repeatedly said are essentially political. the only secrecy -- i don't want to see their draft opinions. that is fair. i don't want to hear deliberations with law clerks. that's fair. everything they do that's public it's just a small thing but it's thing.mall at ace scalia was conference in atlanta last friday. only person who said you can't tape record, video record scaliaents is justice and then it turned out that it theally something happened, supreme court justices, and now no one gets to see it and a a publicficial making speech, ranted about how same abortion are not in the constitution and shouldn't be protected and ranted and got embarrassed at the end and no one saw it. if he's going to come to atlanta and go to the governor's mansion

for a reception and appear in front of 500 people in a room speech, itpublic should be recorded and there's no good reason why we should had to cede to his request that it not be recorded. why did you? >> he wouldn't have come otherwise. on these remarks, it's self-evident that they are thatrent in the sense other than justice kagan, they've come from one cloistered life to another. to the priesthood is through the federal appellate these institutions are bundled up so when they get to the supreme court, they don't range of professions and exposures in public life that other government people would have by the time they got high rung. >> you're saying they're different because they have super thin skin? not because -- >> no, it's because they're -- transparency is

not a technical issue or a legal cultural issue. when transparency is a technical issue, it fails, it almost always fails. if you look at the president's open government agenda, when the president on day one was like we're going to open up all of .gov data and you go to data do and look at the last time the data sets were updated, it was 2009, 2010, and that's because technicaly much a issue and not a cultural one so if an institution isn't ingrained with the culture of technology, those transparency will often fail. >> willie, did you want to respond? lunged. >> i just couldn't see. i think if anyone who agrees eric that the core is just another political body and what they want, they are imposing their will in all of these -- anybody disagree?

>> absolutely, i'm willing to firmly and i you think that because they are not public officials whose job it is the public, right, if a member of congress or the president does something that does not stand the light of public scrutiny meaning it people, they of may be doing their job wrong. that is not true of judges or justices. that is what they are paid to do and for exactly that reason, the that their -- and their opinion might be unpopular, who cares. fact that their private votes, the reasons they give in conference -- do you think their votes in conference should be public? >> no. -- political vote, preliminary vote, it can change. >> their deliberations are not public. oral argument is part of their deliberation, too. it's supposed to be a fleshing out of what is important here. it's public already, though. >> absolutely. that's a separate question. what way, but i think

what we need to focus on is who what jobs dople, they do and which parts of it kind of are -- they're just officials running around giving speeches, selling books, the publicmoney from treasury. fact that they operate a branch of government, they have know --s, they, you they, you know, take gifts and travel, accept travel and so on, that's all fair game but when you're talking about the job that they are doing, as judges and justices, i think it's different and equating them with of congress and the president is a false -- would throw in there that the ways that they're different for openness even in terms of a legal branch and not the political argument. they don't deal with witnesses, they don't deal with juries, raise validcould

issues about those sensitive things. the issues they deal with have national importance. so, yes, they have tenure which other government employees don't have except some so ifl appellate judges anybody should have this openness, it would be them, i would think. they are the only governmental officials in the western world anywhere that are leaving aside the constitutional amendment process, they are final, they automobile and -- unreviewable and have lifetime tenure. they should have the most transparency for those reasons. >> one more veilance to this is are they different from canada? remember, itays always comes back to canada but badermber hearing ruth ginsburg and beverly mclaughlen, justice of the canadian

supreme court talking about this they say canada has cameras in the court. >> nobody cares about canada. that was justice ginsburg's argument. >> the canadian supreme court the time can be overturned by a super majority the legislature. these men and women are final. question thatsk a i think sweeps in some of the things you just talked about and work-around tore all these rules because not just the pin camera. and interesting workaround but when justice going toys nobody's cover my speech, what happens if clarenceweets it or thomas came to u.v.a. a couple were sworn toyou secrecy and every word was inlished the next day politco with mistakes. speak at ato goes to

dinner and someone just takes a theo of him and suddenly media has captured it so it seems to me that more and more the court puts up barriers to transparency, what happens is is less than what theywould afford us if would let us in so i wonder if about, iss has that's there a tipping point -- i'm thinking about the healthcare down what they were handed and for the first couple of minutes, it was wrong and maybe no no obligation to get it right. >> last friday, they got it they did in this case it to his benefit but it could have been to his detriment and ifwould have been better someone could say, let's go to the videotape. >> i have screen shots of the of fox news, msnbc

and cnn on the day of the -- and the fox news said, obamacare said, down, and msnbc supreme court upholds obamacare, and cnn said, breaking news, response.urt issues we'll tell you more in a minute. andnd that apropos demonstrative of our media environment but the interesting thing here is that we're in a more -- i think because of the because ofd technology, we're in a more ploticized environment than we've ever been. look at what happened to shirley thead at the beginning of administration when a 30-second sound bite ends up on the glenn show and you end up fired for words taken out of context a level ofthere's strappable fear and

healthy fear of public scrutiny. the i was working at sunlight foundation, part of my issue with sort of transparency a panacea is not only are you lawyers butmart you're also arming the glenn olbermann's of the world to advance things that may not be the truth. unfortunately, the only real a good transparency and i look at the political, thingst discourse around like citizens united and i wonder how much better our public discourse would be if deliberations were a bit more public. oralerstand that the arguments are public but a bit more public. those public could see arguments, and i wonder what harm this lack of transparency the public because

our discourse has to be what getsinto delivered to us through fox whichmsnbc and cnn, seemingly on that day couldn't make up its mind. questionair to put the back to you, with an analogy. last summer when disclosures were made, the department of had subpoenaed a. p. phone records and seized emails a fox news reporter, holder to work the process with the press on trying to toure out what reform needed happen on media subpoena policy. i would wonder after some of the in reporting the healthcare decision, why doesn't the chief justice wander down the hall at some point or up thers try to wander hall. >> there's no wandering up the hall. >> we need to start talking. was a mon monumental

of iton, the reporting was flubbed and the press needs to work with the court because court's own legitimacy at stake. is that a possible conversation au could have to launch dialogue the same way we've d.o.j.? one with >> it's a great question. i'm not in that conversation. i'm looking at tony, he would sper spearheaded. the court disaggregates the media's problems from the court's problems. story of theous press going to then chief saying rehnquist and please don't dump six 100-page decisions on us and ask us to it all right. can you space out decision days jobs and get it right and the response literally was, why don't you just only them today and then you can cover some more though the news

happens magically at the caprice thehe court so i think that court thinks these are the media's problems and the court tos not feel there's a cost fox getting it wrong or cnn getting it wrong for two minutes. very substantive problem underlying this procedural transparency issue. i know there will be disagreement about this but the substantive problem is the justices really feel historically they are special, they are different, they are not on aical and it's a temple hill. they really feel that way so they're not going to worry about the press. they're not going to worry about all kinds of things that other governmental officials have to worry about. this today butp they're not special. their opinions are not based on law, they're based more on and not politics republican and democrat but experiences, politics and they are far less special than they think and the transparency,more the more that will be clearer. >> to circle back to canada, this differently in

canada and from my understanding, the press corps, someone comes from the court and says this is what the case is about, do you have questions, we can explain it and i think there's quarantine for a couple of hours where figures reads and things out. i'm not sure how i feel about and they do let them know big cases are coming a be prepared but there is different way to do it and i think what we're hearing here is from the political branches, understanding, a love-hate relationship with the press, the press hurts and helps what they're trying to do and with the court it's more just the ideay/hate and that the press could help them in terms of if they worked with terms of public understanding of what it is they're trying to do is what's thatng and it's a shame they can't get more into that mindframe. >> willie? i'm curious. when they let some people into and give them a

peek of the opinions, does it include bloggers? does it include interested members of the public who might a radiotalk about it on show? >> i wish we had that problem. the answer tow that. we have a supreme court that gives out press credentials so it's making those decisions on questionable grounds. reserved seats to members of the institutional press and denying them to people who might blog but everybody gets the decision at the same time, right? >> right. do thingsvocating we exactly like canada because i think the two-hour quarantine is questionable constitutionally. >> scotus blog doesn't have a credential on the supreme court. if any other branch of government would making a decision so unbelievably stupid, be -- scotus blog is where we get our information about the supreme court and denied a seat at the table. that is district crazy.

that's an argument that tom goldstein that owns scotus blog and argues cases, it's a conflict of interest but that's court tohe supreme decide. >> respectfully, isn't that a circular argument? scotus blog has covered the court and made itself essential has to let them in? >> yes, of course. it's the press. yes. sure. i certainly agree with you that they're the press but what it that --ess is what are you focused on? it's not a hostile question? access for scotus blog are you focused on? simon, a supreme court reporter for the "new york times," gets to hear the oral arguments, gets to hear the announcement, gets to see justice alito doing this, he gets to see that firsthand, in person, and he was talking about this last friday in that it's

hard for him because he'd rather be inting but he wants to the room because that's the most important over time. not inblog's amy howe is the room and she doesn't have that benefit of seeing it firsthand with all the emotions attached and at this moment in time, i think scotus blog deserves a seat in the room more than the "new york times" trying to live blog it. >> isn't lyle in the room? >> because he has an independent credential, not as a representative of scotus blog. >> one thing i like to tell people is that when we had to decide when the healthcare cases -- sorry to keep the healthcaren cases, it was traumatizing so over it yet but i'm working through it. one of the things that was super eric isic of what describing is you literally had to make a choice between either chamber, watching this historic handdown, watching john watchs read his opinion,

ginsburg read and then knowing that when you were finally to leave, 19 hours later, because they were right, itt was over, had been tweeted, it had been discussed. been talkinghad about it for an hour and a half. for purposes of my editor, it was over but i chose to be there but the other choice was to be in a room where you could hear it but you couldn't -- if you left, you were stuck so you could hear it but not leave or be in a room where you could neither see nor hear but you could write. it was the three monkeys, hear evil, see no evil. you had to choose which monkey to wanted to be and it seems me that in 2012, was it 2012? up the ante on the monkey. that's not how to cover a major opinion and i think it loops back to bruce's question which is does it affect the

that we didn't -- maybe it doesn't. maybe the court didn't care. you, there's two ways to look at this in terms of transparency, goes back to my opening argument. maybe the court didn't care. maybe the court shouldn't care. releasedideo could be a year later or five years later and it would still have an impact, right? profoundlyill be useful to the legal profession, to the --dents, whatever the 50,000 law students weren't allowed in the have and i think that we to start thinking about transparency as being a bit larger than helping reporters. and it being about reflecting the dignity and majesty of the importance of the law, which is -- i mean, the other part of this argument is

that the law itself is completely locked up from the only thing that's more morally offensive to me than the judges being locked up is that i have to pay as a citizen of the state of georgia, i have to pay a company called lexus nexus $800 to get access to the official code of georgia. is gross that we've is -- that our basicallyr courts are paying westlaw hundreds of accesss of dollars for to its own records. this is preposterous. it's a thing that i think is hampering the legal profession. it's hampering our own history think it's something that does not reflect the values of constitution or the united states. >> that's -- thank you for saying that. that's a useful frame. we've got questions and you're encouraged to write questions

and hand them to a person who's going to collect them so i'm going to ask the first question i've got. since asking nicely appears to ineffective strategy so far, how do you or your organizations propose to make and increase transparency? >> in 1802, i think it was, congress shut down the supreme year for really bad reasons but they did do it. candles off.he i think congress will probably never do this, i think it will be fully constitutional for the congress which funds the supreme court a give the choice, either televise your arguments and decision with noments or do it heat, no air conditioning, no lights and fund yourself. that's a fully constitutional use of congress' power and i think they should do it. anyone have a less radical notion they'd like to float? the issue, the

credentialing of the scotus blog been kicked around for a while and i think it would be interesting to see that taken to level to force the court to examine its own practices , in a transparent way part of thishat effort, that we're engaged in ongoings part of an initiative to focus public and toon on these issues hope that the people in the building who are there to the long-term reputation of the court, we just touched on you few minutes ago, how do get them to focus on the fact need to protect their institutional legitimacy and

essential to that is this transparency initiative. you look back at the richmond cases that were important to the media, at least were in sync court lack then and what seems so discouraging today when you get reform trying to by bringing lawsuits is that we're so out of sync. press and the court are so completely out of sync today and there was something special about that moment in the 1960's when they were working together and they're not today and it does make me think that the kind of strategy that we used in those decades probably will not be the most one today. the litigation strategy, in words it. >> i think the cameras in the courtroom thing is sort of a done deal. years out the, you know, i'll have a small camera in my eye glasses or like that that will

be -- the pen camera is the it, but what's the supreme court going to do? ban people from wearing glasses in the supreme court? yes. >> with cameras in them. undetectable. i think cameras will be within years undetectable. the pen camera is like the tip and that that technology will solve that problem. >> right now if you walk into the d.c. federal courthouse, you you have to -- i think they make an exception for case,s showing up for a but they will make you surrender your phone that might have a camera. 5 years from now, you might surrender your eye glasses. removing my ability to make phone calls is significantly different than removing by see.ty to >> yeah. >> right? stuff, though, personal financial disclosures

like that, you know, who knows how that will happen it can and ever well. >> let me segue to the next question because we have heaps of them. who gets -- this just an informational question. decide on the changes in the policies about transparency? are these decisions taken by the the court vote in is the staff voting? know.don't >> it's really unknown whether if congress passed a law, would applyot that to the court, whether they could make them do that. know.lly don't >> the closest indication we got was when they closed the front they published a dissent breyer saying we should still allow people to walk in the front door of the building. >> congress could do this. if the political will was there, they have the money, they could it.

>> justice scalia, i'm sorry -- it's the chief justice making the decision about audio policy, we know that, right? that the chief was making the decisions about which cases were be audio, same-day audio. i think that was -- i think it was clear. that's my understanding, right. >> it was a case-by-case -- buty we'll release this one the other ones you'll have to wait until friday but when they releasing audio on fridays instead of at the end of the term, i don't know if that was schoolia. when justice douglas got sick stroke, the justices took -- americans don't know -- secret votete and that they decided they would not decide any case where vote wouldglas' matter. the eight justices secretly decided they would not decide justice douglas' vote would matter. the only reason we know that today is because justice white

offended, he wrote a public letter about it. not done that, he would never know. havingew themselves as no obligation to tell the american people that justice couldn'tas so sick, he decide a case and they would decide arbitrarily which cases vote might not matter. >> they goes to the justice scalia recuse, where he refused himself in the death gate oral argument and did america the courtesy of writing explaining whyr he didn't think he had to recuse. the legitimacy of them not just as individuals but the court but be raised in the eyes of everyone to see the thinking.-scenes it's incredibly material when they recuse and why and the idea

know today why justice scalia sometimes chooses is not acuse himself standard, right? >> don't get me started on the healthcare case. we'll be here all day. the -- eric, you're not allowed to answer this one. fundamentallyes afraid we're going to learn they're not as neutral as they are when they're deciding cases? is that the fear? eric? yes, unequivocally, yes. they spend -- i'll do it real fast. they spend so much time and energy in their written opinions toch is their arguments as why they don't have to be transparent, because everything comes out in the written opinion, hitedding the reasons do they do the things they because they'll have text, precedent. >> where do you want to take the cameras that will find the hidden --

i'm just suggesting the answer to the lack of transparency can't be the written opinions is what we the public because they're dishonest written opinions. the real reasons why they decide they do is not in the text, history and precedent. aat's important but it's in whole different set of values is life experiences which why scalia and ginsburg who are good friends and go to the opera disagree on virtually every contested issue of constitutional law that gets to the supreme court. not because they have different skills. that's because they have different values and they would never admit that in public and that's crazy. transparencyt that won't solve that problem. >> i know. >> just because you turn the lights on in a roach filled kill the doesn't roaches. >> i didn't use that phrase. that wasn't my phrase. to be clear. i'm saying, it turns out sunlight isn't a good disinfectant, alcohol is much better.

when you turn the lights on, shine the lights at things, the shadiness just moves to the corners. the roach crawl under -- >> disagree. scalia's a little bit inlish attitude comes out oral arguments, i don't think he would change that and knowing as character, a little bit of bully, with all due respect, is important to the american people. we should know that he is a a bully.t of we should know that justice thomas never speaks. we'll know he's a bully but as you said to begin with, it's final. he's there. lifer. so it's not going to change anything. it's true that general fear is part of this. breyer has said, fear of the unknown, we've done it this let's notlong time so change anything and a sense that institution we need to protect and we don't want to make changes and fear of loss of clearly fortunate

justices alito and others and of anonymity so there's fear that's part of this. have to look at the deeply and popular nature of the other branches and think that ignorance of what what is their approval rating? >> higher. >> that is what is so sad. anyway is then to oral arguments, it is majestic. the questions are so smart. everything is prepared. it is a terrific experience. >> if he would remain the same with cameras, that would be great. but that is what worries them. it wouldn't be exactly the same. everyone else is convinced it would be exactly the same. >> no. no. i'm not sure. that is not true. i don't know what would happen. i'm not smart enough to know. the question is presumption. the presumption should be an openness. only with a good reason should

be secret. be onrden of proof would the justices per you can't say i don't know. that's not a good reason. we don't know. aboutare having a fight today. theypoint is that if videotaped them for history, and release them later, that would have its own value. their fear is that the reporters committee will never give up. they will want it today. not in 10 years or 15 years. >> i agree with you. the video would have tremendous historical value. the question is whether you could hide that. >> prop comedy in the united states has taken off. make -- uld >> there is a hotel to block my

law school that didn't take african-americans in 1965. they could have seen the oral argument, it would have made so much more powerful, the fact that we can't do that is criminal. >> or bush v gore. or the health care case. you can listen to it. you can't see what ted olson's face looked like. >> in my misremembering. a british the print court in the u.k. had the cameras trained not on the justices but on the advocates. the idea is that they want students to be able to learn oral advocacy. --re are some hybrids were bruce doesn't want that. at least you can say there is this education purpose. there is somewhat historic purpose being met. students can learn and watch and still protect judicial privacy.

there is something in the middle. >> even if you're against cameras, and i can't fathom that. how can you be against cameras -- nst millions of americans would've had a citizens moment of unbelievable historical and present-day significance. what possible downside could there be to hearing justice kennedy announced this historic decision? how could you be a downside to that? >> i think one of the arguments would be that the opinion announcements are not the opinions. they are not signed off by all the justices the offering justice right.

i agree with you. i think it should be there. >> here is another question. i'm trying to get through as many as i can. does true transparency require that justices records must be available online? isn't it too limiting to have access to some in a library somewhere? >> the answer that is yes. when i try to figure out where justices papers were, you saw how few of these archival materials are available online. a very small percentage. , you havere available to go to a research institution somewhere. >> that is a money issue. lee epstein has gone and had in with aotocopy digitize digital camera on a tripod and took pictures of the memos that

whoks to the justices produce pate in deciding whether to grant the petition or not. she had someone take pictures of every page. they are on her website somewhere. the vibrant congress did not do that for us. now they are there. it is a great resource. >> 50 years from now the supreme court justices working with papers will be absurd. the people as they work through at a- who would look keyboard as the first method of creating tasks? saying that i'm not so sure about the quote on page seven. ah, that issaid bl going to be lost to history. .hey may save the paper drafts

that is one reason to be glad that they still use paper and messengers and photocopiers. that will be saved. >> on the other side, yes and no. the digital records are much easier to preserve. >> i'm not saying they should preserve them. the fact that they don't, there'll be something left for history. >> nobody's arguing we have a right to the discussions between justices and their law clerks. i don't think anybody is. >> 100 years later, perhaps. >> i think we have time for this last question. a few questions i didn't get to. i apologize. what if any problems have high courts in other countries or state courts, what problem or unintended consequences have other courts had after allowing

cameras in the court? question.e >> the supreme court justice in ohio is a getting a whirlwind tour. i'm proud about this. i have canvassed other judges. nothing that has come out. they can't find any evidence of any harm. >> name a case decided by the supreme court of ohio. [laughter] name one. >> why does that matter? >> the amount of attention. yes they are all broadcast pretty none of attention is not comparable. it is not comparable situation. >> if we were in ohio. >> do you really believe it is going to affect behavior of judges or lawyers. >> have you ever between oral argument in which a state attorney general takes the electorate and argues for the state? it happens today.

>> you're going to be careful what you say in front of the supreme court. i don't know the cameras are going to make a difference. >> it is too late. it is a public hearing. some people get to go when. -- go in. we are done. institution of government would have to televise. >> it follows the exact same pattern, skepticism and concern at the beginning until acceptance, and then enthusiasm. it follows the same archetypal get used to it. iowa had cameras in their court for more than 30 years. their chief justice has come around and said no problem. it has been great. we put them online. people have access to it. as far as this dear of the unbound, what other way can we casted out other than these

similar cases? other than running an experiment, that is our best guess. the evidence is extremely in favor of it. >> it can't be the case that only unimportant things, only ohio. that was the core argument when they decided to pull the tv cameras out of the prop 8. when the district court was ready to roll. when the court issued, that this is too important. people care too much to have cameras. what is that argument? unimportant things to be televise? tha>> that decision had a substantive effect. they would have seen ted olson destroyed any plausible

public-policy argument against same-sex marriage other than religious. that would've had a greater effect. that procedural decision was hugely important. >> it is interesting when judge walker handed down his decision in that case, this is true of the ninth circuit -- the ninth circuit, everybody got an e-mail. here is the decision. everyone opens up. the supreme court, they put their robes on and take the bench, they go up there and read a summary of their opinion because that is an exercise in transparency. it'll have to do that. no other court does that. i understand that you think they ought to televise that. because it would be meaningful and historically significant to hear it. it is important to remember that that is something the supreme court does. lots of other courts don't do it. if congress decided to pull their funding, they might say

they won't do that anymore. >> let's stop us there. it is time. you guys should write articles about this. but, i really want to thank gabe ross and his team for putting this together. i want to thank nyu. willie jay, and all of you for being here. this is a terrifically important issue. this is been one of the best panels on the issue i've ever seen. >> i agree. [applause] >> the supreme court heard a case this week that will decide streams of aereo that television to customers' computers phones and tablets. they will look at whether they violate copyright law and must pay licensing fees to broadcasters. you will have the oral argument tomorrow at 8:00 eastern here on c-span.

>> in our love of our country, we now engage in a strong symbol of american democracy. the peaceful and respectful exchange of power. i now pass this gavel, larger than most gavels here, but the gavel of choice of speaker boehner. i now pass this. [laughter] gavel and thes sacred trust that goes with it to the new speaker. god bless you. [applause] god bless you, congress. god bless america. [applause]

[gavel sounds] >> thank you all. [applause] it is still just me. madam speaker, thank you for your kind words. thank you for your service to this institution. secondly, i want to welcome all of our new members and families on what is a very special day.

all of us who have been here remember vividly the first day that we served here. youink many of us can tell that you will never forget today. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook age. c-span, crated by american cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service for your local cable or satellite provider. click secretary of state john kerry spoke about the situation in the ukraine and the possibility of sanctions against russia. his remarks are 15 minutes.

>> trying to multitask. it has now been a week since the united states and the european union, russia and the ukraine met in geneva. phone callfter a between president clinton and president obama in which both leaders expressed a desire to avoid further escalation in the ukraine. we met in geneva with a clear mission. to improve the security conditions and find clinical solutions to the conflict threatening the sovereignty of the ukraine. geneva, the eu representative and i made clear

that both russia and the ukraine have to demonstrate more than good faith. they needed to take concrete actions in order to meet their commitments. the simple reality is you can't resolve a crisis with only one side willing to do what is necessary to avoid the confrontation. geneva,y since we left even up to today, when russia sent government battalions up to the border, the world has witnessed a tale of two countries. two countries with vastly different understandings of what it means to uphold an international agreement. one week later, it is clear that only one side, one country is keeping its word. for anyone who wants to create gray areas out of black, or find in the fine print crude ways to

justify crude actions, let's get real. is not opengreement to interpretation. it is not vague. it is not subjective. it is not optional. geneva isreed to in as simple as it is specific. we agreed that all sides would refrain from violence, intimidation, and taking evocative actions. we agreed that illegal groups would lay down their arms and that in exchange for amnesty, they would hand over the public buildings and spaces that they occupy. we agreed that temperament these objectives, this is important. to implement this, monitors from the organization for security and cooperation in europe would have unfettered access to parts of ukraine where they were needed most. we agreed that all parties would

work to create that access. osce toide help to the do this. they would report from the ground whether the rights, security, and dignity of the ukrainian citizens were being protected. one, the government of ukraine started making good on its commitments. on day one. from day one, the prime minister has kept his word. the immediate -- he immediately helped evacuate buildings. de-escalation despite the ukraine legitimate fundamental right to defend its own territory and its own people. from day one, the ukrainian government said -- and senior officials to work in keeping with the agreement to send them to work in regions where russia

voiced urgent concerns about the security of russian speakers and ethnic russians. ministere, the prime went on live television and committed his government publicly to all of the people of the ukraine. these are his words. committed to constitutional reform that will strengthen the power of the region. he directly addressed the concerns expressed by the russians. he did so on day one. he also made a personal appeal to russian speaking ukrainians pledging to support. these are his words. a special status to the russian language and the protection of the language. in keeping with his geneva commitments, the prime minister has announced amnesty

legislation once more in his words. for all those who surrender arms, come out of the premises, and will begin with the ukrainian people to build a sovereign and independent ukraine. that is a promise. made by the interim government to the people of the ukraine. by complying with actions in ensuring russia, that all demonstrations are government approved and peaceful. the ukraine is taking tangible steps to move beyond the division of the last months. government defines keeping your word. that is leadership. that upholds both the spirit and the letter of a geneva agreement. judged theas been

government of ukraine are working in good faith. sadly has rightly charged that russia has put its faith and distraction, deception, and destabilization. for seven days, russia has refused to take a single concrete step in the right direction. russian official. not one has publicly gone on television in the ukraine and supportn separatists to the geneva agreement. the support the stand down. to give up their weapons. them toe not called on engage in that activity. the propaganda bullhorn that is the state-sponsored russia today program has been deployed to -- to promote president

putin's fantasy about what is playing out on the ground. they almost spend full time devoted to this effort, to propagandize and distort what is happening or not happening in ukraine. instead, in plain sight, russia continues to fund, coordinate, and fuel a heavily armed separatist movement. meanwhile, russian leaders are making increasingly outrageous claims to justify their actions. that the cia invented the internet in order to control the world or that the forces occupying buildings armed to the teeth wearing brand-new matching uniforms and moving indiscipline the military formations are merely local activists seeking to exercise their legitimate rights. that is absurd. and there is no other word to describe it.

in the 21st century, where every citizen can broadcast messages, images, and video from the palm of their hands, no amount of propaganda is capable of hiding such actions. no amount of propaganda will hide the truth, and the truth is there in social media and across the pages of newspapers and in the video of televisions for all the world to see. no amount of propaganda can withstand that kind of scrutiny today. the world knows that peaceful protesters do not come armed with grenade launchers and automatic weapons, the latest issue from the russian arsenal. hiding the insignias on their ran new matching military uniforms and speaking in dialect that every local knows comes from thousands of miles away. the world knows the russian intelligence operatives arrested

in ukraine did not just take a wrong turn on the highway. in fact we have seen soldiers wearing uniforms i'd done the goal to the ones -- identical to the ones russian will -- russians or in crimea last month. as international observers on the ground of board witness, prior to russia's escalation, there was no violence, there was no rod scale assault on the rights of people in the east. ukraine was largely stable and peaceful, including in the south and in the east. even as we were preparing to meet in geneva, we know the russian intelligence services were involved in organizing local pro-russian militias. during the week leading up to the geneva meetings, separatists seized at least 29 buildings. this is one more example of how russia is stoking the very instability they say they want to quell.

in the weeks since this agreement, we have seen even more violence visited upon ukrainians. right after we left geneva, separatists seized tv and radio stations that broadcast in the ukrainian language. the mayor was kidnapped. the very day after the party committee -- committed to and the violence and intimidation. two days ago, one journalist was kidnapped and another went missing, bringing the total of kidnapped her list into the double digits. that same day. two dead bodies were found, one of them was a city councilmember who had been knocked unconscious and thrown in a river with a weighted pack strap to him. the government of ukraine has reported the arrest of russian intelligence agents. including one responsible for establishing secure communications, allowing russia to coordinate the stabilizing

activities in ukraine. then just this morning, separatist forces tried to override another arms depot. having failed to postpone ukraine posse elections, having failed to halt a legitimate political process, russia has instead chosen and illegitimate coercive armed violence to try to achieve with the barrel of a gun and the force of the mob what could not be achieved any other way. they tried to create enough chaos in the east to delay or delegitimize elections or force ukraine to accept federalism that gives russia control over its domestic and foreign policies or force ukraine to overreact and create an excuse for military intervention. this is a full throated effort

to actively sabotage the democratic process through gross external instrumentation -- intimidation that has brought inside ukraine and is worse even. we have seen this movie before. we sought most recently in crimea, where similar subterfuge and sabotage by russia was followed by a full invasion, and invasion, by the way, for which resident putin recently decorated russian special forces at the kremlin. now russia claims all of this is exaggerated or even orchestrated, that ukrainians can't possibly be calling for a government free of corruption and coercion. russia is actually mystified to see ukraine's neighbors and like-minded free people all over the world united with ukrainians who want to build a better life and choose their leaders for themselves, by themselves.

nobody should doubt russia's handedness. as the nato supreme allied commander in europe wrote this week, what is happening in eastern ukraine is a military operation that is well planned and organized. we assess is being carried out at the direction of russia. our intelligence community tells me that russia's intelligence and military intelligence services and special operators are playing an active role in destabilizing eastern ukraine with personnel. weapons. money, operational landing and coordination. the ukrainians have intercepted and publicized command and control conversations from known russian agents with their

separatist clients in ukraine. some of the individual special operations personnel who are of on russians behalf in chechnya, georgia and crimea have been photographed in other places. some are even bragging about it by themselves on their russian social media sites. we have seen weapons and gear on the separatist that matches those worn and used by russian special forces. we've seen separatists endeared with those worn by russian special forces. let me be clear. if russia continues in this direction, it will not just be a grave mistake, it will be an expensive mistake. already the international response to the choices made by russia's leaders is taking its toll on russia's economy. the prime minister has alluded to the cost russia is already paying. even president putin has acknowledged it. as investors' confidence dwindles, some $70 billion in capital has fled the russian

financial system in the first quarter of 2014. more than all of last year. growth estimates for 2014 have been revised downward by two to three percentage points. and this follows a year in which g.d.p. growth was already the lowest since 2009. meanwhile, the russian central bank has had to spend more than $20 billion to defend the ruble, eroding russia's buffers against external shocks. make no mistake that what i've just described is really just a snapshot and it's also, regrettably, a preview of how the free world will respond if russia continues to escalate what they had promised to de-escalate. seven days, two opposite responses, and one truth that cannot be ignored. the world will remain united for ukraine.

so i will say it again. the window to change course is closing. president putin and russia face a choice. if russia chooses the path of de-escalation, the international community, all of us, will welcome it. if russia does not, the world will make sure that the cost for russia will only grow. and as president obama reiterated earlier today, we are ready to act. >> quick questions. >> a couple of live events to tell you about. a discussion on the implementation of the affordable care act and health care law by states. that is tomorrow from the international -- american enterprise institute. last summer the city of detroit filed the largest chapter nine bankruptcy in u.s. history.

the city's emergency manager will deliver remarks to the american bankruptcy institute. that is a 1:00 eastern on c-span. >> according to the national council for behavioral health, 30% of active-duty and reserve military personnel have mental health conditions requiring treatment from launching an initiative that aims to respond to that. >> thank you for being with us. i'm thrilled to have so many left served our country or whose spouses or sisters or brothers, or children have served our

country. i am linda rosenberg. i am president ceo of the national council for behavioral health read as a was coming and i was thinking about the fact that we are in a press club. how appropriate that is given that we will be talking about the military and about veterans, the very people that rejected our first amendment. the right to speak -- that have protected our first amendment. i am grateful we are here and in this pace. i have several tasks this morning. one is to briefly play but the national council's involvement in mental health first aid, to talk a little bit about why for veterans, to knowledge our congressional champions. some of you are policy people and you know how important is champions are rare -- are to you and helping people in their communities. and lastly to introduce our speakers and to facilitate your

questions and, hopefully, our answers to your questions. the national council is an association of 2200 not-for-profit organizations. our members are in every state in communities across the country copper and they serve men and women with mental health and substance use disorders. they serve about 8 million people a year, so their reach is wide and deep. over the years, i have been involved with people with mental health, particularly with people with serious mental health, for well over 30 years. during those years, but when i ran programs or was in a policymaking position, i was involved with and sometimes even funded anti-stigma campaigns. there is something that we have seen and done a lot of and there are many still going on, and they're all very well intended. but i always wondered, they felt

elusive to me. it was about what really is the call to action? in 2008 when i was at the national council, i was talking to a colleague who is based in new zealand. and he told me about a program that have begun at the university of melbourne in australia called mental health first aid. and he not only taught people about mental illnesses and addictions, but it helps them help the people they knew and loved. whether it was family members or friends and colleagues. and having had this long anti-stigma history, i thought to myself, now, that sounds fabulous. first of all, it is first aid and everybody knows first aid. it is like cpr. we wanted to be part of health care and part of the world, and this was another way to get

there. at that time, mental health first aid was in a few countries and it was started by two people, a nurse in melbourne who herself suffered with depression and her husband -- her name is betty. her husband tony, who i understand spoke this week. he was at john hopkins talking about mental health first aid. he is a mental health services researcher. they were walking on the beach and said, why don't we have first aid for the mind? they actually went to work at the university to create the curriculum. working with experts from across the world. so we and our partners, the departments of mental health in missouri and maryland, went ahead and said, we are going to bring this to the usa and we did so in 2008. it is now in 20 countries.

we have a youth version in the u.s.. i the summer, we expect 250,000 people to have been trained in mental health first aid. it has just had an enormously welcoming reception in this country. it is an evidence-based program. it has inrep. withrow her long and arduous procedure to get that. -- went through a long and arduous procedure to get that. research began in australia and it is going on in this country and other countries. it teaches people how to reach out and help someone in crisis and make sure that they get the care they need. we trained instructors who come from local communities. those instructors know their committees. in addition to teaching people about how to feel comfortable working and talking and having

the difficult conversation, they can also tell people and help people get connected to the resources in their community. and for veterans, it could be a v.a. or local physician or it could be anyplace there comfortable. so the fact this then becomes locally driven is very important. let me now just for a second talk a little bit about why we thought about mental health first aid for the military. it was the early 1980's and i was running a mental health center in peekskill, new york. we had a whole bunch of programs we ran in peekskill. it is very close to the montrose v.a. and the montrose v.a. had people in their psychiatric unit who had spent years there.

they became disconnected from their families and their own communities and wound up in what are called board and care homes in peekskill. a place where you live and gives you meals, but for much of the day, did not have much to do. so we ran a drop in center and they began coming to our drop-in center. we went camping and we even went to olympic city with all the quarters these to give you on the bus -- atlantic city with all the quarters these to give you on the bus. we worked on a dude ranch in the local immunity. i got to know -- these were men. i got to know many of these men quite well. what a began to realize is, most of them had served in vietnam and we even had a few who had served in korea. and how when they came home, they began this journey of disconnection from their families and their communities.

i just knew we could do better. i had had personal experience. my dad served in the pacific in world war ii. like others of his generation, he never talked about that. never. not a word. nor did any of my uncles that had served or my friends parents. but it had taken a toll on him emotionally and physically. i did not understand that until years later. now, obviously, we know better, but we also know the statistics, right? we know 30% of active duty and reserve military, 3/4 of a million people, men and women, deployed in iraq and afghanistan, have a mental health condition. and we know the military has made great strides. i think the v.a. is an amazing organization that has raised the bar on understanding mental illnesses as well as treating them. but we still have work left to do. less than 50% of returning veterans in need of treatment get it. and the results of that is really a national tragedy and some of you in the audience are

actually from suicide prevention organization. and we know now almost 22 veterans a day commit suicide. so we are here to launch mental health for veterans because we really are our brothers and sisters keepers. each of us can help. each of us can find something we can do to help someone we know who served. if you have been trained in mental health first aid, you have the skills and confidence to do just that -- to help. we have had the support of some extraordinary policymakers on the hill. senators mark agates, kelly ayotte, and represented of lynn jenkins and ron bobber. really representatives and senators from across the country. their advocacy secured $15

million that is going to state and local school districts to train school personnel and mental health first aid for you. we are very grateful to them, what they have done will live on and now we need their help in terms of moving mental health first aid for the military. and we will do that. the other thing that has happened is eight state and eight more are considering it, are allocating money from state budgets. they are supporting local instructors and local communities. so this is an amazing program that people understand, they can feel, they can touch, and they can support. i am very fortunate today to be with some great speakers. before we do that, i want to introduce and acknowledge jeannie campbell, the executive vice president of the national council. she is way in the back. she served for 22 years in the navy, is another reason why this is so important to the national council. and in addition to everything

else she does at the national council, she leads all of our military initiatives. so thank you. with us today, and i'm going to introduce all of them then they will speak and then i will help moderate what we hope will be a robust q&a period. we have patrick kennedy, a tireless champion for those living with addiction and mental illness. we would not have parity and equality with physical health is a were not for him. he continues to do great things in so many ways, including in the cofounder of one mind. tom tarantino, is the chief policy director for the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. he is also a former army captain. he served in iraq in both the calgary and mortar platoon leader and was awarded the combat action badge and the

bronze star. theresa buchanan is the director of youth initiatives for the national military family association. she manages operation purple, which supports ella terry families expressing the challenges of reunion and reach integration. we also have two very exceptional mental health first aid trainers. they trained instructors and local communities. sharon thomas parks served three years active-duty in the marine corps before cofounding a suicide and crisis center. she is a licensed professional counselor and has been a national mental health first aid trainer since we began in 2008. liz reagan has also been a trainer since 2008. she has worked with a wide variety of groups as a facilitator and a trainer and she is the wife of a veteran. her husband served in the u.s. air force and southeast asia. and we have a student of mental

health first aid, the lovely tosha barnes. she is from taxes, a i've gotten to know in this role and come to really admire and love. and she is a decorated military veteran, discharged just in january after eight years of service. formally a member of the 82nd airborne, she is currently the volunteer coordinator for the military veterans here network. we are committed to doing more to support our veterans. and mental health first aid is just one piece of a very important puzzle. with that, let me turn the podium over to patrick kennedy. >> thank you very much, linda rosenberg, and thank you, daschle council, for spearheading mental health first aid and today for spearheading it for none other than our nation's heroes, our returning

veterans from iraq and afghanistan and for all veterans and for their families. i had the honor of being a cosponsor of the mental health parity and addiction equity act, which simply said the brain was part of the body. that was the law. the brain is part of the body. it is shocking that that law did not even doesn't -- signed into law until 2008, which means it was historic in this country that insurance companies in addition to the federal government would not recognize the brain is part of the body, would not reimburse for brain illnesses the same way they would reimburse for any other organ in the body. so we have come a long way in just a few years. we have this law in the books. and now in this next two months,

in july, that law will be in effect for all insurance companies in this country. so they will have to treat equally all illnesses of the brain as they would any other organ in the body. that is why the timing of mental health first aid is so appropriate to really support now more than ever, because with this treatment now being reimbursed -- of course, you have to do a lot of work to make sure this comes to fruition, no doubt. but with the system in place, we first need to make sure the people who need treatment get that treatment. and as someone who is a consumer of mental health services, who suffered a long time with a mental illness, there is this phrase -- the elephant in the room. when you're in the midst of suffering from a mental illness, everybody knows it that you, and no one will tell you that you need help. i know i probably would have ended up getting help earlier or staying in recovery earlier had i had the support of people who

would have known that by trying to give me help, they were not interfering in my personal life. they were trying to save my life will stop so we need a change of our attitudes and our mindset when we see someone suffering from a mental illness or addiction. we need to not look at it as a character issue, but the chemistry issue. their brain is ill, but he can get better with treatment. in the first step toward treatment is identifying they need the help and referring them to the appropriate resources that can get them that help. under the parity law, will be reimbursed for that help. so why veterans? we understand brain injury and posttraumatic stress, or the signature wounds of this war in

iraq and afghanistan. you know what we call them? invisible. it is shocking that we still call these wounds invisible when in fact the trauma of serving in a combat zone changes the brain's chemistry because of the stress associated. we know if you have a traumatic brain injury, you suffer a physical wound of war, and yet because we cannot see it on the outside, the government still does not award purple hearts for the signature wound of this war. shocking. shocking. i think that will someday come to change if we begin to do what we need to do to be there for our veterans. let me make this final analogy. our heroes, if they were trapped behind enemy lines by al qaeda or the taliban, would have our first responders, our special

forces go in there tomorrow to kick down the doors and bring them home. why don't we apply that same idea to our returning veterans who are held hostage, who are literally prisoners of their war injuries and their behind the enemy lines up shane and stigma that are associated with having a brain illness? what i see with these mental health first aid, veterans and to help first aid, first responders, is our 911 force. here at home. it has what they are doing is just what our special forces do. they are kicking down the doors of these returning veterans who are alone, isolated, and no one is reaching out to help them but the people who are not trained to know how to help them and to bring them home, not only in

body, but to bring them home in mind as well. thank you for letting me be here. now have the honor of turning the microphone over to one of those heroes who not only served our country in uniform, but is also serving his fellows in uniform and his fellow veterans through his advocacy at the iraq afghan war veterans of america, one of the premier veteran service organizations which is changing the landscape and how our government and how our country receives its returning heroes. tom tarantino. >> thank you. god, i don't think i really deserved all that. but i appreciate it. i want to thank the national council for having us all here and talking about this. and the chief policy officer for iraq and afghanistan veterans of america.

we are the first and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization fighting for this generation of lawyers. i myself, being a soldier, i was thinking last night about first eight. i was thinking about all of the training of had my life. i am not a medical professional. my job was not to kill the people, it was to break things and hurt people. i'm thinking about everything i have learned through the military. everything i learned in high school. you star first aid training in high school. they teach you cpr and how to identify heatstroke and all the stuff you learn in health class. in the military, they teach you skills like how to run an i.v. line, how to treat someone for shock. they do this because by giving first aid for these immediate injuries, it saves lives. it saves lives.

and yet the one thing we don't learn how to treat and we don't learn how to identify are the mental health injuries. is it because these injuries -- as patrick said, aren't invisible, but they are not readily apparent. it is absolutely critical across america that we learn to treat these wounds as they are, as wounds. i talk to soldiers and they say, i don't want to get treatment, i can deal with it. i say, look, man, if you had a hole in your chest and got shot, you would not walk around with it will stop a say, absolutely not. why would i do that? it's the same thing. if you have an injury, walking around that injury is dangerous. it is dangerous to you because you are basically letting your wounds faster. we are on the front lines of the fight to combat suicide. 22 veterans a day are dying by suicide.

suicide isn't the problem. it is the end result of a series of problems, of a series of failures that could have been alleviated at the beginning if someone had known, just like we know how to run an i.v. or check for heatstroke, how to identify mental health injuries from the start. this is critical. this type of training should be everywhere because the only way we're going to get to a point where we can adequately treat mental health women's early on is if we break this down across the american culture. that is one of the things that is so impressive about this mental health first aid program is that it isn't just about veterans. there are not that many vets out there. there are 2.5 million iraq and afghanistan veterans, about 29 across the country. if we only speaking to the

veteran community, we will never fix the problem. if we give everyone armed with the same knowledge as we do about basic first aid in high school and do that for mental health, we will be at a point in this country where nobody has to live with the mental health injury in the shadows. they can get treatment. the one thing we do know is that getting treatment is the most effective way to prevent the tragic consequences of mental health injuries later on. i am incredibly appreciative that this program is out there and incredibly appreciative this is starting to move across the country. i hope we get to a place and i can come back in a few years and talk about how we have all been armed with this basic knowledge. we have these tools in our toolkit, and we can all identify these issues early on. not just to help our bodies, but

also to help ourselves. thank you very much. following the is theresa buchanan. she works with operation purple, one of our best friends and partners in the veteran community and an absolute tireless advocate for quite often the people who are forgotten and are committed, the military families. i thank her for her work. theresa buchanan. [applause] >> tom, thank you for those kind words. i'm delighted to be up to join you, patrick. thank you, linda, and the rest of you, to be on this panel today. as tom said, the families are critically important in this journey. we certainly, since 1969, had been an organization that is advocated for the military family because long before we recognized that our senior leadership were not willing to accept the fact that there were

social services and what it would need to provide any type of support to the family, there were those women and years ago sitting around a kitchen table who formed this organization, who went out there to lobby for those friends who were left destitute after the service member died because the pension at that time went with the death of the retiree. we were part and parcel part of that very first success of the survivor benefit plan that today is commonplace throughout the military services. mental health first aid for veterans. i think what we are hearing today from everyone who up here will continue to hear, really should resonate with us all that the mental health needs and the call for nonthreatening opportunities for veterans, and most important, their families

and those in their community, to have access to resources that increase knowledge of the issue and provide responsive strategies remains both a significant concern and an american societal responsibility. depression. talking about substance abuse, addiction. the self-isolation, whether we like the fact they're called invisible wounds and is hoping sin because of those who are walking around and don't get the same respect and response from our american public as those who do have the physical wounds because they're each suffering entering as badges of honor in her own special way, that where does go to suicide. as tom said, we have embraced that and we are very concerned about 22 veterans a day are committing suicide. and that is the end result of a lesion of other types of things that have gone to for -- legion of other types of things that have gone on before. what about the undocumented

family members committing suicide? that is happening, too. those numbers are not being counted. we are looking for the possibly some legislation being submitted that is going to start to have the requirement to start counting these numbers, but we have untold numbers that are out there. that is one of the things that happens. when these families moved out into the communities, they are lost from the roles of really oversight unless they have reached out for connection with the v.a. 1% have served to protect our freedoms. the rest of us have the responsibility to honor and ensure the healthiest tomorrow for their lives and future productivity. what i like about the mental health first aid for veterans and servicemembers and their

families is it stands as a key component and behavioral health support. lagee, the action plan, and we will be talking further about this, but it is really concrete and simple. where you are assessing for suicide or harm, listening nonjudgmentally, giving reassurance and information, encourage appropriate professional help, encourage self-help and other support strategies. adjustments are taught how to support someone developing signs in an emotional crisis or mental illness. since 2004 when the national since 2004 when the association launched the purple program, dealing withtially military children of the .eployed we later recognize the importance of the family model the work with family struggling with reunions. they come back together after these multiple deployments and

have moved into similar type programs that we do at environmental education centers. we want to marry up the healing , as has beenso broken before, treating the brain, giving the brain an opportunity to come to the focus on with the program. exercises.ptive the point of my mentioning this thee learn early on is that psychological welfare was paramount. a advocacy.sion is we have been advocating for mental health support because we

recognize that there is a dearth of that available. we wanted to be accessible. if we can get access to these services that they are not equally available, there will not be any progress made here. we have also recognize the importance of trained mental health support and we provide scholarships so that we can have military spouses get credentialed so they in turn can join the cadre of dedicated mental health professionals. we also have an app, which serves as a portal to the assistance program that can also provide on your smartphone access and perhaps access to mental health first aid for veterans. one of my big take away that i

hope you'll take away is families and communities have all different types of definitions. we don't look at what was perhaps the traditional because they have all become traditional families. we have moms and dads caring for service members who are connected to the military. we have opened up to where we have partners -- the world has changed. it is important for us to recognize to be inclusive with families. it is also important to realize we're talking about the importance of the families being a support network because the veteran with mental illness or addiction does not stand alone in his or her treatment. the family support is key to the successful support in treatment. we must not forget that. most importantly, we must continue to reduce the stigma associated with seeking treatment. i think we're all going to vow together to work together to

truly underscore that seeking treatment is a strength, a sign of strength and not a sign of weakness. mental health first aid for veterans is a major step in the right direction to make that happen. thank you. >> thank you, linda. i think the national council for this event. i feel honored to be here today. i am sharon thomas parks, a veteran of the united states marine corps. since leaving the marine corps, i have had a long and satisfying career in behavioral health. i have been a trainer for the past six years. i have trained hundreds of people from public safety officers, many of whom are veterans, to university faculty and staff and students, and health care professionals. the most frequent comment i hear from mental health first aid

participants is, i wish i had this training 10 years ago. so while i was in the marine corps, i was part of a very cohesive unit. we drilled until practice became second nature. mental health first eight has a similar approach to repetition -- first eight has a similar approach to repetition. it was kind of a natural fit for me to get involved in mental health first aid. because it provides support for the person who's in the training winning in battle is not about doing it on your own. it is about being part of a cohesive unit and never leaving your buddies behind. mental health first aid is sort of the same idea, that it is not about leaving someone in distress out there alone by themselves in the world. when i left -- when i was discharged from the marine

corps, i felt alone, isolated, and disconnected. those are three factors that put all of us, particularly veterans, at risk for developing a mental health problem. my transition home might've been a little easier if my family was trained in mental health first aid. fortunately, i just created the support that i needed. i was able to cofound a suicide and crisis intervention center. now, not everybody can do that. and we really should not expect anybody to have to do that. my military training and

experience gave me confidence. and i got involved in mental health first aid because it gives people that same kind of confidence. not to run away in fear from the mental-health problem. it gives people confidence to engage a person who is expressing mental health challenge and to ask, are you ok? do you need help? so winning the battle against mental illness can't be done alone. it is not done alone. if we don't offer help to a veteran in distress, we are leaving a warrior behind. mental health first aid gives people an action plan like teresa mentioned. it is an action plan and it

provides the training to help make that action plan become second nature. this is an extraordinaire program that will benefit veterans, their families, and their community. i am very proud to be a part of mental health first aid. thank you. >> it's a little tight back here. >> hi there, i am liz rearden. i've been a trainer for the past five years. i'm the very proud spouse of an air force veteran. my husband dave served from 1971 to 1975 in southeast asia. you talk about the invisible wounds of war. i know what it is like firsthand have someone who you live -- really loved to have to go through that. train number of years, i did not

know what to do. i figured, it is vietnam, long time ago, time will heal those well, it doesn't. i did not know to say. finally, we got ourselves down to the veterans administration hospital in white river junction vermont where they have a primary mental health clinic. we finally got down there. the very first thing they said to us when we walked in the door was, thank you for your service. and that opened a door for us because also, they were so nonjudgmental. my husband was able to tell his story. they were not surprised. i said, of course, why wouldn't you go through this? but we are concerned about you. those words open the door for recovery for him and the other guys or the program with him. and now, a number of years later, he is healthy and strong, and healthy and strong because

someone new the words to say to open the door to help him get treatment. he is also here because we talk about the buddies, the band of brothers in his program. i saw that platoon working in or helping each other out. the most important reason why he is here healthy and strong is because of him. he is here because of his courage, his sacrifice, and his persistence in getting treatment. i am really, really proud of him. that "we are concerned about you" is what opened the door for us. those are the words we learned to say in mental health first aid. often, those of us who are family members, do not have the right words. with mental health first eight, a gives you something to say, way open that door. the other wonderful thing about this program is, it was designed by veterans, families, and those who are involved in love them. it helps us because the people who have been there are helping us as we go forward.

those words changed my life and my husband's life and you can change other people's lives as well. i have, and my sisters and cousins and brothers generations, we have a bunch of young people coming in. young people who have served were coming out, young people going in. they are nephews and cousins and sons and daughters. i have members of my family and members of people in my committee saying, what do i do? what can i say? mental health first aid can help us know what to say. everybody pretty much has a veteran in their lives. somebody you know, somebody who might be family, it could actually be you. what is so wonderful about

mental health first aid, gives us that resource and the ability to connect. i am very proud of being part of this. i expect this is going to make a huge difference and other people's lives and i'm looking forward to that. thank you very much. >> thank you, liz. i would also like to say thank you to my fellow brothers and sisters in arms, thank you for the family and the friends that i continue to network with in this journey. my name is tasha barnes. i am here with several hats on. i'm a veteran. i served with the 82nd airborne. after leaving the service, i became a peer specialist and a volunteer court nader for the veteran peer network and the great state of texas. i have been a student of mental health first aid and i firmly believe in that this program, like mental health first aid for

veterans, will change our country for the better. i am listed as a soldier nine years ago and i was part of an extraordinary units that supported one another through everything. they were my family. when my service ended, i just wanted to get home safely. i assumed everything else would fall right into place once i adjusted and became a civilian again. but after returning home, after four months of searching for a job and not finding one, i was in despair. here i was, a college student and a veteran, but could not get a job. i was struggling emotionally. i found it hard to reconnect with the community i had

previously been a part of. i was depressed and i was suffering from anxiety. i had trouble sleeping. and when i would hear loud noises and alarms go off in the middle of the night, i instantly will look for my rifle -- thinking i was back in afghanistan under mortar fire. as many of us know i'm a veterans can be reluctant to ask for help. we believe it is up to us to solve our own problems and that asking for help is a sign of weakness. now i know it is not weakness, it is a sign of strength. but i was afraid to admit i could not turn it around on my own. and i was very, very lucky to

have family and friends who supported me through that time, including a colleague who literally grabbed me by the hand and led me to community support program. that one action change my life. she did not have all the answers, but she knew i needed help. and she knew where i could find it. she connected me with resources that help me -- pull me out of that dark come a dark place. that is what mental health first aid is all about. it is recognizing the signs of depression -- anxiety, addiction and mental illness -- and connecting people with help. in the texas panhandle, i cover 30 counties. in many of our communities are rural and secluded and too many people are uninformed about what

mental illness looks like or even where to access help. but mental health first aid gives us the tool to educate everyday citizens, both veterans and civilians, and how to recognize the signs of someone in need. veterans and their families have specific needs, and this program being launched today has been tailored for those needs. every one of us in here is familiar with regular first aid. i absolutely believe everyone should be trained in mental health first aid as well. it is especially valuable for our community leaders, our law enforcement, our educators to be able to not only recognize mental illness and substance abuse, but direct you to those resources. but those of us who work with veterans and members of the military know that this kind of education can make a huge, real

difference in the lives of veterans and their families as they manage this transition home. in my nine years of working with veterans and servicemembers, everyone who has taken the mental health first aid emerges believing a veterans program will have the power to change and even save lives. i am truly honored to be here today to see this become a reality. thank you once again for everybody here. >> thank you. >> thank you for your service. [applause]

>> ok, now it is your turn. questions. >> thank you all for your service and for this terrific program. i am a licensed independent clinical social worker who is done outpatient mental health in the clinic in virginia, which is affiliated with belfour. my question i think will direct to tom tarantino and theresa buchanan. the rest of you can chime in. when i work with these families, this a very different population. the continued family relocation and having to move around to different cities and towns was an issue. however, when i worked with families from pentagon, one of the concerns that was raised by the officer and his family,

well, my son or daughter may want to join the military, what about confidentiality? my charting was severed from the military. what are going to be the repercussions? what about confidentiality? i think the military struggling with, it's ok to get treatment, but that was a major concern that came out of this, even from the spouses, the confidentiality. >> your question is about confidentiality of records? >> the program is great, but when you get on the bases and the charting -- thank you. >> thank you for your question. you raise what has been problematic for years. i worked and family advocacy in the 1990's and recognized in terms of just that fear because

it also can compromise their clearances and if you're in an installation, who is going to find out. one of the programs that has evolved from that and is made a significant difference, i think, is the military family life consultant program. the department of defense did instituted a few years ago during the wars. one of the advantages of all licensed clinicians, mental health professionals, is they don't document think counters. they're not -- they are really making some terminus inroads with helping to mitigate the stigma associated. this is going to be a time-honored process that has occurred. there are resources out there having people, the credibility factor, talking to someone else saying, i used this person and

it is going to be fine. there is that concern. we are concerned. i know you're concerned because of the impact with the troop drawdown. no one wants a mark on their record that is going to set them apart or make them perhaps more vulnerable. i think if we continue to work -- that program is there. there is huge support for it. it seems to have great acceptability with the families because they're placing people in schools, placing people in communities, and also having them at programs so they can then to some of the linkage. for the veteran, it will not be as much of an issue. but getting over the hurdles. >> tom? >> i will be brief. ultimately, and we're still a long way from this, but we need to get to a place we don't worry that much about confidentiality.

you don't telik respective employer you broke your arm three years ago -- you don't tell a prospective employer you broke your arm three years ago. we need to educate everyone and that will help us get there. >> one of the branches of military that has more mental health provided in any other branch of special forces. why would these folks who jump out of planes from a swim underwater for two miles without breathing, come out on the beach and speak five languages, take out osama bin laden and home before dinner time ridding to their kids, why would they need until health? you know what the commanders answer to me was? we don't look at mental health as a sign of weakness, we look at it as an opportunity for

strength. we call it in the military a force multiplier. i'm like, i hope we can take that same idea and bring it to the rest of the country because the military has figured out that they need people at their optimal strength -- physically and mentally. so by getting help, you improve your optimal strength. and don't we as americans onto be at our best? why would we reject something that would make a stronger? i think as tom said so eloquently, we have to take this question head on because it is framed adequately for most of america's public right now, but it is an attitude, hopefully, that will change as some said because we look at this in a totally different way. the mental health is for people who want to be stronger. >> thank you.

another question, please. >> i am mike turner. we spend about 18 months looking at a dozen of the best programs in the country and try to discern what are the features that have the most impacted at the community level. we absolutely felt the programs that involved peers as the first point of contact were incredibly successful. rather than a question, just an urgent request, trying to mental health first aid in the hands of the peers. it automatically incorporates many mental health -- >> one of the things we have done, mike, in every other group we have worked with, the instructors are from that group. so probably between 10% and 20% of the instructors today have lived experience with either mental illness or substance use problems, and the same thing as we launch this. we're looking for people like t ousha to become instructors and work with veterans groups. great point.

another question, please. the other thing is, who have been very good about it, continue to identify where you are from, who you are and where you're from. >> i am patricia with the military times newspapers. you mentioned the amount, the cost of the youth program. was wondering what the estimated cost of this program is and where the funding sources are? >> we estimate that if there were no sources of support, so you had to rent space, yet a pay for an instructor's time, you had to buy the materials, serve coffee and maybe lunch, which it is an eight hour program -- it will cost about $150 to be

trained. in all cases, it has been supported through either philanthropy our government funds. so there are some corporations that are using it to train managers, human resource managers. they in fact are expending their own dollars on the space and the time of the trainers and all of that. but for everybody else, foundations across the country have stepped up. as i mentioned earlier, eight states and i think eight more have allocated money from their state legislative budgets and of course, the congress right here in d.c., bipartisan, appropriated $15 million that will go to ogle school districts and state school districts -- local school districts and state school districts. >> if i can answer that in a different way. do we ask, to cost to put a defibrillator in an airport?

do we ask a much it costs to do cancer screening? we would not think of asking that question. and no one would think we did not have the money to do it. with the lives we would save. the thought that we would have to think about the dollars, when is someone else pointed out here, the suicide rate amongst our returning heroes is indictment on us as a nation. indictment on us as a nation. and we can do better. the fact we don't even keep track of how many of our returning heroes and up in county and local and state jails because there is no counting of how we return our veterans home, and we welcome them home with open arms or put them in a jail cell? tragically too often, we are locking up the very people who fought for our freedom because they're not getting the proper care and treatment for the "invisible wounds" of war. it is scandalous.

i think this press conference is so vital because it starts to turn the tide on how we view these "invisible wounds" and we start treating them with a visible response rather than the invisible response that too often we have treated these wounds of war, by the way, we turn our back on the veterans who are suffering from posttraumatic stress and brain injury instead of turning toward the challenge their facing insane, how can we help you dash facing and saying, how can we help you after all you have done for us as a nation? i think our veterans for their service and we owe it to them to do a better job than we have done so far and welcoming them home. >> well said. ok, we have hit the noon mark. well done. i hope those of you who continue

to have questions will feel free to come up and ask them. and if you need more information, we are here. you can go to the mental health first aid website and contact the national council, any concern the contact any of us. thank you to our fabulous panelists. we are very grateful to you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] on efforts ton reduce poverty in u.s. cities. our guest is robert woodson am the center for neighborhood enterprise. then the bipartisan policy center does not about a new initiative aimed at helping retirement savings planning. next month as the 60th anniversary of brown v board of education. we will be joined by nicole an article on what you cause the resegregation of some schools. you can join the conversation on phone, facebook, and what her.

everyngton journal," live morning at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. isduring this month, c-span pleased to present the winners of our studentcam video documentary high school. it encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. humans were asked to place their documentary on the question what is the most important issue congress should consider in 2014? first prize winners -- are sophomores from montgomery blair high school in silver spring maryland. they want congress to take action against water pollution in our nation's waterways. ♪ >> water. it makes up 75% of our bodies. ay, and humanity would perish within a week. water is the most vital substance to a h b