could explain the differences among the various latin american dialects. he could lecture you on the development of languages. he was learning arabic, cantonese. he had a lifelong interest of gaelic history, language and culture. he was athlete you can. he played soccer. he started as a freshman for the bath county high school varsity soccer team. he won numerous awards as a member of the high school band and was valedictorian of his class. he could sing and dance with the best of them. he was handsome and witty. he had it all going for him. gus and his sisters were raised in the country, and at an early age he knew how to bait a hook, fire and clean a rifle and build a fire. he loved the woods, and he loved

to garden. he spent many summers in the nature camp in virginia, an act dem you can camp devoted to the natural world. he helped at camp poppy, a camp run by a cousin of mine, at home. he developed lifelong friendships and a deep appreciation for the outdoors and our natural resources through these camps. at an early age, gus developed an intense religious interest. at the age of 20 on a one-man trip across country, he was baptized a second time and born begun. that prompted a new religious interest and zeal that his friends and his family came to accept. when he returned from this trip, gus and our family embarked on a new journey. our family's experience with the meantal health experience and the care my son did or did not receive is a clear demonstration of the problems we as a society have in dealing with the issue. neither his mother nor i wanted to accept the fact that our

brilliant, beautiful, precious son was sick. in 2010 after we divorced, gus was out of school, unemployed and living with his or mother. she was concerned about his moodiness and his fixation on a knife he was building in the shed or he was making in the shed. i talked him into letting me hold the knife for him, and it's still under my truck seat. he went to the indiana dunes national park and worked there for a few months, but he returned home. we still don't know what happened out there. sometime that gall, gus' mom went to the local csb and arranged for him to enter a crisis intervention center near charlottesville. he stayed there for a week or two. during one of my visits, he spoke for the first time about going on disability. i just couldn't believe my son, gus deeds, was talking this way. i didn't understand. he was hi child, but he was also an adult, and i was not privy to any information about his diagnosis or his medication. when he came home, i helped him obtain a job. he spent that winter washing dickers. my brilliant advantage dick to

have yang son was a dishwasher, but he was happy. the next year gus lost that job for reasons unnonto me and ten came to live with me. his behavior was erratic, he was manic and talked about suicide. i went to the magistrate and had him committed. a short time later we went through the process again. both times gus was released from the hospital with medication and put under the care of a psychiatrist. at no time was i ever able to talk with the psychiatrist or get a detailed accounting or even an undetailed accounting of what gus' problems were. a psychologist or a social worker at the second hospital told me gus was somewhat bipolar but not a classic case. he said that the medication gus was on would be reduced eventually. i kept hoping that gus would be all right. he lacked direction, seemed agitated and certainly was not his old self when he got out of the hospital the second time, but he seemed more stable while he was taking medication. he had kept appointments with the psychiatrist and even made

plans to return to william and marry. i began to relax. in the summer of 2012, gus returned to the nature camp. he wasn't manic as he had been before. he continued to abuy bid his appointments. i'd go to the camp and take him to the psychiatrist. he returned to william and mary in the fall of 2012 and made the dean's list again. he even brought a friend, a foreign exchange student, home because he had nowhere else to go during the break. christmas was pretty much uneventful. gus helped me around our property and went back to william and mary in january. i went to a pharmacy, refilled his medication and left him with a prescription card, entrusting him to keep it filled. sometime in the spring of 2013 gus stopped taking his medicine. when he returned home after school while his grades continued to be good, it was clear that his behavior and attitude had changed. he went back to nature camp last summer. even in my son's illness, his

heart, his love was always evident. he was known at camp even last summer for his kindness to homesick campers. he always had time for lonely strangers. he was the guy that would always give the people on the streets looking for a dime, he'd give them a dime. he lived as his brother's keeper, a good samaritan. as parents, we continued to believe that we could get our son back, that the illness which had never been fully explained -- at least not to me -- had not talkin' over and that gus -- taken over and that gus would be able to lead a productive life. friends and family assured me that he'd grow out of it. parents understand what to do when their child has a runny nose or a fever or even a more serious physical ailment. but what about mental illness? likewise, we as a society long to cure or find treatment for physical illnesses such as cancer or heart decide, alz -- heart decide, alzheimer's.

we ought to look for treatments. but what about mental illness? as a society, we treat mental illness so much differently than we treat other illsts. not only are we embarrassed by it, we act as if the brain and nervous system are not parts of the body. if my son had cancer or heart decide, we would have known what to do and how to pay for it. with mental illness, there is no assurance. two generations ago we taliban the process -- we began the positive process of decan institutionalizing -- deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill. we decided we could save money and protect an individual's civil rights by providing care in communities. some of our instincts were good, but our implementation has been a failure. men and women with mental illness fill our jails and prisons. we have never adequately funded a community-based system of treatment. the result has been that community service boards, at least in virginia, spend so much focus on looking for pun that the urgency -- for money that the urgency for care is lost. not only is there a lack of

equity in insurance payments for mental illness, there's a desperate lack of services in some parts of the country. across the river from this building is one of the most affluent parts of virginia. but there are many other regions where unemployment is high and people are poor. graduate students, medical school graduates when finish school with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt are not likely to want to practice if those areas. they want to go where they can make enough money to repay that debt and live well, and who can blame them? and those who complete the requirements to be psychiatrists certainly don't flock to rural virginia. so a problem that's bad in most places is worse in rural areas and in inner cities. not only is it impossible sometimes to pay for psychiatric care, but in many places the care is just not available. last november as i tried to put my arms around my new reality, i began to wonder about the law and how to affect change, real change. i decided on a two-pronged

approach. first, we were interested in finding ways to improve the crisis intervention process. in virginia we have a two-step process. if a loved one's in crisis, you can petition a magistrate for a four-hour custody emergency order to. law enforcement will serve the order and detain the individual to obtain a mental health evaluation. the four hours start as soon as the order is served and can be extended for another two hours. that change is one we made following the virginia tech tragedy. if the person is deemed to be a danger to himself or others, the evaluateor obtains a 48-hour detention order from a magistrate. the mental health professional conducting the evaluation needs more time to make that evaluation. the evaluator needs better tools for identifying possible placement rather than having to call each individual facility. and limited bed space throughout virginia should not result in a person in crisis being denied treatment and sent back home. think about it. under existing law, the

magistrate cannot issue a temporary detention order, a tdo, even if that person meets the criteria until a bed has been identified. that makes absolutely no sense. an emergency room cannot turn away a person in cardiac arrest because the e.r. is full. a police officer does not wait to arrest a murder suspect or a bank robber until jail space is identified. when a crisis emerges, our systems respond to protect the individual and the commitment. why should the mental health crisis be any different? the changes we made to that process are simple, and i saw george barker and barbara here, and they were both part of it. they serve with me in the senate of virginia. first, we added a requirement for law enforcement to notify the local mental health agency task with completing the evaluations, the community service boards or csbs upon the execution of an emergency custody order. current law was silent as to whose responsibility it was to notify the csb.

as a result, hours may pass before the evaluator even lays eyes on a person in crisis. that lack of notice is a tragic flaw in existing law allowing precious time and a life or death situation to be lost. of second, we mandated that a realtime psychiatric bed registry be developed and made available immediately for use in these situations. the state's mental health department has been working on a registry for many years. it will go forward now. in fact, an early version of the registry went online earlier this month. the region industry will need to be upgraded to provide realtime information. finish an evaluator will no longer waste time calling each individual facility looking for a bed. third, we lengthened the evaluation time to eight hours and eliminated the good cause extension. particularly in rural areas, traveling to be heard by a magistrate eats up valuable time. and we required the provision of a state bed of a hospital bed if a private bed cannot be identified at the end of eight

hours. the state hospital has an additional four hours to find an appropriation facility -- appropriate facility if another placement makes more sense. what all that means is that a person determined to be in need of services will have a bed at the end of eight hours. the practice of streeting where someone in crisis and a danger to himself or others is released because a bed cannot be found will no longer take place in virginia. every one of these situations is life and death, and this critical change will save lives. among other changes we made, we also extended the temporary detention order from 48 to 72 hours. this extension will insure that there's sufficient time to properly begin treating and stabilizing the individual. after the 72 hours, if additional treatment is needed, a civil commitment hearing can be held before a judge, and the person can be committed for an additional 30 days. these changes were described by washington post as modest, and i would agree. but they are significant changes to the front end of the crisis

intervention process, and i'm convinced they will save lives. the second prong of my approach was based on my belief that there are organic problems in virginia's system for delivery of mental health care services. finding fixes to the problems will not come quickly or inexpensively. in the past, small willingtive victories diffused the pressure for change and the sense of urgency. given a degree of success, people lose focus despite the significant problems that remain. i hope and pray that will not be the case this time. when i went to the general assembly this past january, it had been six weeks since the incident. it was the first time i'd been publicly visible. there were many people, some of whom are my friends, who were shocked and some even relieved by my appearance. nobody lost sight of our incredible needs in the area of mental health not this session, not when i was there every day with scars and tears. i promise you that i've not lost

my focus or sense of urgency. now the real work begins. we've done the easy things. we've addressed failures in the process that my situation exposed. to be clear, i'm not saying that a my situation occurred because of flaws in the law. i don't believe that for a minute. i believe that the sadness my family went through last november and continues to endure could be prevented. but with the changes in the law, we've insured that in the future families with similar sets of circumstances will not suffer as mine did. i know we prevented future tragedies, but we have so much more work to do. while the legislation addressing crisis intervention received the most attention, the most significant legislative proposal that passed was a study resolution. now, study resolutions are introduced and culled every year as matter of -- killed every year as a matter of course in virginia. government is often ridiculed for studying things to death. so virginia legislature has typically avoided them, passing

any at all. but this year we made the case that our mental health system has such fundamental problems that a thorough, come pree hencive and deliberative examination was needed in order to develop solutions, some of which will be difficult to reach and some of which may be expensive. senate joint resolution 47 creates a four-year legislative study commission to examine our mental health care delivery system. out of that process, i'm committed to making improvements to insure the efficient delivery of service in every corner 069 of the commonwealth and to provide adequate funding. we can start by reviewing reports prepared by our inspector general. our system has a shortage of psychiatric beds because state hospitals are slow to release patients. the study will serve as a way to keep mental health policy at the forefront of our discussions if virginia, and i'm hopeful the end result can be a model for other states. in the beginning of the study,

my mind is completely open. there are no sacred cows within the current system. everything is on the table. i do not buy into the argument, at least not yet, that we just need to spend more money. nothing about my family's experience with our system in virginia inshires confidence -- inspires confidence. i'm reminded of the biblical story of esther who ended up in the babylonian king's house as his queen. when she was faced with a moral dilemma that would require her to put her life as risk, she saved her people, the jewish people. she acted in response to a question; who knows but that you have come to your royal position for a time such as this. i'm not suggesting that my situation is as grave, but through the loss of my son i was face to face with deficiencies of a system that i and other legislators created. far more simply, i could either be lost in my grief, or i could act. i chose to act.

one of the most heart-rending responses to my family tragedy have been the letters, e-mails, phone calls, even facebook messages from people all over the country, frankly, who have gone through similar tragedies. i'm a member of the state legislature and ran for statewide office. my name might be, might not be the easiest name, but i'm fairly well known that this could happen to me and my family garnered a significant amount of media attention. the reality is that people die and are hurt frequently in very similar circumstances. in fact, some of the worst tragedies that we've seen in this country have been because a person with mental illness was not receiving properer care or treatment, or the illness was ignored or underestimated, and tragic consequences ensued. events last fall took my son, but i survived. i hope the result of my survival is that my son is remembered for his living and not for his dying. that we improve our laws and prevent future tragedies and that we finally destigmatize

mental illness and put mental health care on equal footing. virginia has an opportunity to lead. we cannot afford to pass up this chance. we have a lot of work to do, and we owe it to the memories of my son and the other lost children, parents, siblings and friends to be successfulful. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you, senator. you talked about how this is not

something that's a one-time issue that can be solved with one action and one piece of legislation. what can be done to keep mental health issues at the forefront of lawmakers' minds in subsequent years and how about in the minds of the general public? >> well, as i said, you know, this past session, you know, there were some people that didn't think i was going to show up. these guys that have supported me all these years, worked for me knew i would show up, but there were people who didn't think i'd show up. so when i was there every day, when i was red-eyed and red-faced, that kept it in people's, in the forefront. but we've got this study commission created, and we actually, it's a pretty strong commission. it's going to be for four years, and it had bipartisan support, and my scars aren't going away. so i can tell you that as long as i'm there, and there are others or that are going to make sure it stays there at least in virginia. you know, and the number of, you

know -- it's just amazing the number of requests i get to speak all over the place. so this is an issue not just in virginia, but all over the country. i i think what we do, a lot of people are going to be watching very carefully what we do in virginia. when i was trying to get this passed, you know, the problem with the passage of study resolutions in the past few years have been the part in the house of delegates. well, i went to the speaker, and i went to the chairman of the appropriations committee, both of whom i've known for a long time, and i looked them this the eye, and i didn't get any nos. i got -- they were behind, they're behind what we're doing. and they understand that we might be doing something very big in virginia and that we might need to spend a lot of money to fix the situation. but i can tell you that it just, it takes determination. and we have an opportunity now in virginia to lead, and we're -- i hope we're going to.

[applause] >> does the legislation in virginia go far enough, or is it a first step oren an incremental step to something else? >> the, you know, last november, you know, and i was in a hospital bed trying to think about what we could do, ask believe me, i'm not done. but this terms of legislation -- in termses of legislation, i knew what we had to do was address the crisis intervention piece. and that's just incorrectal. because that's the part that clearly broke down in my situation. we could find ways to address that and, honestly, they weren't all my ideas. josh barker, barbara and others -- george barker, barbara and others were developing those ideas, democrats and republicans in virginia. but because of, you know, i

believe there are bigger problems within our system. and our system is not unique. i think there are problems in systems all over the country. that's why i pushed the study resolution. this was just an incremental change. we changed an important piece of the mental health picture, but the real work lies aheadment we have to reform the system, and our work will be a failure unless we do. we have to use this opportunity of a study resolution to spend four years looking very hard, very intensely at virginia's process. we have to see what works and what doesn't, and we have to come back with real changes over the next four years. so in virginia at least it's incremental, the change we passed. did it go far enough? well, you know, i think we changed what we could change this year, you know? politics, government is about compromise, and it's about accomplishment of what you can. it's not about what you wish.

it's about what you can do. we're going to do more down the road. [applause] >> what about next year? are you planning to wait for the results of the commission's work, or do you plan on more legislation on this topic next year? >> the study resolution calls for a report at the end of the two years. i guess in 2015 and 2017. so we'll have legislation, basically, in 2016 and 018. but -- 2018. but if good ideas spring up before then, we'll introduce those. you know, my goal, basically, is to make, remake the system into a system that works for every part of virginia. and we might already have it in place, i don't know. and i won't know until we conduct this study. but the plan right now calls for legislation in 2016 and 2018. if there are good ideas that come up before then, we'll go

forward. >> can you comment on the handling of the ig investigation given the concerns that were voiced last week by the author of that report? >> sure. you know, i met with the ig the week after i got out of the hospital. and i found him to be compassionate, knowledgeable and determined to get to the bottom of the situation. i also, you know, once i found out about this 2012 report -- and i'm embarrassed the say i didn't know that he'd made a report in 2012 that would have addressed many of the issues that were exposed. in my incident. i looked at that report, and i talked after he resigned i guess in early march or late february, i met with the inspector general. he assured me that there were

differences of opinion about some of the opinions. he was only changing adjectives, he told me all the recommendations would go forward. i, you know, the inspector general's a retired fbi guy, and i kind of have faith in the law enforcement community. i think his comments put an exclamation mark to the the inspector general's report and makes clear that we've got big problems in our mental health system. i wish we'd had the results of the inspector general's report prior to the passage of all the legislation because i think that would have enforced a lot of what we were trying to do and perhaps allow us to go a step or two further. >> the investigator, of course, resigned in protest saying that the findings in that report were censored. are you concerned about the contents of the report, or are

you okay with i how it ended up? >> i'm okay with the report, you know? but i, you know, there were other investigations as well. the state police conducted a pretty thorough investigation that, and i think the inspector general's report is consistent with the findings with the investigation. i think he probably would have taken it a step further, but i'm not, you know, i don't know that it's his findings are -- i don't know that the inspector general's findings are inconsistent with the state police report. i think it's all out there. i'm not that concerned. >> one of the things the report recommends is decentralizing the virginia department of behavioral health into, quote, regional authorities. do you think that more authority on mental health treatment this virginia should move away there richmond? -- from richmond? >> well, you know, i'm one of

those guys who generally believes government closest to the people is the best, most responsive. i think that will certainly be an idea that's on the table before the study commission. but we've not even started the work of the study commission yet, so it's premature to say that any approach is, you know, going to be taken. >> now that you've seen the findings in the report, do you blame any individuals or organizations for possible failures, or do you think what happened is representative of a larger problem with mental health care in virginia or in the nation? >> you know, there's some things i'm just not going to -- i don't want to talk about. i think that what happened was a system failure. it's both there were people at fault, there were organizations at fault, but it's representative of what could happen just about anywhere else and and what does happen other places.

that doesn't leave the individuals who are in positions to do something from any responsibility for their actions. >> what was your opinion of virginia's mental health system prior to your involvement with it with your son? was the need for reform clearer only once you got a close-up view, or was it something that you'd pay attention to before that? >> that's a great question. you know, as legislators, you know, my primary connection to the mental health system was folks from the csbs coming to me and telling me today needed more money, they needed more funding. and i visited with community service boards, i've gone to many functions for the various community service boards in the area that i've represented. but it wasn't really something that i was at the top of my agenda, you know? hi son for the last -- my son for the last three, three and a

half years of his life or were pretty difficult, and i was in constant contact at least when he allowed me because he was, you know, when they were -- when your children are over 8, you can't -- 18, you can't make them go to the doctor can, make them talk their doctor drugs, you can't make them return phone calls or keep appointments. so i was in pretty constant contact with the community service board folks or with not necessarily the csb people, but i was in contact with him. psychiatrists wouldn't talk to me, and i can't, cannot tell you that reform was really on my mind before all this occurred. the only issue that really ever came to me was we need more money from the csb bes. and i'm, i want to point out i think that there are, there are csbs in our state that function very well. a lot of -- the ones that function the best are the ones that receive a lot of funding from their local governments.

we don't do a good job of funding csbs in virginia, but that doesn't excuse everything. that doesn't excuse what happened to my son. [applause] >> there's a couple questions on patient privacy and family or parent access to information that you've referred to a couple times. what changes, if any, would you propose in confidentiality laws regarding mental health professionals communicating with families of the people they're serving? >> you know, it's very difficult for me to talk about it at the state level because we're guarded by hipaa pa, by federal law. and there's very little we can do at the state level to undercut some of hipaa. now, if i were the king and changing thicks on a -- things on a big scale, i might reform hipaa and young people with certain mental illnesses have a kind of a curve between the ages

of 18 and 35. and perhaps parents need to be more involved in those years with young people. i mean, sometimes the only thing you know about it is the bill that comes in that has to be paid. and you're welcome to pay the bill but not to know what's going on with your kid. your kid might be 25 or 30 years old, but they're still your kid, you know? and it's, that's very difficult. so i would probably make major changes to hipaa if i were at the federal level, but i'm not at the federal level, and i have no desire to be. [laughter] >> we have had campaign announcements made from this podium before. [laughter] on that topic, in addition to hipaa or besides-up pa, what would be the best thing the federal government could do to improve the nation's mental health system? >> you know, i don't know that i'm prepared to answer a question like that. i'm not real encouraged that too

much productive work occurs in this city. [laughter] >> you talked about the practice of streeting or denying patients who are in need of care a bed in cower. should there -- care. should there be a zero tolerance policy for streeting people with mental illnesses who might pose a danger to themselves or others? >> in my view, there should be. and this my view, that's what we did in virginia this year, you know? the point i've tried to make was that when a crisis occurs, you know, with bank robber or a murderer running down the street, you don't stop the guy and say, well, let me see if i can find a jail cell for you. we put them in jail. there shouldn't be a difference between what you do in a mental health crisis. and the comment i made about washington, i don't want to be totally derogatory.

[laughter] sitting back here is mary ann hovis. let me tell you about marie ann. back this 1964 and '65 when congress did things that really mattered, there was one congressman in virginia that voted for those, and he wasn't from fairfax county or arlington. he wasn't from louden, he wasn't from charlottesville, he wasn't from norfolk, he wasn't from richmond, he wasn't from roanoke. he was from marion, virginia. most of you probably don't know where it is, but for those of you who think roanoke is southwest virginia, marion is in another world probably. but it's southwest virginia. it was mary ann hovi's father, a congressman from rural virginia was the last congressman i would suggest that took heroic votes to make a difference in this country. now, he paid for it. pat jennings, is his name.

[applause] >> in addition to the problem of patients being denied care in the first place, what tough to say about hospitals discharging patients with a serious mental illness when they still need care? >> you know, that, that's a big issue, you know? my son was hospitalized twice, and both times when he was first hospitalized, i visited him, and he was under the 48-hour order, and he said, dad, this is where i need to be. and i realize it now. they're getting my medicines straight, this is where i need to be. well, about six weeks later we were back in the very same situation. he was released within the 48 hours, and we had a problem. and we took, by the time we'd gone to the next hospital, you know, gus was one of the smartest people i've ever met, maybe the smartest. and he could figure things out, you know? there was no psychiatrist or psychologist he couldn't talk

out of or into whatever he wanted to do. he knew what answers to give the evaluators. so that was one reason we changed the 48 hours in virginia to 72, to give people more time to provide, to do that hospitalization. but in the long term, i don't know. i think one problem we've got that we have of to address in the study group is while we're focused on crisis intervention, what do we do long term? what do we -- how do we provide for people long term? now, with my son, you know, the plan was -- and this broke my heart, you know? i've spent the last three years of my son's life worried that he was going to end up homeless or in prison. that's not such a bad option now. but the plan was once gus got committed was to end up with a long-term place at western state hospital. and that's a tough thing to think about. is we're going to be looking at

long-term care, we're going to be looking, i hope, at how we make sure that people aren't released until they're ready to be released. but i don't know the answers right now. >> this questioner says we hear a lot about the need for an improved preponderatal health -- mental health system, but what is your message to pental health professionals? what can they do to improve the system in which they work? >> stay focused on the patient. stay focused on -- every situation is a life and death situation. you have a system with the public system of mental health. every system is life and death. my experience has been that too often people are pretty cavalier about the situation they're in. often they're not. there are lots of good people. you know, do your job. i don't know.

i don't have an answer that probably is fit for c-span. [laughter] >> given that many mental health advocates want to play down the possibility of violence with people with mental illnesses, are there any changes you think should be made in educating families about the possibility of violence? >> you know, part of the problem with mental health as i indicated in my prepared remarks is that for most of us it's out of sight and out of mind. it's something we don't want to think about. i think we need, as families, we need to think about mental illness, we need to think about what to look for in our young people, we need to think about, think about how to deal with it. you know, my son had this thing with knives and made a lot of knives. but there was never any indication that he was going to be violent. at least not -- i never, i never

sensed violence on my son's part. i know that hi former wife was concerned -- my former wife was concerned about it. but i never felt there was a threat of violence with discuss. with gus. i think, i think that before we can really begin to address the possibility of violence, we need to be honest about mental illness. we need to understand that it's like cancer, you know? it's in every family or -- it's either within your family, or it's within your circle of friends. somebody you know is suffering whether it's addiction or depression or some, something more severe, something bipolar or schizophrenia. once we start to deal with it honestly with mental held issues, then deck health issues, then we can think about violence. you know, in my circumstance there was never any reason, i never felt afraid. i never felt afraid.

you know? , you know, how to answer that question properly. >> you talked about how the age of onset of serious mental illness is often in young adult cans. how do you think access to care can be improved for young people who are new to their mental illness and may well not accept or even recognize that they are ill? >> that's very difficult. that's the exact circumstance i was in. my son was 20 years old. before there was ever a sign. and the only thing i could do was go to a magistrate and have my son hospitalized. so that's one thing we have to look at, i think, in our study. but candidly, the bigger issue is what can we do under federal law. with hipaa, you know, what sort -- what can you do with someone who's unwilling to be treated? you know, what -- that's, i

don't know what the answer to that is either. >> what advice do you have for parents who may fear their child is suffering from a mental illness? >> love your children. love your children and do whatever it takes to protect them even if that hurts you. i mean, nobody wants to believe that their chirp, their precious children are sick. nobody wants to believe that, i mean, you know, to think of cancer or physical that's bad, that's bad, but to think of a mental illness that might not be fixable is tough. all you can do is protect your children and love 'em. >> you talked about returning to the virginia statehouse after your tragedy and how hard that was. tell us, what were the best and worst things your colleagues did or said to you, and what advice

in general would you give to others on how to approach someone who's been through a tragedy such as yours? >> you know, everybody is different, you know? everybody approaches these things differently, and you never know how to respond. with me, you know, people in richmond or at least my colleagues were fair and honest. they know me, they know that i kind of, i'm kind of quiet and pretty shy, and i like to be left alone. ask that's under the best -- and that's under the best of suckers. [laughter] and this time i really wanted to be alone. people that know me know, this is the 23rd year i've been in richmond, and generally my door is open, and anybody that wants to visit with me, they have a chance to visit with me. i see constituents or different people all day long all session. but this year my door was shut, and i didn't visit with people. even good friends, they'd come

by, and they'd visit with me, they'd text me and say are you kidding? and i'd say, no, i'm not kidding. there was some lobbyist that just continued to press me and continued to hound me, ask that bothered me. i mean, people just doesn't, people that didn't respect my privacy. that bothered me a lot. most people did, most people just kind of left me alone because that's a where i wanted to be. i told people, somebody texted me about something that i hadn't visited with a local group of people that i represented. a group of some business group. and i just texted back, i'm here to do my job, that's all i can do. and it is -- and, frankly, you know, it was -- what zell miller wrote that he never met a psychiatrist that didn't need a psychiatrist -- [laughter] i promised my wife after all this happened that i'd find

somebody to talk to. but the work was the best therapy that i had. just, i mean, i couldn't imagine before i was sweating, i was scared to death going back because i'd have to be in front of people. but now i can do this, so -- >> you told us about the online realtime bed registry and how it's in a test phase. tell us a little more about how that works and when does the next step of that registry come to fruition? >> well, we will see how it comes to fruition. it's been in the works since about 2009 or 2010. the department of behavioral health says their funding's been cut out from under 'em, and they weren't able to establish it. well, you know, and i have no doubt that their funding's been cut. but, you know, with everything that's on the internet these days, it seems to me that a kid

with, any of my kids could have set up a realtime registry. finish what they've got now is not realtime. i think it's -- and what, we've looked at different things. it's updated every day or updated -- every day right now, i think. but it just went online the first of the month. so that, it'll take a little more time to develop something more realtime. the reality is, you know, right now when a csb worker, an evaluator goes in there they have lists of hospitals they have to cull through. well, this registry will not mean that they won't have to make those calls because they still will to make sure that the bed's still available. this second, the realtime might be 35 minutes ago. but they're doing to have to make the calls, but it'll tell them which hospitals not to call, because it'll tell them which hospitals don't have any beds. and that will save time. you know, when you're dealing with the order, the emergency custody order, whether it's four

hours or eight hours under the new i law, it's still a limited period of time. so you've got to start, you've got in the precious seconds tick away. and this realtime registry, i'm convinced, is going to be very helpful as time moves on. >> you've talked a lot about access to treatment. what about the treatment itself? have you talked at all with pharmaceutical companies about development of new drugs to treat mental illnesses, and is there anything that you see that could be done to create incentives for that development at a state level? i'm all ears. if there are things we can do, let's talk about 'em. my son i remember, you know, he talked about how the drugs hurt him, physically hurt him x. i've heard that from other people too. now, i don't -- you know, i don't know if, i don't know enough about the medications, and i don't know enough about the research, the development of pharmaceuticals. but if there are things we can

do at the state level, i'm all ears. and i think it's going to take a bigger push. that's something that probably can happen at the federal level. there can be more incentives built in, more tax incentives for the development of pharmaceuticals. >> what about the insurance side of things? the mental health parity act was passed some years ago and now, of course, today is the obamacare sign-up deadline. do you think that there is enough access to parity for mental health treatment this our insurance m now -- in our insurance system now? >> i don't think there's enough access to parity in the mental health. you know, one of the significant achievement. s of the affordable care act is that there is parity, you know? for instance, if we pass a form of medicaid expansion in virginia, that would immediately open up about $200 million a year for people that are mentally ill. people that are in that phase of medicaid expansion would have better access to mental health

care than a whole lot of other people that have health insurance. i mean, we don't have enough equity. i mean, the problem with the parity laws is that it hasn't brought about parity. it hasn't -- but the affordable care act does s so that's significant. [applause] >> and we have a couple questions about veterans, so let's be sure to touch on those. we've had some speakers here at the press club this the past talking about veterans' need for mental health care. is that something that you think should be done as part of the broader legislation and efforts you're working on in virginia, or is there anything specific you're looking at about veterans' mental health care? >> it's not something specific that i'm looking at, but honestly, when you think about all the -- i mean, people have come home from war forever ever, and they see unspeakable things, they go through unspeakable

events that, thankfully, most people don't have to endure. it's impossible not to be affected by that. a normal human being not on affected by that. so we have to focus on mental health care for veterans. that's not something specifically that's part of the study, but that's certainly something that we'll be looking at in terms of what we can do at the state level. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the final question, i've got a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, i'd like to remind you about our upcoming speakers. on april 6 we have john cos key 9/11, the commissioner of the u.s. internal revenue service. on april 14th, louis black, the comedian, will discuss politics and social issues, and on april 23rd general mark welsh, chief of staff of the u.s. air force, will be here. second, i would like to present senator deeds with the traditional national press club coffee mug. [laughter]

[applause] and for the final question, you told us a lot about gus, but can you tell us one more untold story that you'd like people to know about your son? [laughter] >> my son was just an ordinary, ordinary kid except he had extraordinary ability. in many respects. when he was, when he was a little boy, i mean, this is probably about, well, '95, he was 6 years old. and he would travel with me. you know, his sisters and his mother called it he'd take one for the team. he would travel with me on my legislative or political journeys, and i chaired this thing called the blue ridge economic development commission. he sat for three hours one afternoon in a corner at the squires center in blacksburg at virginia tech while we conducted our meeting.

i conducted the meeting was i was chair, and he sat there playing with trucks, cars and trucks this a little mini garage. a couple years before that, he had -- the whole family, we were at a ball game at the southern legislative conference in norfolk. and the ballpark in norfolk had just been built. we were out in the left field picnic area, family picnic area, and discuss was about -- gus was about -- that was '93, i think, so he would have been about 4. and he was sitting across the picnic table from me, we were eating hot dogs or hamburgers, and he looked at these two little kids rolling around, he said, dad, those kids are fighting. i said, yes, gus, eat your hot dog. [laughter] i took another bite out of my hamburger, and discuss was gone. i looked over at the pile, and he was right there in the thick of it. [laughter] he was ordinary in every sense of world until, you know, he was about 20 years old, until we

finished our gubernatorial campaign, and then he kind of finished that and was kind of, had some time on his hands and decided to be mentally ill. that's a joke. he didn't decide. this came out. he was -- but he had this unbelievable sweet nature that was apparent and evident up until the end. it was just he was a great kid. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, senator deeds. thank you to all of our audience for coming today. i'd also like to thank our national press club staff including our journalism institute and broadcast center

for helping organize today's event. you can find more information about the national press club on our web site, and if you'd like a copy of today's program, you can find that there as well at www.press.org. thank you, we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and the u.s. senate is about to gavel in. senators will begin their day with general speeches before turning to a bill to stop medicare cuts for doctors. it's called the doc fix. and that bill would delay the cuts for one year. the house passed it last

thursday. if it passes in the senate, it'll go on to the president. and senators will vote on that bill and on a judicial nomination this afternoon at 5:30 eastern time as well as whether or not to move forward with an extension of long-term unemployment benefits. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you have withheld nothing we need. today, continue to meet the needs of our lawmakers. give them so much more than they expect or merit, that they will sing praises for your goodness.