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 just found this making sure

it is infused into my medicare medicaid work. you have to have someone overseeing the big mental health stent, not just the targeted dollars. >> how do we ensure that insurers are following through with the changes made. >> we hear on a daily basis that they had taken this guarantee. either you have a technically cover behavioral health like physical health and direct so many barriers

to getting that behavioral health benefits that it just becomes meaningless often, and the stories are heartbreaking. when you walk through an emergency room and have a broken leg or a bleeding ulcer, you get treatment immediately. but if you walk in with a complex behavioral health issue at night. nobody touches you, treats you, evaluates you because they won't touch you until they know that they can get someone on the phone at an insurance company to give you the prior authorization for treatment and so they were house you overnight.

but we need to do is what this bill does which sheds light on the processes that these insurance companies use to try to deny treatment and then give new enforcement mechanisms to the federal government to go after companies that are violating law by essentially doing an end around with these bureaucratic hurdles. >> i want to give the audience a chance to line up for questions. both are bills are infused with work that we have learned from state governments, programming specifically designed to do early interventions on schizophrenia, for instance, say programs that are now

funded in this bill, wonderful, simple program in connecticut that invest in telemedicine that allows for primary care physicians who encounter a patient with a complex behavioral health diagnosis to call up immediately a behavioral health clinician who will do an immediate in person phone consult while the patient is in the office. rather than have to send them across town you can get an immediate conversation on the phone. we are doing that in connecticut to rave reviews and good outcomes. we pilot program that in the legislation as well. you know, we really do believe a lot of the innovation starts at the state level in the house and senate and both involve a number of programs that come from the grassroots.

>> even though one in five adults is diagnosed with some kind of mental illness each year the number of psychiatric beds has decreased dramatically. do you view that as one of the biggest barriers on care? where you rank that in ensuring that people get the care that they need? >> that is at the top of the list. i guess i have not gone through the trouble of ranking all the terrible problems we have in our behavioral health system. far too depressing. but that is at the top the list. what is happening is that people are just sitting in emergency rooms for days and days and days, but they are also creating pressure on the backend whereby the people who are in the institutions are being pushed out before they are ready command we just here that story over and over again in connecticut. a story about her son who committed suicide the day after discharge from the hospital, and she begged for

him to stay. not clear whether it was the hospital pushing him out to make room for the insurance company, but his mother knew he was not ready to come home, not stabilized. when you've lost 4,000 bed since 2007 there are only so many places that you can go. this is going to be the challenge. two major changes. they get rid of the exclusions. you cannot fix this problem

you have to make some serious investments. but we are committed to it. >> i think we just need to make sure that there are knew voices in the discussion. >> you cut me off before i could ask my question. >> very briefly kenny asked a question. >> in looking at the very 1st line of murphy's law proposal you started talking about stigma as well. he quoted violence, 10 percent of untreated psychiatric disorders result in some sort of violence, and you are concerned about stigma. here i quote the very 1st line. >> ask your question.

>> untreated serious mental illness and recent acts of mass violence. the very 1st line of that immediately connects violence with those who have aa psychiatric diagnosis. >> i think that i spoke to this very intentionally. i think that this is amongst the most important questions we have come how to acknowledge that we are talking about behavioral health reform in part because of these episodes of mass violence without perpetuating in creating this stigma. again, i have been very outspoken on this matter. we should fix our behavioral health system because it is broken. it doesit does not mean that we should forsake the opportunity to fix the behavioral health system, but it is dangerous.

>> go ahead. >> can you hear me? my name is jennifer off. here from orange county california, family member. as a member of the 4 percent are voices are not generally shared because our family members are too sick to speak up for themselves. they arethey are not well enough to find their way to a meeting here today to advocate against civil commitment reform,reform, fear mongering is they think they will get locked up because there homeless under a bridge. they are too sick to advocate for themselves, so we have to come here to advocate for them. my question would be, what are you doing to address the needs of the 4 percent,

those who lack insight like my son who was institutionalized from ages 12 to 18 because he did not respond to the current medical treatment. therethere was no brick wall for our family financially, nor in our rolodex, but unfortunately it was not brick walls with cracks in the system by design without restructuring samsara, eliminating and dissolving, but restructuring families like us do not see the money being spent differently. not necessarily mean funding in that direction. families are not represented in data pools. you will not find my son as a failure on anyone's pretty pie chart. my son has found his group now because that is where they all end up in they turn 18, graduate from the facility, get a plane ticket and the shoelaces and go back home to our communities

about which they're are no wraparound services for people like my son. >> the question is, is your bill going to address the needs of the population upon which we do not even no how many exist because no one is tracking them until they wind up incarcerated. he is serving 14 years in state prison. he does not have beds. it is a known population. how are we addressing those voices, and looking out for the families of the monster. >> that's a big question. >> basically these tragedies are not a surprise from our vantage.

we are not trying to connect violence to all mental illness. i have been screaming for 17 years for help. you have to empower parents to be more involved. both of our bills include changes to laws to allow parents to be more involved. for the complex behavioral kids, who is in charge?

the community health physician is in charge. we have got to answer that question. my belief come as you build these coordinated systems and change the way that you pay for healthcare so you are requiring systems to coordinate across each other and to get paid based upon how healthy they keep people rather than how sick they keep people, they will solve some of those questions of leadership. and soand so listen, i -- the reason tim and i are doing this is for the people like your son. the people we decided to dedicate our legislative lives to trying to fix, and i am sure we do not have all of the answers, probably not even 25 percent, but we are trying. >> thank you so much. >> another question? >> senator murphy, my question is, if the imd exclusion is lifted or partially lifted, probably completely lifted and the

money, some of the money will go to state psychiatric hospitals, but there is -- is there a requirement that the states that the endeavor their medicaid match to help pay for that hospitalization maintained funding for medicaid services and community mental health system? the state funding for mental health is back to where it was before the recession. >> most all of these expansions of the federal dollars i will double check on that. my intent is to make sure you're not robbing peter in order to pay paul. >> glad to take a look at the follow-up. >> more questions on either side?

>> no. just one more for you, senator. i want to talk a little more when you are talking about the issue of mental health there are a lot of stories and people who are passionate about this. do you find in your conversations with us in ensuring thatensuring that you can go to leadership and say i think this is getting for time and are you optimistic that this bill will move forward out of committee? ..

>> >> if you have a broken make you really can put a cast on it and it will be better but if you have a complicated behavioral health bill this it may not be that you just need to treat that individually but also the support system and reach out to the parents of the child

or to the siblings or the issues that have compounded the issue with surrounding trauma. and 16 kids that day how many also have page from the history? he said all 16 have a troubled history. so it certainly inspires me to do better but it makes me understand the you have to approach this system we are building and a slightly different way than the primary care to have the resources to reach out to treat those around the individual not just target

the individual. >> is the white house engaged on this issue? have you been talking about the prospect of a mental health bill? >> i would love for them to be more engaged frankly. so we're working with hhs and not sure yet who will testify later this month at our hearing by a magic in the administration will be there. secretary for well is serious about this issue it is very bold in her reform proposals and to build this new model to reward outcome the also do that for the

behavioral health system that frankly there is a greater connection between the volume and other parts of the health care system one of the things we are lacking is the volume is enough visits or enough beds to make sure this reform is thinking about the ubique of the behavioral health system. >> the queue for all of your time. it has been a very productive conversation. [applause] ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] >> good morning. thanks for joining us today i hope we have a lively and exciting discussion here on stage i hope you interact with each other i do have a couple of questions free each individually and as we talk about this are a lot of perspective of this we want to make sure they're all represented. address the issue of parity it has come up a couple of times with the senator and the congressmen and what du

view is it fair the way they treat mental illness compared to a physical illness? >> parity is the of law by now but unfortunately it isn't always the case and with that better enforcement of parity that problem is that people who were not getting parity opted for those who cannot advocate for themselves and one of the things the american psychiatric association is doing is to develop materials to ask every psychiatrist and every clinic to have this poster up and it says you are entitled to coverage for mental health care in the

same way you're entitled for physical care if you're not getting that then this is the number to call and take care of it. we need to let people know what they can do with it don't have parity is a backlash to recast the members to they were experiencing and they found denial's for mental health was twice as much as physical health care and it was completely inadequate if they could not get access to care in the big concern about medications so we found a lot of problems when we talk to members. >> obviously there already dealing with mental illness to report these issues that our difficult to get through

>> the organization advocacy center focuses on eliminating barriers what d.c. as the biggest obstacle to get the care that they need? >> the idea that we have not kept treatment laws up with science we have a situation whereby realizes if you were in treatment you're no more likely to be dangerous to anyone else but you cannot get help unless you are a danger to yourself or someone else so if you are ill and need care you are left to your own devices that is how we treat any other elvis so we're taking

steps to say we are changing best. >> is there a way to intervene earlier? >> there are any number of ways we see working in the state's they allow states to step bin to make sure they get the care they need before they are in danger. the reality shows before this level of crisis it is cheaper and people to recover. >> coming from the medicaid perspective working on integration and behavioral health one of the opportunities is to find people before they are in a crisis to have sources of

care but to better spot issues and to think about bill whole person better at spotting things early behavior health when you're in that office to see those individual providers. >> early intervention is very important those that baby developing science us to the freddie as the adolescent who thinks they are off maybe they have

unusual ideas so they can be brought to a psychiatrist who will do a comprehensive evaluation to try to determine if these are early signs of psychosis and if they are, as there are very effective programs to get the young adults treatment very, very quickly to prevent full blown schizophrenia. there are also programs in schools to identify children who have early programs which also that targets teachers were the first to notice so the teacher will wonder is this typical behavior of the adolescent or early sign of problems? they're not supposed to do the evaluation they are not qualified but they identified then they can

refer the young person to a mental health professional or a psychiatrist to do the detailed evaluation and maybe hopefully we could prevent future problems. >> i fully support the notion of prevention with the community mental health systems we cannot always predict when the individual does have a crisis it is incumbent on all committees to have a diverging care crisis capacity that those people in need in the middle of the nature of the weekend can easily access care to address their significant mental health symptoms at that time. far too often without the alternatives we see the path of least resistance to take that individual to a local county jail that is not the

place where people should be. >> you have to be situations right now and in many communities to say he will not hurt anybody tonight so we will send him home for some the that is more ill that is a terrible way to treat people and it is a terrible way to do things hoping they're not the next headline. >> with those in the criminal-justice system what can local law enforcement do better to preemptively work with them once people are in the system to create programs to make it easier

to be less traumatizing? >> that nexus is really important just as i applauded the of bipartisan approach they're taking to the mental health reform issue we also a collaboration between the spectrum and with regards to law-enforcement, we have almost 2 million people each year with illness mentally in jails and prisons that pose no risk to public safety but we see law-enforcement with specialized police responses with crisis intervention where there are about mental illness and how it judy escalate situations in the field that are given alternatives to incarceration for those

individuals it is an important component of the overall strategy to reduce the prevalence of mental illness in our jails that are filled with individuals with eight times the rate of general population every county is struggling with this natural of the initiative called stepping up the american psychiatric association and foundation and other groups to say a status quo is not acceptable there are interventions that work we need to drive that prevalence down. >> there has been a lot of programs that you advocate for do you find they have access or the even have knowledge that did exist? could there more be done to expose those programs that are out there?

is that a barrier to care? directory take thousands of calls every year. people don't know where to go for help they often have no idea of their services in their communities most often they think they have to choose between the police and no care so it is an issue of knowledge but then there isn't sufficient service there i cannot tell you how may times i have tried to help families find help it isn't there or not covered by insurance it isn't available, no where for people to go and knowledge and also the access problem we want people to have early easy effective access to care suppliers to get care and no evidence it will help you but we go well works but people cannot get it. >> addressing the issue of rural communities purses the

urban centers where there are more resources available what about those individuals that don't live within a couple of hours from mental health care centers. >> in the medicaid space there used to be a bias face-to-face with so important deal the way to deliver these services in physical and behavioral space but now we're using maurer technologies of now using telepsychiatry that they are trying tear tap into to care for people in their communities that is the most important aspect that we have been to continue your care if you're committed a. so telepsychiatry not just the individual but the

providers to not have the expertise so we have a couple of examples of states to try a to use a model where there is a center of excellence they treat people in crisis and handed to intervention but then when that individual returns to the committee and the providers that care for them to maintain their continuity is important. >> what d.c. as the shortcoming to help the legislation expand coverage? >> i will set aside the issue of access a but isn't there then they are struggling but the one that comes up the most frequently as a barrier is the

exclusion but the issue that it leaves for us to have individuals what is called an institution for a short period of time that we drop the matter of the system of medicaid with the i am d exclusion may cannot keep them in the continuity of care so we have to figure out a way to include the i am d in the system of care but we're not looking to warehouse people so if that is the challenge that is the

biggest barrier with a stronger system. >>. >> weigh in on if they are at a larger scale to be more effective. >> that the person who has committed a crime and a mental illness goes to the public defender who says you have a choice. i and your defense attorney i will defend you but we know you will stay in jail or go to prison but you have an opportunity i can go to

the d.a. to make your case you need mental-health services but you have to participate in the half to go to the judge to say this is appropriate in those services and golf medication, to see a therapist, a substance abuse treatment or maybe housing and if you are willing we can keep you out of jail and you will no longer be a defendant we will change your title to a client. it is very effective. i have done a couple of studies in san francisco and it shows people that participate in mental-health court said behavioral courts if you follow them and compare them to similar people who committed this

same sorts of crimes of the state mental illness and do not participate, there is a decrease incident of violent crimes and a decrease of jail time. that is the effective way to get people out of the criminal-justice system and into treatment. >> certainly i support the mental health courts if they have the tools in the toolbox and we appreciate that. it is the case they are small in scope and the of -- those that participate are relatively small but those that can get connected to care to move for recovery it is also an opportunity for the judiciary to learn about the needs of defendants with mental illness. they are dependent on the

effective robust accessible mental-health system so at the very core is to improve the behavioral health responses to a variety of mechanisms that are well articulated can work. >> just to pick up on that we have to recognize the existence of mental health courts is a recognition and the system has failed mental-health system fails of we have progressed to them to get treatment so assisted outpatient treatment that we talked about earlier is a mental health court without having to be arrested and states not using it having on the books but not doing the work they need to implement and that is a systematic failure that the congressman touched on for too long we have allowed the system to say

you are difficult he will be expensive the jails will take care of him. >> we have to of minutes to questions feel free to wind up to discuss these issues. i want to talk about not just access to care but are there enough doctors are trained professionals to deal with clients? that is part of the barrier to care. >> as a psychiatrist there are not enough. there is a workforce issue especially talking about child and adolescence. in the bills introduced to congress that the american psychiatric association supports it is absolutely

necessary we may never have been half and that is where we get into the programs such as telepsychiatry although they may not be available in that community you can see them and do the evaluation over long distances to integrated care clinics for patients who are disabled or elderly and cannot come to the psychiatrist of the. >> were the biggest challenges for medicaid to there is a shortage have the hardest time to compete for those providers we don't pay as much and we have people who could be considered as more difficult to deal with because they don't come is we have a very hard time to double down on those that need the services the most

so even if one is available free have a hard time for the patience to see them. >> recall that the license to hunt. >> reimbursement for medicaid is very low. in my community i practice in san francisco the psychiatrist say for a patient of medicated cost more to provide the service than reimbursement. we have to do something if we expect providers to take medicaid patients. >> we will start questions on the left. >> i work for the house majority whip who is a co-sponsor of mr. murphy's bill. we are very excited about that.

we feel it helps on the front end to get people into care so they don't commit crimes but the criminal justice reform that is going on right now the discussion has a great opportunity for us to do something having reviewed a number of the bills' head of think we are doing enough. like steadies' that would encourage more courts i am not sure there is a biggie nastic to address what happened last week with a young man in virginia. do you have ideas with federalism to do better than we are with some of the proposals of how we can encourage states to prioritize making sure they

don't end up in jail? >> a very important topic. thank you for your work. this is an area where there is bipartisan conversation going on right now. it is hard to see those as you think of the jail and prison system with the role they play to keep the community save but i would highlight a bill which does fund along a continuum of services and integration dissociated assisting individuals with mental illness to stay out that is also bipartisan senator frank introduced the bill that is an important incentive to develop these

effective responses. >> i am a psychiatrist and medical director of a large psychiatric hospital. thinking about the two speakers we've heard earlier in the panel looking at federal legislation from mental health professionals you have some very important areas of crisis intervention teams mental health services and whether the attention to federal legislation accelerates the implementation in a way that

could prolong that i wonder if how those bureaucratic boxes are structured is where efforts should be spent or somewhere else i've interested in your thoughts if you find that federal legislation helpful or a diversion in some ways. >> i can tell you pretty clearly not only having a senator to know what i amd stands for but talk about onstage is amazing having him go county to county to fix the health system is amazing. we have never had as exciting time the momentum to reform if this is up problem above to have more of that.

>> i think the efforts are complementary but we also worked at the state level it only complements what we a try to do that the state level to provide resources so those efforts is complementary but to talk about that effort i think is complementary. >> but those that come from the state level is an innovation. and to reinvest the dollars so whenever the federal structure it cannot be a

single solution it does come now in different ways and different things work with different communities where there are different challenges and opportunities >> from the of resource perspective we continue to find those great examples to drive that innovation. >> is an incredible moment of history to have the support of republicans and democrats to have a bill in the house of representatives and in the senate and people to be motivated to work together all both sides to really do something to highlight the fact the current system is broken and we can fix it federal league and at the state level so i

am very excited about this. >> i work on the senate health committee talking about prevention can you talk more to that? more about what those look like. with those innovations it will take a switch and thinking so it is a change to the system said to have that focused so had we put them in today's programs set

to talk about children oreo metals or that classification so to give them labels be have to be cautious that information will travel with that person so i think it is the dynamic >> some of the work that then i am making is doing to be supportive of young adults experiencing psychosis that approach is very different with what do want to accomplish it your life and powdery support that as well as treatment and one of the issues can refinance this going forward with private insurance dollars i had the privilege to go to one of these programs it is very

different resaw ping-pong tables it has a very different feel that they may come out with their data but is an important program to focus on because it would be a great disservice if it was a chronic condition. >> one more question. >> my son died this year age 23 of heart failure after a seven year battle with schizophrenia. i am a director of paris for care in baltimore i get emails every week we cannot get my child care parity is the issue rather than and

stigma parents mention this to me all the time i would mention it to you john hopkins insurance will not keep my child in the hospital why don't we sue for medical parity? what your thoughts on that? i cannot think of a lawsuit i think the state of california has one just for parity what your thoughts on that? >> i totally agree and the american psychiatric association is involved with the lawsuit in california also is a new york bring lawsuits can be very, very effective. i am sorry to hear about your son and for your loss but that is another good point of medical illness and a psychiatric illness added

cardiac problems to have a health screening it isn't just the problem of mine but all types of associated issues and to take care the mind and body and of brain. these are so vital they have no idea about the idea you're not able to get physical care. it simply is not on people's radar what you hear so often why didn't the family just get him help? that families have no options every need solutions this is the best way to do that to have these discussions. >> eight you so much.

they do so much. [applause] >> they give to transeven pharmaceuticals at this time i will invite michelle goodrich to the podium for closing remarks. [applause] >> they express their restate engaged man participation in today a special thanks to all of our speakers for a thoughtful discussion and a special thanks to the audience members who shared courageous stories. we are pleased to be a part

of this important conversation to help champion better solutions for people with serious mental illness to have an unwavering commitment to deliver innovative medicines in mental-health and spending over 50 years to remain at the forefront to improve care for people with brain disorders to invest in innovative treatments and improve patient outcome at the same time we do recognize our logical treatments is just one element to put people with the severe mental illness on recovery but that legislative solutions that we think are critical to ensure individuals are supported to get the best

chance they deserve to hold meaningful life. it is important with better health outcomes into a broader society the collaboration is critical to approve lives with the justice system we support legislative efforts to reform the mental health system and we believe we can find a the best solution to create a win-win for all. thanks for being here today and being a part of this ve

. .

we have changed the entire military reform system. headquarter. headquarter reductions, sexual assault, which continues to be a very important issue. now we hear that the president has threatened to veto, and if i could quote from the editorial in the "washington post" on october 3,l says, the bill seeks $112

$112 billion price tag, roughly the total mr. obama himself requested. as it happens the bill also contains important policy changes, major compensation reform that creates retirement savings options from our service members and $50 million and lethal military aid for ukraine. mr. obama opposes the latter mandate which the bill would allow his administration to waive as well as the bills continuing of existing constraints on the power to open and close the basic guantánamo. the fact remains, that is not the most publicly stated reason to veto. refusing to sign this bill would make history, but not

in the getaway. mr. obama should pursue other legitimate goals were domestic sequestration of relief. let me emphasize, congressman thornberry and i both adamantly oppose this methodology. we wants sequestration repealed, to give the military the ability to plan ahead rather than having to lurch from one year to another and from one cr to another. but we, when given the amount of money the pres. requested, we authorized that amount of money. and for him to veto what is fundamentally a budget bill, policy bill in the name of cost is an appropriate. a proper avenue that the pres. should pursue, if he wants to come is the money bill which is the appropriations committee.

i am proud to have worked with congressman thornberry, and i would like to say the chairman and i will continue on the path of reform. there are many reforms that need to be made.made. the chairman has been working on an acquisition reform issue for many years, , and i look forward to joining him in the future first, we need to get this into law. i am pleased with the vote in the united states senate today. >> first, i want to congratulate chairman mccain on such a strong vote. of course there were three others were not able to be here command you would have been even stronger.

i think you seen today they agreed with virtually everything that is in the bill. it is this budget of code issue that largely is propelled by the white house that has caused her to be some concern, butconcern, but i want to emphasize, the substance of this bill reflects the bipartisan input on both parts and from both sides of the capitol. actually, i had a different sentence,sentence, the 1st one, american presidents rarely veto national defense authorization bills, since they are, well, vital to national security. now, that is the way it has been for 53 straight years. as you know, we have done the research.

there have been a total of four vetoes in the last 53 years on mba. everyone was because of something in the bill, not because of something that was outside the bill,bill, which is the thing of the present is complaining about today. unfortunately all of the benefits, the acquisition reform, new retirement system, all the help for our troops there is no guarantee that that comes back. we could will lose it. on the other hand, if the pres. signs this this bill he loses no leverage because the appropriations bills have yet to be appropriated and signed. why not get this done and show the world that our political institutions can function for our own national defense. the last., think about the headlines today.

russia's launch. russians launched cruise missiles. a new ground offensive is starting in syria. there is danger wherever you look. this is absolutely one of the worst times i can imagine to veto a bill that supports our troops, gives the president additional tools to push back against russian aggression, gives new tools to push back against i sil. it really wouldit really would be misguided, and i hope the president will reconsider. >> have either of theseyou spoken directly to the president about the issue? >> no. we have not spoken to the secretary of defense. we have spoken to the present. >> what is the plan? do you wait and see what the budget negotiations are? >> if we can't override it obviously it will be outside events that dictate the

future and fate of the legislation. in the meantime, we will be passed the end of a -- the end to another fiscal year. they will not be able to plan, nor will they be able to operate, nor will these new policies be put into effect. so, if we have to await, if there is further negotiations were discussions, and it is not without significant cost, very significant cost, particularly to the men and women in uniform and there ability to defend the nation. that is why this is so distasteful. the pres. distasteful. the president has a political fight with republicans over a funding issue, so he has put the nation's security at risk in order to try to make that

point. >> i could not have put it better. it is distasteful, and i think that that is being mild. remember, there is nothing we could have done in this build is satisfied with the pres. is complaining about. it is about. it is a budget issue, appropriation issue, not a defense reauthorization issue which is why this would be historic, but not in a good way. >> can you talk at all about potential negotiations? do you think that is the best chance to give a deal get a deal that would raise the budget caps? >> i do not know. i continue to hope that the president just we will not veto, that there will be sufficient pressures on him. that is our 1st option. as far as events after that we know that there are discussions/negotiations going on with mcconnell,

weiner, and theweiner, and the white house. frankly, this should not have anything to do with authorization and everything to do with the amount of money that is appropriate. >> outside events will dictate the future? >> if the president vetoes and his veto is not overwritten. i guess you would have to ask chairman thornburg. it will be interesting to see how many we hold. what i'm saying is, we have done our job in the senate and the house, a piece of legislation done the bipartisan fashion. and so we will be in this negotiations. we can't control that. i can tell you what we can do with it will be doing on every street corner in america that we can stand on

we will be talking about the lives of the men and women who are putting men and women in danger of our budget fight. this bill solve all problems, but i can do some good things for the country at a dangerous time. >> what do you think is the most likely scenario at this point? >> i don't know. the pres. has has said he would veto it. really, i don't know.

it would be historic, if he does. i hope he dies. and if he does, we will have to work on next steps after that. but i just want to emphasize , there is no guarantee that all of the good things in this bill that all the democrats a bragbrag about will automatically come back. they may not. >> any thought to contingency plans such as taking money recommendations of the bill and making it appear policy measure? >> we can't do that. >> you have to have money for it. >> we are proud of the entire year of hearing, putting together legislation, markups, brain to the floor or coming to the conference.

we have spent an entire year, the majority of our time working with both sides , very bipartisan in both committees. and so we are not ready to say we will just discard what we have worked so hard for. i am very proud of this product and the fact that except for this funding mechanism it is totally bipartisan. >> given the support of democrats for the large majority of the bill, is no, is not possible to amend the bill to reflect whatever budget deal occurs? >> i direct your attention to section 1501 in the conference report that says that if there is a budget agreement that changes the cabs or does something different, then these authorization levels are automatically adjusted to

reflect that. that is my peemack. we are not walking the president or anyone else into anything. we have the flexibility in the bill right now, so let's do what we can, understand these conversations, and it will automatically be adjusted to reflect those conversations. >> all right. >> this agreement, senator reid and congressman smith on guantánamo. do you see any room for negotiation? >> let me say that six and a half years ago the white house counsel came to my office and said there going to give you a plan for the closure of guantánamo because i happen to believe that quantum on a motion be closed, but must have certain circumstances including dod supervision and a whole lot of different aspects of it because i believe it is bad for

american image. a call we are about to develop a plan. about four months ago i was in the oval office and the president said, i'm going to give you a plan. i want to close guantánamo. as a plan. i will discuss it with the house chairman and see if we can get some support for such a thing. they cost something like $2.3 million and so they have never come over with a plan. after the secretary of defense and presidents advisory on terrorism set of my office and said we will get you a plan right away. of course we have no option.

are we expected to approve of the closing of guantánamo without a plan for how you dispose of those people that have been judged too great a threat to the security of the united states to be released? of course not. sonot. so now they are complaining about a simple fact, and we are asking the administration to certify the someone that they want to release is not going to come back and attack america.america. i don't think that is an outrageous request. >> one other point. the restrictions that are in this conference report about bringing guantánamo detainees back to the us is the exact same language that president barack obama signed into law and the defense authorization bills in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. and they last one year. it does come with a plan

after six years, we can look at that and make adjustments if he gets the support of the american people. but beside this language into law year after year after year. >> all right. and the words of chairman mao, it ismao, it is always darkest before it is totally black. thank you uppity

administrator who was asked about the rulemaking process for drones. the house aviation subcommittee hearing is chaired by new jersey

congressman. >> the sub committee will come to order. thank you for being here. members may be permitted to sit with the sub committee and are here for testimony and to ask question. without object and we will start. >> we look forward to hearing from various stakeholders on a very important subject in our nation. unmanned aircraft systems represent the latest frontier in aviation technology. while still a new industry, they are already contributing to our

economy and changing how businesses do business. across the country we see use for a myriad of operations from surveying, photography, safety inspection, medical delivery and search and rescue. with each new use, businesses and and commercial users can save time, money and lives. like any other new technology, they bring new challenges as well. in the past year pilots have reported sightings of drones near airports at an accelerated rate. in 2014, the faa received 238 238 reports of drone sightings. in 2015, the number has already excited exceeded 600. safety is paramount in aviation. the higher number of sightings raises serious questions and concerns. some of these reports involved in airliners and record a

lowball to two near the nation's busiest airports. other reports involve pilots of general aviation aircraft in less busy airspace. the real possibility of midair collision must be taken seriously in order to prevent tragic consequences. to be clear, it is also my understanding that some of these reported sightings may involve something other than a consumer unwisely operating their new gadget in a controlled or restricted airspace. in at least some cases, the reported drone may have been a government operated aircraft lawfully operated drone or simply a bird in flight. we need to understand what precisely is going on in our airspace, what is the actual risk and how we manage and mitigate it? with retailers ready for significant drone purchases by

consumers, this upcoming holiday season, this conversation and subsequent action cannot wait. there are real consequences if we are not cautious enough and we must not go to the extreme which could unnecessarily restrict the ua s s industry's growth and innovation here in the united states because of the so-called false positives. the key is balance. i believe this committee as well is the faa and stakeholders continue to strive for just about. balance the answer to these questions will be complex though i confident our country can and will address them. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses and thank them for joining us today. before i recognize mr. larson for his comments, i ask unanimous consent that all members of five legislative days to amend their remarks. >> thank you chairman for holding today's hearing on

ensuring aviation safety in an era of unmanned aircraft. we are here to address this important and timely topic of the safety of drones in airspace. the number being sold in the u.s. is staggering. according to one group, the number sold could reach 700,000. that's a 63% over last year. other reports suggest that figure will reach 1 million. it will continue to grow. in astral question becomes, who are flying these million plus unmanned aircraft question many are responsible and safe users. it includes serious hobbyists such as those represented by the academy of model aircraft. unfortunately they also include people who are not familiar with the rules of aviation or concept

of aviation safety. there are 600 reports of an ear passes between aircraft and throne. that tells us what we need to do more to reduce our likelihood of a drone ending up in line of an aircraft carrying hundreds of people on board. it's like letting people drive remote control cars on the interstate. it's not if and when it will happen, it's when. there were some pretty scary encounters. one pilot encountered a drone that came close enough to hit a propeller. the small size made it impossible to see until it was too late to take evasive action. the list continues. in addition to risks in the air, unmanned aircraft pose risk on

the ground. this year and aerial vehicle crashed in seattle injuring one woman when it crashed into her head i look forward to hearing from you. they can be used for search and rescue as well as the inspection of bridges and other critical transport structures. it has great potential to drive growth and create jobs. one estimate is that in ten years it will create 100,000 jobs in ad $82 billion in value to our economy. that's particularly important to states like my home state of washington which is a hub of aviation research and development. we have an opportunity to be proactive. we need to understand today what congress can do to keep our safe

and pass legislation to keep safety in place yet unharmed the industry. fa a expects to issue a delayed rule next year. there's a question i hope we get out today and that is what should congress do and what can faa do to ensure the safety of recreation drone operation. they are cautioning against a broad interpretation of that vision. in fact, in light of all the safety, maybe it's time to

revisit that provision. i look forward to hearing from the panelist today about what congress and the ffa and what the industry can do to keep the integration of drones on track and to ensure safety. thank you. >> thank you rick. i would like to really think rick larson for the close working relationship on this issue that we spent a lot of time with. >> thank you mr. chairman, i appreciate the opportunity and appreciate convening the committee on this important topic today. there is tremendous potential in this industry. first we must establish the rules that establish the integrity and safety of our aviation system today. we've seen instances mentioned by the ranking member earlier of these toy drones in critical

airspace. at this point, we don't really know what happens when you suck a quad copter into a jet engine. at my request the faa is moving forward with an evaluation. we did, after an investigation in 2094 pittsburgh, there was a possible bird strike and if a 4-pound bird hits an aircraft it generates force equal to 14-ton. some of these toys up there in the airway that much. what could that do if ingested? we need to know. what other solutions? clearly there are commercial applications which the faa is moving forward with. the issue can be drawn between toys and commercial application. the toys need to be restricted

in terms of where they can operate. that is, they should be programmed before they can be sold so they can't fly in restricted airspace. they can't fly over 400 feet. anybody who is found to have hacked that should be subject to serious penalties and fines. i think we might also have to look at registration. in my hometown of spring springfield, someone was using a drone as a peeping tom and looking in windows. ultimately a crash. police have no idea who was operating that thing. we have no way to track it. there should be a way to track these things back to irresponsible operators. people who are using them illegally, improperly and endangering both personal privacy and potentially safety of the traveling public.

so, i think there is a lot of work to be done. we will hear today from the service. we had interruption in critical firefighting activities the summer because of idiots flying their toy drone into areas where we wanted to operate aircraft to fight the fire and they had to suspend operation. there needs to be consequences for people who do those sorts of things and i expect this committee to work with the ffa to take proper authority against these people or whether they need new authorities and new regulations so that we can divide between people who are using them responsibility for recreation or those who are using them responsibility commercially, and those who are the minority who are using them irresponsibility. they expect 1 million of these

toy drones to sell for christmas these years. 1 million. how many of those 1 million people have any idea, obviously a lot of them live in restricted airspace. do they know what restricted airspace is and whether or not they can operate the drone there. i don't think they are aware. her has to be a massive educational campaign in place which should be pushed forward and paid for by the manufacturers of these toys who are profiting from their sale. i look forward to your testimony. thank you. >> i want to think our witnesses for being here today. they are michael whitaker with the federal administration aviation. president of the air airline pilots association, richard hansen, director of ever met regulatory affairs for the academy of model aeronautics. doctor michael, prof. of

economics and astronautics at stanford university. deputy administrator whitaker you are recognized for your statement. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to put appear before you to discuss. >> could you pull your microphone closer? >> thank you. >> to discuss the safe operation of unmanned aircraft. the popularity and variety of unmanned aircraft have increased radically in recent years. many commercial uses becoming commonplace today including infrastructure and inspection, evaluating damage caused by natural disasters and agriculture. they play an important role in law enforcement, firefighting and border protection. at the same time the demand for recreational drones has asked

exceeded expectations. it is driven by individuals were completely new to the aviation experience. they are not the traditional model airplane operators, members of clubs who follow safety guidelines and rules. these new entrants are often unaware that they are operating in shared airspace. the proliferation of small and relatively inexpensive drones presents a real challenge. the successfully integrate aircraft into our airspace, we must integrate these new operators into our aviation safety culture. we want people to enjoy the technology, but we want to make sure they do it safely. this requires education, as well as creative and collaborative public outreach. this is why we have joined with our industry partners including several seated at the table today, to launch the know before you fly campaign. this provides them with guidance they need to know to fight safety and raises awareness to wear and where not they can fly.

we also have a no drone campaign. this reminds people to leave their drone at home during public event such as football games and the pope's visit to several major cities. however, we firmly believe that education and enforcement must go hand-in-hand. our preferences for people to voluntarily comply with regulation. we won't hesitate to take strong enforcement action against anyone who flies in unmanned aircraft in an unsafe or illegal manner. when we identify an operator who endangers other aircraft are people in property on the ground, we will work with the local law enforcement to prosecute these activities. today the faa has investigated several hundred incidents of drones operating outside existing operations. earlier this week they proposed a 1.9 civil fine.

they want to send a message to others who might pose a ct risk. operate within the law or we will take action. we recognize the technology associated with this is continuing to evolve. this is also true for the many technologies that could further advance this industry. we want them to be able to have the technology to identify drones near airports. we recognize that our regulatory framework has to keep pace with technology. the act of 2012 laid out a framework. the faa has taken a number of steps towards accomplishing this goal. a key component of these efforts is finalizing regulations for the use of small unmanned aircraft. earlier this year we proposed rule that would allow them.

it meets the need of current commercial demands. we are working to address the issues as we finalize the role. the rulemaking approach we are using seeks to find that balance you referred to that allows manufacturers to innovate while mitigating ct risks. we also recognize the need to be flexible and nimble in how we respond to the emerging drone community. as technology is developed in research, we want to move quickly so we can integrate these capabilities. while we have made some progress in recent months, we still have more work to do. recently the faa elevated the importance of these issues within the agencies by selecting two seasoned executives to oversee our efforts.

both of these gentlemen are seated behind me. the app a has a long history of integrating new users into our airspace and we are equipped to apply this knowledge into the drone usage. i'm proud of them and the approach where we taking and we remain the safest in the world. i'm happy to answer your questions. >> mr. hubbard you are now recognized. >> inc. you mr. chairman, members of the committee. just as a little bit of background, our latest fire season, re- responded to 47000 fires. we have had 9 million acres of affected territory. we mobilized 27000 people with

another 5000 in reserve for initial attack. :

>> >>. >> 150 feet and prior to to every flight restriction. it is not a simple matter. don't presume to know how to address this to all work

together with the faa as a homeland security how to work our way through this. in to get media attention how to incorporate into that as day regular message that if you fly we can to get that word out it is for those who don't understand. so if something were to happen with astrakhan the frequency is not that much

with their risk identification and avoidance of recognized that it is a valuable tool that we can take a vintage of. >> bank for the opportunity to be here today to allow us to perform certain task saugh for conventional aircraft to advance america's competitiveness with the overarching concern is safety in numbers show more encounters are

happening more often. commercial and operational operations of the primary source. here are few examples operating a cargo flight there was a close encounter flying 63 to the left of the aircraft for blades and ex shaped hull as the airline captain intaglioed cahow of the pilot how can report this level of detailed of uas is way too close are even approaching them on the approach to new work lire a blue metallic drone passing 200 feet under the left-wing arriving at seattle-tacoma airport. they are much smaller than other aircraft they have limited contrast and move

much more slowly and as a result they are extremely difficult to see in flight. in this example behalf you can see how the white color of the uas blends in with the sky. imagine trying to detect this while flying at 280 miles an hour. the number of near ms. c beds demonstrate the risk it shows the hazards will only increase. united states must put safety first and the faa is making progress but to file a role was small kraft we

must address all operation including noncommercial in recreational. anyone who plans to fly these for those to the resources such as know before you fly campaign. for those individuals who cannot appreciate the danger within eight minimum age requirements if regulations

restrict them from operating the uas must have technology to be overridden and those who deliberately bypassed technology must be significant number for penalties and enforcement to be properly trained to understand the consequences to be subject to criminal prosecution in one operating the uas should be subject to civil penalty we welcome the recent proposal of operators

for endangering the safety of the airspace around the eric city and chicago with those economic opportunities given the safety highlighted by the recent release to urge congress to direct the faa the way it has regulated. we will hope to develop the regulations to ensure the safety of air transportation >>. >> thank you for the opportunity to participate. to fly small and aircraft

systems for recreational purposes. with the strike set of guidelines. to be recognized by congress as a safe and effective means and most recently to address the personal appearance as a diverse community to a range from bin ages of six and 96. sales will reach near 700,000. but as with any emerging technology there are

considerations such as balancing the safety and industry growth and a one to take us step back to discuss the current landscaper go to give the faa fits too closely analyzed the records of the sightings released this summer. and the headlines suggest based on specific quotations is seen as the near misses certain that doesn't stop the hundreds one is government authorize military drones and citing the commercial operators that may fly with them without authorization and the most recent sightings or incident where the faa and

signed a finding a commercial operator indicates those operations go well beyond to nativity dave could be balloons powerball rockets is only helpful if they take the time to analyze and categorize. we are committed to a partnership for consumers from safety and while the faa needs to do a better job to present the data they may have recommendations to ensure the safety of the airspace. they can increase safety to finalize and implement the rules as they are currently written for everyone who wants to fly to participate in a community-based organization or follow new rules for commercial purposes