care for our women's veterans -- women veterans. he helped reduce veteran homelessness and helped more than one million veterans, servicemembers, and their families pursue their education under the post 9/11 g.i. bill. his commitment to veterans is unquestioned. the service to our country is exemplary. i am grateful for his service, as are many veterans across the country. he has worked hard to investigate and identify the .roblems with access to care but as he told me this morning, .he v.a. needs new leadership he does not want to be at the -- a distraction because his priority is to get our veterans the care they need. that was his judgment on behalf of his fellow veterans, and i

agree. we don't have time for distractions. we need to fix the problem. for now, the leader that will help move us forward is sloan gibson, who will take on the reins of acting secretary. -- deputydebra gary secretary just three months ago, but he has devoted his life to serving our veterans. his grandfather fought on the front lines of world war i. his father was a tailgunner in world war ii. sloane served in the infantry after graduating from west point. he has 20 years of private sector and nonprofit experience that he brings to bear on our ongoing work to build a 21st-century v.a. and i am glad he is willing to take on this task. i met with him and made it clear

that reforms should not wait. they need to proceed immediately. i have asked rob neighbors to stay temporarily to help sloan and the department through this transition and complete his own review of the vha. we will look diligently for a new permanent secretary and we hope to confirm that successor and feel that post as soon as possible. we are going to do right by our veterans across the board. as long as it takes. we will not stop working to make sure they get the care and benefits they have earned and deserve. i said we would not tolerate misconduct and we will not. we have to do better and we will. too many veterans receiving care who deserve all of our best efforts and an honest assessment if something is not working. i visited some of our man women in uniform in different stages

of their service. our newest army officers graduated from west point our troops in gas -- afghanistan. our veterans and military families at arlington. what i saw was what i have seen in every single service member veteran and military spouse i have had the privilege to meet. a selfless, clear eyed commitment to serving their country the best way they know how. they are the best that our country has to offer. they do their duty. they expect us to do ours. today, i want every man and woman who served under our flag to know whether your tour has been over for decades or is or is about to be over, we will never stop working to do right by you and your families. let me take a couple of questions. >> what changed in the last few days?

you said you had confidence in him. what made the difference in your mind? >> ric's judgment. i think his belief that he would be a distraction from the task at hand. which is to make sure that what is rogan gets fixed so his fellow veterans are getting the services they need. i want to reiterate he is a very good man. i do not mean that he is an accomplished man. i don't just mean that he has been an outstanding soldier, he is a good person. who has done exemplary work on our behalf. and under his leadership we have seen more progress on more fronts at the v.a. and a bigger investment in the v.a. than just

about any other secretary. they cut homelessness by 20%. and folks had been exposed, i had been waiting for decades to get the services and benefits they had earned. -- they had been waiting for decades to get the services and benefits they had earned. making sure that post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury was dealt with in a serious way. making sure we had services for our woman veterans who were not receiving the kind of specialist services that they needed. he has been a champion of our veterans and where there is problems he has been ready and willing to get in there and fix them. with the backlog that had shot up as the consequence of the admission from the agent orange veterans as well as making it easier to apply for posttraumatic stress disorder

disability claims, when it spiked, he went at it in a systematic way and we have coded -- cut it by 50% since last year or so. he is not adverse to them -- admitting where there is a problem and going after it. but we occupy not just an environment that calls for management fixes, we have got to deal with congress and you guys. judgmentnk it is ric's that he could not carry out the next stages of reform without being a distraction himself. and so my assessment was unfortunately that he was right. i regret that he has to resign under these circumstances but i have confidence in sloan and i

share his assessment that the number one priority is making sure that problems get fixed so that if there is a veteran out there who needs help that they are getting a schedule and they are able to come in and see a doctor. and if there are facilities that do not have enough doctors or nurses are do not have enough space, that information immediately gets in the hands of decision makers although it to me and all the way to congress so we can get more resources and -- in there to help folks. that seems to be the biggest problem that offended secretary shinseki the most in this process. he described the fact that when he was in theater he might have to order an attack taste on a -- just based on a phone call from some 20 something-year-old corporal and he has to trust that he is getting good

information and it is life or death. and i think he is deeply disappointed in the fact that bad news did not get to him. and that the structures weren't in place for him to identify this problem quickly and fix it. is priority now is to make sure that happens and he felt like wouldadership would be -- serve our veterans best, and i agree with him. president, based on the early-stage stage audit the secretary presented to you, is there a sense that there was criminal wrongdoing? broadly, how much responsibility do you personally bear as this being an issue that you campaigned on and cared about deeply now that we are at this point? >> i will leave it up to the justice department to make determinations in terms of whether there has been criminal wrongdoing. in terms of responsibility, this is my administration. i always take responsibility for whatever happens. this is an area i have a particular concern with.

this predates my presidency. when i was in the senate, i was on the veterans affairs committee. i heard firsthand from veterans who are not getting services and benefits they had earned. i pledged that if i have the privilege of serving as commander in chief, that we would fix it. the v.a. is a big organization that has had problems for a very long time, in some cases management problems. what we tried to do is systematically go after the problems we were aware of, and fix them. where we have seen our veterans not being properly served,

whether it was too many homeless veterans or a disability claims process that was taking too long, we would go at it and chip away at it and fix it. when it came to funding, we increased funding for v.a. services in an unprecedented fashion because we understood that it's not enough to give lip service to our veterans, but not being willing to put our money where our mouth is. what i can say confidently is that this has been a priority. it has been a priority reflected in my budget. in terms of managing the v.a., where we have been aware of a problem, we have gone after it and fixed it and have been able to make significant progress. what is clear is that this issue of scheduling is one that the

reporting systems inside the vha did not surface to the level where ric was aware of it, or we were able to see it. this was not something we were hearing when i was traveling around the country, this particular issue of scheduling. i just was talking to rob neighbors, and he described to me in very specific detail how you in some of these facilities, you have computer systems for scheduling that date -- date back to the 90's. one scheduler might have to look look at four or five different screens to figure out where there is a slot where there might be a doctor available, situations in which there manually passing requests for an appointment over to somebody

else who then inputs it great you have old systems, broken down systems. the big concern i have, and what i will be interested in finding out, is how is it that in a number of these facilities, if in fact we have veterans who are waiting too long for an appointment, that that information did not surface sooner so we can go ahead and fix it trade -- it. when veterans have gotten access to the system, the health care itself they are receiving has gotten high marks from our veteran service organizations and the veterans themselves. it's important to keep in mind that what the review indicates so far is that there have been great strides made in the actual care provided to veterans. the challenge is getting veterans into the door, particularly for their first appointment, in some cases,

where they don't have an established relationship with a doctor and are not in the system. part of that will be technology, part of that is management. as ric shinseki himself indicated, there is a need for a change in culture within the vha, and perhaps the vha as a whole that makes sure that bad -- the v.a. as a whole that makes sure that bad news gets surfaced quickly so that things can be fixed. i know that was the attitude of secretary shinseki, and that's what he communicated to folks under him, but they did not execute. chrissy parsons, last question. >> you said it was a general judgment that made the decision for you. if i remember correctly, secretary sebelius offered her resignation after healthcare.gov failed, and you refused to take -- declined to take it. i wonder if there is scapegoating taking place here --

>> meaning? >> the dysfunction in the department seems to have been very deep and very widespread. is lopping off the head of it really the best step to take going forward here? is there a political reason for removing him other than going straight to the problem? >> the distractions that rick refers to in part our political. at this stage, what i want is somebody at the v.a. who is not spending time outside of solving problems for the veterans. i want somebody spending every minute of every day figuring out, have we called every single veteran that is waiting, have they got in their schedules, are we fixing the system, what kind of new technology do we need, have we made a realistic assessment of how long wait times are right now, and how are

we going to bring those wait times down in certain facilities where the wait times are too long? if we need more money, how much more money do we need to ask from congress, and how my going -- how am i going to make sure that congress delivers on that additional funding? that's what i want somebody at not how focused on, they are getting second-guessed, speculation about their futures, and so forth and so on. that is what ric agreed to as well. with respect to secretary sebelius, at the time i thought it would be a distraction to replace somebody at hhs at a time when we were trying to fix that system. if i knew that we bear down on it and get folks enrolled, i

knew it would work. in each instance, my primary decision is based on, how can i deliver service to the american people, and how can i deliver for our veterans? because there are people in integrity, in both cases of secretary sebelius and ric shinseki, their view is, what is it that will best deliver on behalf of folks who have been let down. >> i remember at the time you felt she had so many knowledge -- so much knowledge on what went wrong, you could not afford to lose that. as someone with three months of leadership at the department have the capacity to attack the problem quickly now? >> we will need a new v.a. secretary. sloan is acting. sloan would be the first to acknowledge that he has a learning curve to deal with. the nature of the problem that has surfaced and has been the cause of this attention is one

that we can start tackling right away, and without completely transforming the system, we can make some progress. we will have longer-term issues we have to take care of. my first step is, everybody out there waiting, get them an appointment. if we need more doctors, let's figure out how we can get doctors in there to make sure they're getting the help they need. i wanted to make sure that even if it is still patchwork, how do we make sure there is no slippage between somebody making a phone call and i'm getting an appointment scheduled, and let there be realistic time for how soon they will get an appointment.

those are things that don't require rocket science, they require execution and discipline and focus. those are things that sloan has. there will then be broader systems that we will have to tackle. the information systems in the v.a. there are going to have to be some changes in the culture within the vha. as i said, they're providing very good service, medical treatment to our veterans when they get in the system. but they don't have apparently the state-of-the-art operations that you would want to see in a major medical center or hospital. keep in mind, those of us who are outside of the v.a. system and try to get an appointment with the doctor in the private sector and try to get an appointment for a hospital visit, there are probably wait times as well.

what are realistic benchmarks for the system -- my suspicion is not only with all the veterans from iraq and afghanistan coming back, but the aging of our vietnam vets who may have more chronic illnesses and may need more visits, we may need to get more doctors. we may need to get more nurses. that is going to cost some money, which means that will have to be reflected in the veterans affairs budget, which i have consistently increased, even during fiscally tight times, there has been no area where i have put more priority than making sure that we are delivering the kind of budget necessary to make sure our veterans are being served. it may not be enough. before we start spending more money, our first job is, let's take care of basic management issues. thank you. [captioning performed by the

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> more now on the person who will be replacing secretary shinseki. sloan gibson has been with veteran affairs since february. before the v.a., he served as president of the united service organizations. he's a graduate of west point military academy and a former infantry officer in the army. secretary shinseki was not the only resignation. press secretary jay carney announced he would be stepping down from his position this month. he has been press secretary for the last three years and before that he served as communications director for bikes -- vice president biden. deputy secretary josh earnest will be taking over. here is a portion of the announcement on friday evening. jayn april, j came to me -- came to me and said he was thinking about moving on.

i was not thrilled, to say the least. he has wrestled with this decision for quite some time. he has been on my team since day one, fort two years with -- for two years with the vice president and for the past few years as my press secretary. it has placed a strain on his wife and on his two wonderful della.ugo and della's little league team, i had a chance to see the other day, and she is a fine picture -- pitcher. but he hasn't been seen enough of the games. jay was a reporter for 21 years before coming to the white house, including a stint as moscow bureau chief for time magazine during the collapse of the soviet empire, so he comes to this place with a reporter's perspective. it is why, believe it or not, i actually think he will miss hanging out with all of you, including the guys in the front row.

[laughter] but jay has become one of my closest friends and is a great press secretary. a great advisor. he has good judgment and good temperament and he has not a -- has got a good heart. i will miss him a lot. i will continue to rely on him as a friend and advisor after he leaves to spend as much of the summer as he can with his kids before he decides what is next for him, whatever it is. i know he is going to be outstanding at it. of course, that meant i have made a decision, which means who succeeds j. we have enormous talent around here, but i have decided that we're going to put in this slot somebody who is also a friend and advisor.

so today, the flak jacket is officially passed to a new generation, mr. josh earnest. [applause] josh is the coach's son from kansas city. he still roots for the royals, i guess. [laughter] as you know, his name describes his demeanor. josh is an earnest guy and you can't find a nicer individual, even outside of washington. the country knows him for his golden voice and dulcet tones on west wing week, the biggest viral internet hit since between two ferns. josh and i have an incredible history going back all the way to the iowa caucuses. josh was my iowa communications director.

even when he was in that role, you would find in spending in next hour or two helping young staffers make phone calls or knock on doors. there is no task that was too small, no detail too unimportant for josh to attend to. at the white house he has been a mentor to many of the young people here who i know are thrilled for him today. he is of sound judgment and great temperament. he is honest and full of integrity, and i am sure you will at some point get frustrated with him as well. but it is going to be hard, because he is a straight shooter and a great guy. my request is, be nice to jay on his farewell tour, and be nice to josh during his initiation, which i'm sure will last maybe two days.

or perhaps two questions. we're going to let him hang around a little bit to milk it for all its worth. [laughter] thank you, guys. >> any questions? [laughter] >> tomorrow live on c-span, the heritage foundation will host a discussion with the only russian lawmaker to vote against russia's annexation of crimea. he will talk about russian politics, the situation in ukraine, and u.s.-russia relations at noon eastern time. about0, a discussion campaign finance and how it relates to protecting freedom of speech with a former chair of the federal election committee and an attorney who successfully argued against limiting donations to political campaigns, also from the heritage foundation.

>> from a policy perspective, the way this should work is congress should appoint an agency that has the authority to manage the spectrum resources of thecountry -- look at that weand best use so can continue to serve all the important functions, national security functions, also driving the spectrum needs of the country. >> next, a discussion on foreign policy from "washington journal." to welcome back peter baker, white house correspondent. his book is now out in paperback. thanks so much for being with us. your newspaperof

is the soldier freed by the taliban and. what happened? host: this is been the last american pow in afghanistan. president obama is trying to turn a page on that war. he went to visit the troops and came back to washington and announced he was going to withdraw all troops by the time he leaves office in 2016. finishing up the war in afghanistan means ringing home the last prisoner. he was not going to leave him behind. the trade-off is it required people that you don't want to do business with. five inmates from guantanamo were spent to cutter. the republican say we should not be trading bad guys for us.

they could do more damage down the road. a statement from a republican from california. jim and off is the ranking member of the senate armed services committee. this is what they had said in a joint statement. the presidenthis, violated law that would require dayso notify congress 30 or explain how the threat has been mitigated. birdoy at the release is a because of the president who chose to nor the law not to mention sound policy to achieve it. host: there is process and there is policy. thing. is one that is probably not the most

important thing. guys for there's question mark in the history of war, we have had risen or swaps repeatedly, even during the cold war. the question is, do you encourage violence or kidnappings? how big of a battle will he face? guest: at the end of the day, it is a done deal. his poweris it is during wartime and it is substantial. bushw that during the administration. images of him coming home are going to be very compelling and powerful. thee is a great desire on

part of that are in zen military people to have one of their own home. host: they pointed to the white house new the president was violating the law and one of the rationales is when he signed tiesinto law, he said this the hand of the commander-in-chief and i don't supported. guest: we saw this during the bush administration. law andl sign a lay -- say this unconstitutionally tries to can train the hour of the executive. this is a very explicit manifestation of this idea of presidents are picking and choosing sections of a law that they think are constitutional and ones that they don't. host: the president addressed his foreign policy at west

point. i want to go back to wednesday's speech and share with you and the audience part of what the president said to the graduating cadets at west point and his next two and half years in the white house. >> this is my bottom line. america must always lead on the world stage. if we don't, no one else will. the military that you have joined in will always be the backbone of that leadership. be they action cannot only or primary component of our leadership in every instance. have the beste

hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. should expect every civilian leader and especially your commander-in-chief to be clear about how that possum -- awesome power should be used. what kind of reaction to the president get? guest: not great. it was widely panned by a lot of foreign policy people in washington. they found it wanting. i think the white house said that was ok. these are a bunch of elites and he is in touch with the views of the broader american public that is wary of war and wary of playing a larger role. host: let me tell you what the new york times wrote. the president has been deeply

frustrated. and private conversation, he has used a salter variation of the phrase don't do stupid stuff, enforcing ade no-fly zone in syria or ukrainianweapons to troops. to a: he has boiled down bumper sticker type slogan. this idea of don't do stupid stuff. the policy of caution and restraint is a reaction to the bush era. is that it does not work out all that well. front page ofthe the washington examiner. how much of this speech was

aimed at rand paul? critics on the other side would say this. are two different types of critics he is responding to. rand paul does not like the word isolationist, but he does have a more libertarian kind of view of the world. he is responding to him on the one side. lindsay have the graham, john mccain winning that is more hawkish about aggressive foreign-policy. president obama is trying to address those critics as well. he is trying to find a middle ground between those two extremes. int: let me put these events perspective. the wars began in the bush administration.

what is your take away? guest: here we are, 13 years later. it is striking that we are still debating and grappling with the issues that had their roots in the bush era. so may things on the front page like the nsa and gathering images of people around the world, that has its roots in the bush era. is hugelybate today important. we need to understand where it came from. book one quote from the that is relevant to any president, in the summer of 2008, the thing that pressed -- .urprised him about the that is what obama is experiencing. the idea the presidency is magnified.

it is only one part of our government. it is constrained by other factors. each president comes in thinking that they will be the master of the universe. each one discovers how hard it is to push that rock up the hill. it might be domestic legislation dilemmas around the world like air of israel he conflicts. peter baker is the white house correspondent for the new york times. >> president obama made a public statement from the white house rose garden yesterday about the release of u.s. soldier sergeant bergdahl. he had been held captive since

2009. he was accompanied by the sergeant's parents. they spoke briefly following the president's remarks. >> good afternoon, everybody. this morning, i called bob and janet and told them that after nearly five years in captivity, their son was coming home. sergeant bergdahl has missed birthdays, holidays, simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted, but while he was gone, he was never forgotten. his parents thought about him and prayed for him every single day, as did his sister, who prayed for his safe return. he was not forgotten by his

community in idaho, or the military, which rallied to support him through thick and -- support the bergdahl's through thick and thin, and he was not forgotten by his country, because the united states of america does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind. as commander-in-chief, i am proud of the service members who hl andred sergeant bergda brought him safely out of harm's way. as usual, they performed with courage and exceptionalism and made the nation proud. right now, our top priority is making sure he gets the care and support that he needs and that he can be reunited with his family as soon as possible. i am also grateful for the tireless work of our diplomats, and for the cooperation of the government of qatar in helping to secure his release. we worked for several years to achieve this goal and earlier this week i was able to thank of qatar for his

help in getting this work done. as part of this effort, the united states has transferred five detainees from guantanamo bay to qatar. the qatari government has assured us they would put in place measures to ensure our national security. i also want to express gratitude to our afghan -- to the afghan government, which has always supported efforts for bo's release. going forward, the united states will continue to support an afghan led process of reconciliation, which could help secure a hard in and -- hard-earned peace within a sovereign and secure -- soveriegn and -- sovereign and unified afghanistan. as i said earlier this week, we are committed to winding down the war in afghanistan and we are committed to closing gitmo. but we also made an ironclad commitment to bring our prisoners of war home. that is who we are as americans. it is a profound obligation within our military. and today, at least in this instance, that is a promise we

have been able to keep. i am mindful that their are many troops who have stayed missing in the past. that is why we are never going to forget and never going to give up our search for the service members who remain unaccounted for. they deserve to be reunited with their families, just like bowe bergdahl soon will be. -- like the bergdahl's soon will be. bob, jan, today, families across america share in the joy that i know you feel. as a parent, i cannot imagine the hardship you have gone through. as president, i know i speak for all americans when i say we know we cannot wait for the moment when you are reunited and your son is back in your arms. with that, i would like to give them an opportunity to say something.

>> i just want to say thank you to everyone who has supported him. he has had a wonderful team. we will continue to stay strong for him while he recovers. thank you. >> i would like to say to him right now, because he has -- is having trouble speaking english, i am your father. [speaking arabic] to the people of afghanistan, the same. the complicated nature of this recovery will never truly be comprehended. to each and every single one who affected this, in this country, in the service branches, at the state department, throughout the whole of american government, and around the world, to

international governments around the world, thank you so much. we cannot communicate the words this morning when we heard from the president. we look forward to continuing the recovery of our son, which is going to be a considerable task for our family, and we hope the media will understand that that will keep us very preoccupied in the coming days and weeks as we get him back onto the united states. -- back home to the united states. thank you all for being here very much. >> thank you. >> it's a good day. >> yes, it's a good day.

>> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room with -- at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable-tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on dvd. -- us in hd. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> next, the state of the u.s. mental health system. this is 35 minutes. . host: as we focus on america's

mental health system will we want to welcome doris fuller. thank you for being with us. this headline from usa today, following the shooting that resulted in six that's in santa barbara last weekend. with one fact, back in 1995 we had nearly 8 illion seriously mentally that's.ith 161,000 -- beds. and today we have a greater need a smaller capacity. guest: that is correct. it is actually worse than that.

we put out a report that shows that we have about half of what is available is reserved for criminals. when we are talking about people -- have not talked about who of not committed a crime, that is about 17,000 beds. we have a loved one new has been hospitalized multiple times with a mental illness. the we found is because of dearth of beds, they were give her for a few days and then be released. she would never be stabilized. we need to do a lot of things to address this problem. we need more beds, more psychiatric crisis centers in this country. we do not do to have a cause bubbles, but we need help and -- hospitals, but we need more beds and more ways to get people into

them. one of the stories that came out over the weekend, the thatngton post reporting the sheriff department had met with elliott roger the and yet never did a background check that would have determined whether or not he was purchasing weapons. guest: we can say in retrospect that anytime there is a call to check someone's mental condition that there ought to be a check whether to see they purchased weapons. hindsight is always 2020. we wish we would have had hindsight for that one. tim murphy hadat to say about mental health, and what congress and the government need to do. episodesakes these 10

so confounding is that they are entirely preventable. states, ellie rodgers family would have been able to ask a court to order an emergency psychiatric evaluation. but in california, the law says they cannot. ae families know that when loved one is that a mental health crisis and their gravelyn is deteriorating, but in some cases they are shut out from being part of the recovery team. americans from the horrifying tragedy in connecticut is that we had that her take off our blinders and let -- deal with such illnesses or we are sure to face the same problems again. is not only what is in a that makes his act violent, but also his mind. host: your reaction to what he had to say? what congress needs to do?

guest: congressman tim murphy is of solving these problems right now. he has written the most apprehensive piece of federal legislation in half a century. it is not going to solve every problem, but it will solve a lot of problems. aboutin 2012 we spent $230 billion on mental health house hasd the white $147 billion. break that money, where does it go? who gets it? itst: by and large, who gets are people who are well enough to walk into a mental health center and say i need help. most of our federal funds and our federal funds and or state funds are not targeted to this really tiny percentage of the population that is most at risk. they are targeted to everyone else.

has beenresident obama who areg on those grossly underserved, but these are not focusing on the big problems. civil commitment laws exist all have for arld, they long time. they are the laws that make it possible to order someone into treatment against their will if they are not capable of walking into that mental health center and saying i need treatment. about halfremember the people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder have a occurring condition that make it impossible for them to realize they are ill. if you do not think you are ill, you will not volunteer for service.

host: generally speaking, if you suffer a heart attack, if you beat cancer, if you break a leg and the wound heals, you're very open to talking to people about how you were covered in that ethical injury. why is there such a stigma with mental health? guest: there has always been a stigma with mental health. we do not understand it. if you have not seen it firsthand, your impression as in forms like things like the horrible headlines. aboutese headlines are circumstances there are very rare. they are the extreme outliers. what we need to be doing is looking at having a better understanding of our every day severe mental illness and being able to spot it better.

www.c-span.org how to -- host: how do you treat it? guest: mental illness is not a disease like cancer is a disease, like heart disease is a disease. it can be treated with medication at therapy. with psychotic disorders, which are mostly involved in the most episodes,lent .... a center who focuses on those most at risk. we focus on increasing access for those who cannot ask his treatment themselves by reforming the laws, by working emergencyate more facilities for these people.

otherwise raise the public awareness about what we need to do to help these people. host: people can follow you on treatr, or online at mentadvocacycenter.org. thank you for being with us. , andhone lines are open our twitter feed. here's what greedy had to say the senator had to had t say. we are focused on crisis intervention, what do we do long-term? how do we provide for people long-term? the plan was, and

haveoke my heart -- i spent the last three years of my worrying about if he would end up homeless or in prison. that does not seem like a bad option now. att we are going to looking makeng-term care, how we sure that people are not released until they are ready to be released. deeds, at was cree state senator and his entire speech from the national press club is available online at www.c-span.org. aest: tragically, it is microcosm of what is going on in america. fore is not enough beds

people in crisis, those who need to be in a hospital because of their systems. we start with we do not have a bed. virginia law at that time said if someone was taken to a hospital and psychiatric crisis, they had to be evaluated within four hours, six hours with some allowance. four hours is not very long to find a designated examiner, rolled into the hospital, get the examination done. dying examination was not four hours, you would be cut loose. son, theyiance of his did not get that examination was, so he was let go, he taken home, and the next morning he stabbed his father and killed himself. good morning.

thank you for the program this morning. i just had two comments. one has to do with a family member who has been diagnosed as bipolar, she has had multiple , extraordinarys experiences in wait times. with one wait times, parent there waiting for admission because there was no one ready to see her. she is occasionally violin, -- violent and verbally abusive. she has been hospitalized multiple times, as i have said, and she might stay there five days and then they release her. severe, event was very and upon release my niece was

asking what do i do about her violence, and her verbal abuse? and she was told to call the authorities. process of this child being railroaded into the criminal system, and ending up with a life of incarceration. host: where is she at the moment? caller: at home. -- miraculously, she has responded to treatment, and is working. she has a job now. host: how old is she? caller: 16. also, my niece is concerned that is onhe reaches 18, she her own more or less in terms of

her own care. she can do whatever she wants. host: your reaction? guest: stories like this break my heart, because we get calls like this all the at a and we are looking ythetion where family member no longer has control, they are cut out of the system when they turn 18. party members need to be a of this process, and they are typically not. they are ignored. look at elliot rodger. hehave family members saying is dangerous, he needs help, and it did not produce the and it could have produced their new that is just the tip of the

iceberg. imagine that your loved one had a heart attack, and you're sitting around wondering where can i get him treated? andhospital will reject him look at him for an hour and then turn him out. there are so many endemic problems in existence over the country. host: his family issued a statement that was read this past week. they described their experiences of hell on our. what can they expect, moving forward, having raised a child that did such a horrific crime? a lot of the families of the masculine is just disappear after that, because their death deaths -- there are

threats against them and their younger siblings. and some become advocates. a family will go through this and they say this has to stop. host: a twitter question -- guest: that is a really good question. of a perfectt economics,litics, social trends. in the 1950's we had 150,000 psychiatric beds in this country. 300 beds for every hundred people. they were deteriorating, states were worried about the cost of rehabilitating these hospitals. big factors that happened

the that in 1963 we had last major mental health bill in america passed. it contained some incentives for states to close their psychiatric hospitals. the idea behind it was wonderful, the idea was that we do not want people who are sick housed in these big cold warehouses, let's bring them into the community, let's have small community centers. let's treat them there. the state tos, sell the incentive to close hospitals, they seized on the opportunity to close these facilities, but the community centers were not built. got rid ofdid is we the safety net for people who are most ill, and we did not replace that safety net.

the community centers that were built did not treat those people who would had been in hospitals. of the federal followed by the medicaid legislation, followed by the states incentives to get rid of these hospital itsel -- hospitals that they would have to repair, we do not want to force people into treatment. part of the whole civil rights movement. some people cannot choose we got ridand so of the bad, and now we are down hadess than 10% of what we at a time when the population has almost doubled. have talked about the potential increase of federal

dollars, but here is a break down of states over the past five years. by about $5 billion in cuts from 2009-2012. they get closed every day. there are private heads -- beds, are being closed because they are money losers. most of the people who are most , hospitalized multiple times, they do not have jobs, they do not have insurance, they do not have resources, so the, a public responsibility. if you are a for-profit hospital, they come out of your but online -- bottom line. host: a tweet --

guest: it covers mental illness in the sense that it assures parity in treatment. we are still waiting to see how that is going to play out. e justinsurer -- we ar waiting to see how it plays out. i am hearing some concerns about it, like we do not have enough psychiatrist in this country. what happens if more people need them? --t: another tweet let's go to calvin from new work on the delaware. , delaware. diagnosedhave been --h a disorder with a bio

bipolar type. i have been hospitalized in four different hospitals in four different states. i have had psychotic episodes. i have experienced the mental health care system and the effects of it. thank you for having me. how old are you? host: aream 44 years old, i ony

there others in your family who have had mental illness? at your level? caller: yes. and what led your diagnosis? i woke upe day thinking i was osama bin laden, and that the fbi and cia were after me. iran outside half naked, when i woke up, i was laid out in the middle of the street, surrounded by cops. ever since then, my life has .een turned upside down during host: do the question? caller: i have a comment. i see a people's input on the

mentally ill, the issue for me and a lot of us is the stigma that society continues to place on us. lunaticst all deranged , plotting shooting sprees. what a tragedy happens, it is lamed on a person with mental illness. this is the core, we are continually being perceived as being out of touch with reality. are everydayou, we people dealing with a lot of emotional challenges. it is how we management -- is how we manage them that makes a difference. host: we will get a response, do you feel the treatment you underwent has helped you? caller: i'm stable, i am taking i am stable now.

there are some positive things about the mental health care system, but there are many breakdowns in my experience. had to be an advocate for myself and others in these hospitals, i saw these failed policies failing us. that has been my history, every time i went in had been an advocate, i have filed grievances because of physical and the meals you'll abuse -- physical and emotional abuse. no one has responded. our request have fallen on deaf ears. you for the, thank call. sharon, your experiences from delaware. first of all, congratulations to calvin for taking care of his own recovery and staying on medication. it makes a huge difference. let's talk about the stigma issue, it is terrible. i have a young adult daughter, i

worry about her getting a job job because of her psychiatric history. it affects employment, and affect social life. people are sort of like, ew, schizoaffective people -- people are afraid. the number one problem is the association with violence. this is so unfortunate. personal, the vast majority of people with mental illness will never be violence. is notority of violence caused by people with severe mental illness. isever, the fact is -- this one of those uncomfortable truths that a lot of people do not want to talk about. people with untreated mental illness are more likely to be severity is overall three times more violence on a first psychotic break. they are more likely to commit violence than you and i.

we have this tiny number love people committing acts of violence, most of them not bubble size. the things like elliot roger are the exception. we have a small number of people committing these acts, and they cause the stigma against people who would never commit an act of violence. how we approach that? ae way is we deny there is link between violence and mental illness. we just say, it doesn't exist, you will hear a lot of that after every one of these tragedies. our position at the treatment advocacy center is, this is a treatable disease. people who are treated are no more likely to commit violence come over and up in jail, or end up on the streets than uri. i.you or treatment, to people who were at one point lying in the street thinking they are osama bin laden. if people don't get treatment

when they are in that state, there shouldn't be a stigma. one of the neighbors going to think? treatment is the answer. host: we welcome our listeners on c-span radio, 90.1 in the washington dc area, streamed on the web at www.c-span.org. our guest is doris fuller, she with the treatment advocacy center. caller: good morning ms. fuller. i would like to bring up a little experience. i have a daughter who is i believe 42 now. she has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar. she is very mean. she had to spend time in jail for beating her mother up. tried so much to try and have her do better, she is supposed to be on medication but will not take it. she think she doesn't need it.

ssi about 15on years, this is what i can understand. the state of connecticut know she has a problem. she continues to get her funds, but will not take her medicine. so i don't know why the government doesn't require her to take her medicine to be able to get her monthly funds. this is unacceptable to me. i will tell you to other points. they didn't know what this kid in california committed those crimes, they knew about it, they knew there was a problem yet there was no indication between him and our police. knowing that he had a problem, being able to buy guns. it is the same thing with the guy who bombed in massachusetts, at the races. they knew he went to russia, they knew he was a problem. russia called us. our government doesn't keep track of these people, doesn't

let the proper people know. looks to have all this -- at our e-mails, they are tapping our phones, they know everything that is going on. that everything gets by them. host: next call, and think you are sharing your own experiences. guest: he mentions a serious problem. i mentioned how people whiskey suffering and bipolar do not know they are ill. your dollar would fall in that class, it's called lack of insight. she doesn't think she is sick. she is had repeated interactions with police, with hospitalization, she won't take the meds. started at the beginning and said we need facilities, we need better laws. one of the laws, it's in 45 states in the u.s. but not in connecticut, is called assisted outpatient dreamy, or court-ordered outpatient treatment. it is a law that allows a judge to order somebody who needs

certain -- who meets certain criteria, typically which includes multiple hospitalizations, multiple arrests. the criteria also include a refusal to take treatment. typically these are people and -- to include these are people who do not think they are sick. we have this law that says if someone meets these criteria, they are not going to succeed in the community. they are going to keep going off their meds doing the same thing over again. at the treatment advocacy center we call that the revolving door. if connecticut had an assisted outpatient treatment law, there would be the capacity for a judge to say to your daughter, we are going to put you under an order to take your medication and see her social worker. if you don't do it, we will take you to a hospital and have you evaluated, and see if you need to be hospitalized because of your symptoms. that is not going to happen in connecticut because they have not changed the law. host: our