>> we can sit in this room and postulate all sorts of shapes of coalition and it depends on what the willing are willing to do. which would be more directly engaged perhaps than what was

sensible for western countries. about the, what is the toeign office planning to do address the concerns that many of our traditional allies in the been facilitating the rise of malicious militias iraq and syria and some perhaps have been harboring their own within them.y and perhaps funded how is that naughty problem be addressed when putting this coalition together? >> i think we are very clear our allies that whatever attitude people have groups atifferent different stages of their evolution in the past, there is tolerance now for any support for isil or any of the organizations associated with it. securityred the u. n.

council resolution directed at off financial to isil. and i'm comfortable that the countries that we're in dialogue now clear about their official position. to say that some of private't still harbor individuals who may have different sympathies. look to them to work that financialre flows to isil are cut off. isil is now ant, organization with significant own, and sources of income from kidnapping, taxation, oil revenues, which make it far less to interruption of

.imensions arabiafor example, saudi has made it illegal with some very heavy penalties, not just a member of isis but to fund them. there may be a distinction between governments beene past where they have clear, and individuals in the past who have got nothing to do with governments. and that one of the main iscerns of governments now to ensure that they are very targeted. >> do you think there is a theral reawakening about

threat and the need to respond to it? the u.a.e.t and conduct strikes in libya against extremists. going to go? thingsink they said some nearlyed rain last week, 90 members, they wound up a other cells that are clearly taking action. that there isand not every organization in the which has an islamist is tarred with being isil. >> thank you. was'm unclear exactly who

doing what. of, it seemed to me a lot responsibility was being put on peshmerga. the state of its forces, the arm and yet wey have continually are talking about pesh as who they were going to solve the whole problem. have you made a fresh assessment of their capability? think we've ever solve the whole problem. what they are doing is holding the line against an isil sought on their homeland and doing it with great passion and expect.on, as you would peshmerga that the

will not be the answer as they were advancing to south baghdad burden fell on the iraqi security forces in syria, conflict with other groups. peshmerga happened to be in the front line at the point this conflict came to the attention of the world. and it was can kurds who were holding the line against isil they will remain an important part of that line, but certainly not the whole solution. >> so there are talks about arming them. arms have gone to baghdad first. have they then been distributed the pevhmerga and is there a legal distribution between the various political parties? understand it, the shipments that have been made so far have gone into baghdad for inspection. recognizing the sovereign

control of the government in baghdad, and have then moved on in the shipments we made have r.a.f. aircraft, and we are attempting to ensure that distribution of the supplies that we have made is broadly spread among the different groups to avoid any suggestion that there's any favoritism groups, because there clearly isn't as far as we're concerned. to mount pin you jar. there was quite a worrying report in the guardian a few weeks ago -- >> i don't read it. suggested that the there certainly isn't over, and we've taken it rather that theed u.s.a.lance by the

, because --hdrew do we know precisely what the state of play is now? peep not able to get off the assistance?hout accurate. it was these situations are difficult to assess in the heat of the moment. and the humanitarian organizations were preparing rightly, a worse case scenario where we thought there were very large numbers of the mountain. on i think a combination, possibly the number off people there originally. the fact that people are intrinsically resourceful and night after night numbers of people were getting themselves the mountain. peshmergavolvement of

forces in rescuing groups of people, particularly syrian kurdish forces in rescuing mountain.m the it became clear later on in the faress that there were smaller number than we thought and that the best way of getting the off was to reenforce land group that had already become established. now that theret is nobody stranded on mount sinjar, who is trapped there. this --to say, this isn't to say that it's a peaceful weighings there. forces stilll around the mountain. but we're confident the people move off the mountain can do. we should also remember that there are significant numbers of who aren that region thelaced from the period of

exodus from mount sinjar and before it and they remain displaced. so it's a major humanitarian problem in that area. of peshmerga from turkey also are providing assist says tans in the release of some of those people trapped. pk, which is ahe terrorist organization in this obviouslynd they are key to continuing to fight isis.t desubject vibe them, or whatever the wore is, so they're no longer a terrorist organization? >> well, that of course will be the home secretary to

consider and she will do so on the basis of the evidence about gainment in terrorist activities. it is not the case that simply a terrorist organization carries out an act of it willrian kindness, cease to be a terrorist organization. i make no comment about the particular case. but the process of the home will bey will follow, to look at the evidence of any organization's continued link with terrorist activities, regardless of whatever else it's doing. >> will you yourself be making a recommendation, or will you leave a to the home secretary? >> that's -- for asn't yet asked me view. if she does, i will give her one. think the --u to protect iraqi minorities?

clearly the prosecution keution of christians and so on iraq continues. what do you think the international community should do? be a safe haif then the north? >> and women of course, not just minorities, but gender well.mination as the first thing we should do is collaborate together to develop and credible strategy to push back isil and then to defeat it, its ideology, which is the root cause of this a land where jews,ians, arabs, kurds, have lived together in relative harmony for hundreds and hundred of years.usands of course we must also support the international humanitarian effort to support the huge up ins of displaced people over currently estimated.

a short-term possible solution. the long-term solution is an inlusive government in iraq control of all itser the with a constitution that respects both letter and in deed the rights of minorities across the country. ask you about the women. it on the floor of the house a number of times in the past few weeks. in londonconference which the prime minister and the hosted, theytary about really, the conditions women were treated in. i don't know what the numbers were, but i think around 3,000, of those we had reports

of slavery. and i just wondered are we find them? thee were trying to help nigerian school girls? about 3,000alking adull women. what has happened to them? questiont answer the them.as happened to the way these women are reported to have been treated is truly shocking. is not just casual abuse of women in the conduct of military operations, which is what sometimes happens. this is ideologically planned abuse of women. ideology of the isil, what is being done here and that's what makes it shocking.ly i don't know if earth of my know anything

specific about it, but i'm not aware of any operation that's onto track and seek to identify the location of that would probably be very difficult to do, given the circumstances prevailing on the ground. but bear in mind that there are hundreds of thousands, probably total in million or more displaced people moving around the region. difficult toery track individuals, i suspect. >> is it something our special forces could do? i would repeat what i just said. it would probably be very, very do.icult to these, i spoke, will not be a group of people held as a group. they'll be dispersed. is a law i mean this requiresnt task, which in tracing people

something that special handled with forces in the u.k. or elsewhere. >> practical measures of combating isil on the ground. all, has the foreign office given any consideration kurds in syria? think we're doing anything directly with the kurds. to theill be talking political representatives in tomorrow to follow up on on mountthey had sinjar and helping to get so many people off. and i make a distinction between the political wing of the syrian

military wing. the main focus of our attention iraqiearly been on the kurds. narrowturn to the objective of removing isis from northern iraq. of measures have been arm --ced include including arming the occurred in iraq. men.hing like 250,000 that is the answer, when it ines to the imrowb forces iraq.rn perhaps a time scale in which you expect the army to be whipped into shape and take these extremists on. that thestinction is reasonably led and

locking in equipment. forces areecurity demoralized. very badly led. badly structured. withre well equipped american weaponry. that's why there hasn't been a discussion about equipping the iraqi security forces. i thinkwe see this, and the like minded group of countries shea this view as a be takenhat has to step by step. anp one is the creation of inclusive and credible iraqi government in baghdad, which begins immediately to reach out sunni kurdish and communities within iraq with a recognizes the long standing tensions about sharing ofresources and levels autonomy. as soon as that is in place, we

need to see a program of support ing,the restructure reconfiguration to reflect the either anything balance -- ethnic balance within the country of the iraqi security arces and i suspect significant element of retraining and technical advice required.t will be one of the issues that i'm sure and secretaryl kerry will be discussing in the is appetite among countries in the region to short term some of that hands-on training and advice.l >> you're absolutely right, it's got to be a political solution the end. but the way you word it, sound politics isugh the politics first owed and one can to a certainat

extent. but that time scale suggests many months before we actually iraqi army to address these extremists. rm i right? >> i don't think so. the announcement the iraqi, that an iraqi government has been can expectthat we from those now quickly to begin to put together a package of the institutions of the legitimate iraqi government, iraqi security forces. now clearly, there's an implicit that if countries in the region, countries in the of support fores this government together, they basis ofoing it on the a program that the government has publicly set out. that proves not to be delivered, that would be a major that program of outreach to the sunnies in is essential if any

of this is to work. restructuringing, iraqi security forces while theing the grievances of isni population unaddressed not a formula for successful pushing back of isil. >> thank you. a number of commentators have spoken about a more iraq withzed federal kurds and shias. do you envision that happening all? >> it's not, well, i think it plansking me whether a. i think as i read the program, clearly envies ages a significant degree of within theation a sharingof iraq, and of revenues in a way that thoseses some of

underlying grievances. us to define for the internal structures of governments in iraq. something that the people of iraq have to do. our advice to the iraqi would be that unless they are able to do that in a has broad based buy-in across all the community in much moreill be difficult for regional countries for the west, to support the iraqi government enough, much overcomeity for it to the insurgency that it's facing isil. >> thank you. minutes ago you referred to shipment we have made to the stand reej -- kurdistan region. was that weaponry supplied by other countries?

and -- >> we've made, so far we've made our ownl shipments of equipment, and we've also made ammunition supplied by albania. >> yesterday the prime minister his statement government was now prepared to directly supply weaponry, as opposed to from other countries. you tell us when that is going to start and what kind of weaponry that is likely to be? can tell you that the secretary has today laid minute concerning the gifting of military equipment to the government of regionalluding the government, the initial panel is scheduled to arrive in iraq tomorrow. and will consist of heavy machine guns and ammunitions value of about just over

2 million pounds delivered value. >> and that's going to go to the region?n >> yes. >> thank you. said last week that russia, and i quote you, chosen of pariah rather than partner and rejected efforts to throw themselves into the rules based international system. does that have any impact upon approach toic russia? permanently believe belling.d i think it's clear that russia has had the option of being in a partnership relationship with the west. indeed that's been our strong theerence and desire for last nearly 25 years, to draw into the community of nations, to have a partnership with russia recognizing that we

won't agree on everything and we have strategic differences of we in a but that sincere belief that we are able to work constructively together partners. russia has shown by its actions that notion.ts rejects that notion of partnership, and i chose the pariah quite deliberately. long established group in europe on -- rule in europe on changing the force.ies of state by that's not way we do things, and russia has shown itself thatetely oblivious to established convention, rule, to use force and to pursue with a it sees as its short-term interests in a way that is rejected by i believe every other state in europe. >> thank you.

>> secretary, the chronology of territorial is that --nt it was followed by the crimea in ukraine. you agree that the territorial objective of carry out aw is to annexationritorial defacto of the eastern part of ukraine? >> i don't think we know that. i don't think there's any plan.ce that that is the there's plenty of speculation isut this, but i think it that mr. putinse stronger expected a

popular rising in support of the separatist movement than actually occurred in. when the event began to unfold. know enoughthink we to say whether his current ages annexation or not. the most the words of recent agreement would point strongly away from that outcome. for the momente as to how you judge what is the theitorial objective now of russian government in ukraine, you respond to the criticism that has been made has the british government done nothing like enough, and indeed the american government and other governments have done nothing like enough to bring mr. putin that the

military defacto annexation, violating the boundaries of sovereign states is unacceptable and also redolent of the most extreme dangers. and to bring home to mr. putin he thinks he can carry policy of defacto possiblyn of part or the whole of the territories of one or more of the baltic could precipitate the iii.rs of a world war >> well, i don't have to respond to criticism of the united country. any other but i'll respond to criticism of government. i think we have responded in a sensible way to an

outrageous provocation. we've stood by the people of the ukraine. been at the forefront of implementation of measures within the european union, provideato to reassurance to the eastern nato. states of and to impose economic sanctions russia. i think these measures are more effective for having been imposed by the whole of the european union and in the case of the reassurance measures having been delivered and whole of natohe than they would have been, if we taken within europe a series of by lateral actions. but acting at 28 means that we about how pragmatic

fast and how far we can go. we have to take everybody with us. my judgment is that the level of we've delivered at e.u., ish nato and the messageing an effective and is delivering a far more effective message than would delivered by perhaps a stronger response but delivered only bilaterally. ascan i ask your assessment so whether or not we've had the right balance in our dealings request russia? i think we all agree it's important to stab up to the bully on the playground, and i think some much our neighbors and allies are waking up to that fact. could also argue that we ourselves are sometimes traded

dealing with russia, for example, perhaps not leaning enough on them when it one to russia's intimidation georgia, in the hope that we their sort of allegiance or help when it came iran. what's your take on that going forward? >> well, the first and most obvious lesson is that hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we can all now ask whether we were being naive about the type of relationship that we putin's russia. i do think we need to distinguish different things here. self are areas where interest means that russia will cooperativelyrk with the west, where we have an interests in relation to third countries or problems in other parts of the i would expect that

whatever the difficulties that will continue to pursue a course of action which best interest.l with the benefit of behind sight sayourse it's possible to perhaps we should have woken up what's going on, what now appears to be going on earlier in the process much perhaps we should have paid more attention mr. putin's rhetoric around the soviet union being the greatest disaster of 20th century history much perhaps we read his thesis more closely where he sets out that energy politics of state power. but all of these are with the sight. of behind what we spend match of the last 25 years doing is genuinely and

sincerely trying to draw russia by stains into the international community. i think once they, russia becoming normalized, becoming increasingly engaged in andinternational economy increasingly a country we could do business with. also recognize that we have no dispute with the russian weree. when you and i growing up, the russian people were a mystery to us. knows plenty of russian people that live in europe.nd across people who visit russia, do business in russia, it's no great mystery it was. and we have no dispute with the russian people. do have a disagreement with mr. putin's view of the particularlyre with his ideas about what is acceptable in going about

achieving his objectives. that leads me to my next question. has contributed to us here?stimating the risk tony bretton said british diplomacy toward russia and elsewhere have suffered because of loss of language skills particularly in the foreign office. now, we know we reopened the language and that's been good. but instead of the general noting that we have committed enough resource to eastern europe and russia, is tot your take, do we need invest now more? are reinvesting in russia and eastern europe now, as our day is refocused there.

but there is no doubt that this is well trodden ground, that decade or more the u.k. .ost traction from large parts of the world. ad my predecessor has spent lot of time and energy rebuilding that engagement with the world and that is included making investment, for example, capacity.e i just checked before i came in are 156 personnel who are registered as having russian skills. that's probably fewer than we would like, but a lot more than we will have had at the bottom of the curve. i suggest to you and i'm sure -- it's not just about language. >> of course not. >> it's about the fundamental understanding of the region, the forth, and what many of us in the committee are concerned about is that over the there's been a

sort of promotion of skills favored by management expense of, at the more tradition al skills, when about, for example, regions that help to increase the understanding of the problems at large. would you accept that and can you be more specific as to what extra resource you're putting into this? it's all right saying we're putting extra resource in, but that's a very vague term. >> again, with the benefit of behind sight, of course. would like to have more europe focused resource. but if you look at how we have our diplomatic foot print over the last decade or so look at how some of our other major allies have done it, have degraded our russia capability rather less than some done. allies have i'm going to ask simon to that.t on

ambassadorook at our in moscow or kazahkstan or ukraine, and a number of other places, they are all absolutely steeped in the former soviet they have huge amounts of expertise, they all speaks evenings lent russian. our ambassador to ukraine can ukrainian. if you were based in a number of european countries that is what of timed spend a lot thinking about. isi accept that expertise there and one is moving towards it. but the fact is we fundamentally misunderstood, did not read the

intentions behind president putin's stated objections. why did we get it wrong? fair, the british goch more transactional with russia over the years. true that russia was playing a different role on the in cases ourwhere interests collided. was a case which was a clear indication of of the way in which these things can which, and the measures the then government took in internets response to that. so i would resist the notion been completely naive about russia because i don't think that's accurate. comparative game and if you look across europe that's how different countries have handled their relationship with russia. i think with the benefit of done rather, wave better than some.

.> (i audible question) >> in our judgment, the measures that we wish to take can be delivered breaching the restrictions in the founding act ofthe permanent basing substantial troop formationings countries.member ofm a purely military point view looking at what we want to do, the efficient utilization of it is to rowes,

day relatively small numbers of training purposes to create prepositioned stocks of --ipment, full of deployment all these things can be done the restrictions of the founding act and the judgment that we have made is that if is no practical need to breach the restrictions in the act, there is value in highaining the moral ground and continuing to observe the rules based system that the founding act put in place. to remind thee russians russians that they have breached it. >> what was discussed at the nato summit? >> yes, the, including the forces and the way they will

operate in eastern europe. natothat there are no members, certainly not the u.k., certainly not the united states, to position significant base is ina static eastern europe. that wouldn't fit with the model train and the way we use our forces to be highly mobile, flexible forces. it's a cold war type model that way we do things any more. >> okay. beenle 5, could have evoked in response to crimea or ukraine? had been a member, seems like you can omit destabilization, psychological volunteers, use

of retire troops, and soldiers in eastern lost ukraine. done of what russia has couldn't be pinned down to and it could have been a very different situation. how do you respond to that? is not ofkraine course a nato member and therefore article 5 does not apply and never at any time has come into the equation. are natoc states members and they benefit from the collective security article 5ng that offers. iu are of course right, and have sat in this very chair discussing with the defense committee on a number of occasions the challenges that cyberng technologist like present to the definition, the that arel definitions

involved around war fighting and military operations. and in many countries including the u.k. there is an active on about how to address cyber in particular, but the other areas you mentioned in the context of the boundary lines are drawn in the international legal system, which governs permissible responses to aggression. >> there's a bit more debate, if say to, thatin can weeks,e in kiev in two i'm sure he would be in lit four five orhin six weeks.

anye don't need reaappraisal of article 5 at all. what we do have to do though, the first timebe we've done it, as the technology need to keeps, we our thinking up to date, and field, thee in any to keep paceg has with the reality of the technology and we have a whole calledain of warfare now cyber which didn't exist a decade, perhaps half a decade and there is a process that is under way of thinking through these different legal doctrines apply in the domain of cyber. >> i mentioned psychological, volunteers.e of retired soldiers.

>> they are gray areas, and this kind of what the russians call a challengerfare is to us. rehearsingain, i'm territory that i covered in my former role. challenges for the west, nato, is that we are a grouping of democratic and open societies. can't do proxy -- we have to fine a different way respond to the tools that russia is using. relative using its advantages, one of the canntages it has is that it do nontransparent stuff. the relativee strength that we have. we've demonstrated in

respect of the ukraine, our big comparative strength is the resilience of our collective which isn the west, far stronger, far bigger, far than the russian economy, which suffers from deficits.t structural >> the annexation of eastern ukraine? enough evidence annexizationwill of eastern ukraine is an objective or not. have an asim metric capability of the application of sanctionsnd financial where russia was not able to in asymmetrical way because of the difference in the size of our economies.

>> while we're talking about article 5, could you give us an what's going on in estonia? touch with our estonian colleagues. to tell other than what already been published on and thenia media estonia official remains in custody in russia and the e stonians are continuing to discuss with the russians to get released and returned that their custody. >> militia came over the border ina way that they had done ukraine. article 5?invoke >> article 5 would allow a call upon theo other member state under article there were a military territory.ts

as i've indicated in my answer to the last set of questions, of course be a large lawyers pouring over the circumstances of any particular threat to identify whether or not it meets the criteria for triggering article 5. >> the nato summit last week was obviously discussion about providing weaponry to the government. the prime minister's statement yesterday mentioned that some nato departments were providing ukraine.to five or six countries. the u.k. was not amongst them. why not? u.k. doesn't believe that there can be a military solution to the conflict in the ukraine. forces made

significant gains over a period mh17eks after the incident. two weeks,he last russia will not allow those stand and they merely were met with a response of a further illegal incursion by unions, formed russian units. we don't want to en current the thereians to believe that could be a military solution to this conflict. partners,er nato norway, the united states, countrieshink, other clearly take that view. a by lateral issue, this is not a nato decision. the u.k. takes the view that it to supplybe able military equipment given our own exports controls

on military equipment in the circumstances. it is a conflict. >> but other reviews in the this? are taking part in >> i'm aware of other e.u. member states who are certainly possibility ofhe supplying equipment to the ukrainian armed forces. should distinguish equipmente supply of immediately during the perfect of conflict, and discussions about supply contracts that would take, where delivery would place at some point in the future. taking so long and proved so difficult to get european within the sanctions andted action against russia over ukraine? >> well, i'm not an experienced negotiations,

coming new to this. but those that are tell me that speedas been a lightning response, from the e.u. particularly galvanized by mh17 has moved relatively swiftly to sanctions, but were frankly far stronger and more effective than many were predicting. and i think the signals as we and more far stronger effective than the kremlin ever expected. >> isn't it the case though that several european countries have said they would be shooting the foot to quote minister ton presume sanctions against russia dependence on gas and andand trade with russia, on the other hand we ourselves our --t money in our bank accounts.

>> of course you can't impose sanctions without pain.ting some and we've been up front about that from the beginning, the sanctions will cause some cost on the financial markets in london. different e.u. countries have a level fortolerance absorbing that pain. but you've also put your finger on a very important strategic point. i think both sides have learned a lesson over the last few weeks. has been reminded of how certainle it is in areas to russia, particularly in supply. energy and there is a lot of talk at the moment about the need as a agenda, not over the next weeks or months or even couple of years, but over a more, to have a clear

to reduceive program as aependence on russia supplier of energy. clear that the taken abacke been by their dependence on western innomic systems and our --lar things like too have do whatever it takes to reduce their dependence west, their economic dependence on the west. both been we've reminded of that iterdependence, and certainly would advocate that the e.u. strategican important agenda seek to reduce dependence countries on russian

gas. because we don't want to buy russian gas, but we moment we dangerous overdependence on a single source supply. could be kiss resulted by technical problems or some other russia.ppening within >> other than lessons to be europeanoth by the union and by our own government ofut the way the handling relations with ukraine over the association agreement, and ofre are an underestimation the hostile city of the russian administration towards not just ukraine, but prior to armenian agreement, wasn't that a warning that we on more at that

time? >> it's important that we put this in context. these negotiation started six, ago and russia didn't raise objections to them time when yanokovich was the ukraine. if you remember the sequence of events. point where to the he was contemplating signing an the e.u., when spiral.gan to so i think it would be wrong to west havingthe failed or europe having failed to read signals. i don't think russia was sending the first fewr years. >> but isn't it true in 2013 enormous efforts by

often lots of money to armenia armenia -- without scutting his government or his parliament and then did the same arrangement with ukraine. thatt that something happened with regard to putin's attitude, what was that? i don't know what it was, i i'm afraid i don't have access to what goes on in mr. putin's mind. >> would you like to speculate as to why the russians took this position? i would say is this. the e.u. entered in good faith with thetiations ukraine over a long period of time. this wasn't some rushed deal to try and spite the russians. it was a long negotiation. raise objections control inan was in kiev. and i think we've got to be very careful about any suggestion that we would allow russia a

the relationships, which sovereign independent negotiate withto e.u.ck like the >> it also came as well as a surprise to president yanokovich, he didn't expect that degree of resistance because as you say he was coming to in expecting to sign the agreement. >> so would you like to tell us why you think the russians took this view? >> well, the only logic is that the russians expected to be able control the situation by one they or another, when sensed perhaps that they were losing the lever of control they they had, they became more concerned about the signed.t being

but we can only speculate. a cause thato be president putin didn't think we were going to get a signature ukraine. you may remember at that time there was quite a lot. conditionality of different types. be the e.u. going to prepared to sign the association agreement with ukraine, because the conditionality -- >> there's been lots of talk about defense spending and so forth. a needs to be able to have comprehensive response to the sort of tactics we've seen by when it comes to the use of militias because it was a natoarea and i'm not sure

has thought this through. do you have clarify, if inilar tactics were used estonia by the russians, a we've and seen in the ukraine they try to invoke article 5, would we stand by that? is very article 5 clear, and if an armed attack took place on the -- militias? >> we've seen formed russian unit pouring over the border into ukraine. very clear in the that.stage of clear.icle 5 itself is but clearly there is a question, and i think i've already this and i've certainly explored it there is a question about where you draw that line in international law that permits

a military response. so we're not just talking about article 5 here we're talking about a broader question about what kind of attack on a state continues constitutes armed aggression that entitles the victim to make a military response. that's a debate which is happening here, it's happening in the united states, it's happening in various fora around the world. and i reject the idea that nato isn't thinking about this. i've raised it at least the last three nato defense ministers meetings that i've been at. and it is increasingly on the radar driven by cyber, i have to say, because of the awareness that a major cyber attack can happen at very -- have a very destabilizing effect not dissimilar to a imited air strike. but as of yet we don't have a

clear answer to the question. i suspect the nations of the world will have to follow up in the cyber do main. >> the meeting is adjourned. we only have 25 minutes left we may have to adjourn. i will have a look at that in as we get going. but to parable we could be brief with the questions.

we've also had a call from last month from the house of representatives for a new foreign intervention to protect libya's civilian population. do you think libya is at a breaking point? nd if so, would the worst even -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? the other part of the question? >> is libya at the breaking point? and if so would the west -- washington, london, count nance the house of representatives request for a further intervention to protect libya's civilian population? >> i don't think i would use the term breaking point but clearly the situation is very difficult on the ground and if anything the evidence suggests that positions between the different groups are becoming more entrenched.

i'm going to, if i may, invite simon just to update the can he on a conversation that he apparently has had with the prime minister's special representative special envoy who is just back from libya. visited the country just a very few days ago, really looking to see what the scope was for trying to arrive at some sort of political agreement between the various parties. of course i won't for a moment underestimate the difficult of this. there was some elements which suggested that the situation was grave clearly. there are possibilities there. the fighting is probably not as bad as it was some while ago. it has died down in most parts of the country for now. it could resurrect itself. and one of the side effects

probably of the fighting has been that there's been more or less a coalesing around two camps in libya. rather than trying to negotiate with a whole patchwork of different tribes and groups there are probably more like two main parties with whom to negotiate as you say the .arties so it is clearly a very difficult situation but there are some prospects by which a political process could be arrived at. strikes by the uae vocal. was quite do you welcome or do you see dangers from it? >> i think we're always

cautious about interventions of this nature. it seems to have been a limited intervention but it was clearly in support of one side in the conflict whereas our approach is to try to bring the different parties together. and impress upon them the need for an inclusive absolution that will allow the various different factions and tribes in libya to live -- to coexist peacefully and to share what could be quite a significant prosperity. >> those of us who oppose the intervention -- >> i was going to add. >> oh. >> do you think we've made the same mistakes as we did in iraq n 2003 when they failed to

plan for what happened after military intervention? >> well, intervention in libya was made in response to an immediate pending humanitarian disaster. i think the intervention was right. it saved many lives. we were always clear that it was going to be a limited intervention. it was not going to be boots on the ground and there were no boots on the ground. it was strictly limited in scope. we're often urged when we do things to make sure that the objectives are very clearly defined and that there isn't any mission creep. i think the libya campaign is an example of doing just that, defining the limits of what we were prepared to do, doing it, and completing it. but of course that has meant of the final resolution arrangements fi

on the ground is still a work in progress. it is still a matter of dispute on the ground. >> you wouldn't argue that we've abandoned it? >> no. we're very much engaged with libya. we're training libyan government troops here in the u.k. at the moment. we have a prime ministerial special envoy who as you just heard was in libya last week seeking to broker some kind of agreement between the principal protagonists in this battle. we absolutely haven't abandoned libya. we recognize that libya and libya's stability is quite important to us not least in rms of libya's role in the route for flows of migrants into southern europe which ultimately have an impact on us in the u.k. >> can i move the subject on to

gaza and the israel-palestine conflict. how would you characterize u.k.'s role in bringing -- introducing a ceasefire? what steps do we take to facilitate this? >> well, obviously we welcomed the ceasefire and it wasn't the first one of course. we've been actively engaged in urging the parties to these alks to agree a ceasefire is a necessary first step. certainly not in itself sufficient but a necessary first step. we haven't been direct participants in the ceasefire negotiations but we've been strongly encouraging of the government of egypt in the role that it has taken, very shortly after i was appointed and met with the foreign minister and

the president and to urge them to leave no stone unturned in bringing the parties to a ceasefire. and we continue to engage with both directly with the parties and indirectly with others who to try uence them and to ensure that out of this ceasefire that has now held for what over a week nearly two eks we get a substantive and meaningful and -- negotiation. which leads to measurable delivered improvements for ordinary gazzens tries to go about their business. so an easing of instructions, increased flow of humanitarian aid, resolution of some of the long outstanding problems around fishing rights and

payment of civil service salaries and so on. d will lead to the reintroduction of the palestinian authority into gaza which we regard as a crucial next step to allowing matters to develop further. >> as you're very well aware, the policy of the government towards gaza has been very controversial. your former colleague said it was morally indefensible and the deputy prime minister has said that the policy, the u.k.'s response has risked damage to our reputation in the region. what's your response to those comments? >> of course whenever we take a

position we risk our reputation in some sense. but we are very clear that the resolution to the problem in gaza has to be through a ceasefire. negotiations around improving the situation in gaza, the reintroduction of the palestinian authority into gaza, and then a resumption of the border discussion about the two states solution as a final resolution to this very long-running conflict. >> you don't therefore agree that the government could have said more or been more outspoken on the issues? >> i'm not sure what you mean by more outspoken on the issues. i mean, we've been very clear from the outset that israel has a right to defend itself. first of all, israel has a right to exist which hamas still denies.

israel has a right to defend itself. but it has an obligation in so doing to comply with the rules of of armed conflict and the principles around protection of civilians inflicting the minimum damage possible. >> and they've done that. >> well, this is an area of course there is a lot of noise about and there will need to be a proper examination of the conduct of both sides during this period of conflict. one thing that we do know for certain is that hamas launched rockets out of gaza into israel aimed at the civilian population. that much is clear. and israel is conducting its own internal inquiries clearly to be credible with the outside world they will have to be significant independent element in those. ut there also be international

both human rights council has established its own inquiry into the events that took place and we will encourage the parties to engage openly with that inquiry. we will also be looking very carefully to ensure that that inquiry is itself conducted impartially. my just want to preface question by saying that i have been to sir at, the target of probably the largest number of hamas rocket attacks and i condemn unreservedly all use of rocket attacks against israel by hamas which are clearly indiscriminate. visited gaza after the 2008 israeli attack on gaza, and

there i saw an entire industrialist state flattened and i saw an entire hospital burnt out with phosphorus shells. my question to you is, does the british government consider that it is legitimate against a terrorist target to use military force against purely economic and employment targets and against key social service institutions and buildings like hospitals? conflict is clear and the laws around humanitarian protection are clear. it would not be legitimate to target those kind of -- that kind of infrastructure unless it was being used for the purposes of military activity. and clearly one of the accusations that is made is

that hamas during this conflict deliberatively and systemically positioned offensive military equipment in areas of sensitive infrastructure like hospitals and schools and in areas of dense population seeking to use members of the civilian population effectively as human shields. now, that in itself would be illegal activity. these are allegations. there are huge numbers of allegations on both sides. they need to be investigated on what happens needs to be -- what happened needs to be properly established. >> from buildings to people. does the british government consider it is legitimate that if a government like the israeli got believes it has identified a particular hamas terrorist or perhaps one or

more hamas terrorists, it is then legitimate to destroy using air to surface missiles, tank shells, artillery shells, entire buildings and neighborhoods resulting in very substantial civilian deaths of complete innocent men women and children? and can i just add as a rider to that speaking as a former security minister, that if a british government had dealt with a terrorist in northern ireland using military force in the same way as has been used by the israelis, then i am absolutely confident that the outrage in the house of commons would have been such that the entire government would have been forced to resign. >> well, i think you're robably aware of the rules

about proportionality in response. and so the question that you pose cannot be simply answered for a military response in pursuit of a military target to be lawful it has to be proportionate. and it is not possible to make a generic statement about types of attack or types of responses without knowing the full circumstances of each individual incident. it isn't possible to make that evaluation. people can speculate and people have speculated what is now needed is a proper analysis of each incident that occurred. be easy but not i think it has to happen. there will be mistakes made in the prosecution of any military campaign. there will be incidents that

occur which are not justified. and then the question will arise whether they have occurred by inadvertance, by an error, by a failure, or whether they have occurred as a result of deliberate targeting. so there are many questions that will have to be answered in analyzing exactly what did happen over that period of time. but i don't think it's helpful to speculate and to seek neric caltgoerization of types of incident without knowing the details of the individual instance in question. >> i would totally agree with you if it was just one or two incidents. ut to get the death toll between 2-3,000, we're not

talking about one or two incidents, we're talking about vast numbers of incidents. tv footage of which we've seen, health facilities being attacked by tank shells, and this idea that there's going to be some forensic inquiry at some state in the future that will bring israel to justice -- >> if you don't mind me saying so you've rather prejudged the case. haven't you? both sides of -- >> this was hundreds of cases many of which were captured on film, many which were given by eye witness accounts by u.n. officials. and the government itself said that the death toll in gaza was unacceptable. >> the words -- >> i remember what he said in the chamber. after repeated questioning the

death toll was 2-3,000 >> no -- >> is by no means a proportionate response to the toll. >> i'm afraid -- >> that we've seen. >> i'm afraid that's a mistake of ubsing of the proportionality test. first of all, let me say that the level of civilian deaths was horrific. i've said so on many occasions. and we want to do everything possible to ensure that such a conflict cannot happen again. but the proportionality test does not require us to look at the number of deaths on each side in the conflict. it requires us to look at the response that was delivered to each individual military action. >> i understand that -- >> and of course -- >> but the point i'm making is if you look at the outcome as a whole then statsically at the very least the fact that so many people died even if a fraction of those attacks were

disproportionate, you boont -- we wouldn't have had the result that is we've had. the point i'm trying to make as ell is that in either your responses to different questions -- for example, on russia, you were very eager to say how effective sanctions were in terms of determining the behavior, for example, of russian forces and how they might behave in the future. why hasn't the government talked about e.u. sanctions and -- in the way that we have had expected it? >> because the government doesn't think that in this case sarningses would be appropriate or effective. there has been a conflict. there has been significant numbers of deaths. and we deplore the fact that those deaths occur. we've been very clear about that

throughout. hen there are very clear legal constraints on the parties involved in this kind of conflict. and there are accusations on both sides of unlawful conduct and they need to be investigated. we can't do that here in this committee. we don't have the information. you're taking the gross numbers and you're drawing extrapolation from them. but of course many of the rockets that were launched against israel were intercepted by the iron dome system therefore doesn't cause casualties. that doesn't mean they were not unlawful. the launch of them remained an unu lawful act. >> i condemn those rockets and the actions of hamas. but if this was a boxing match it would have been stopped after the first round. >> well, we and many others would have loved to have stopped it after the first

round. and i can assure members of the committee that we spared no effort in seeking to stop it. >> my colleague sir john has made the point the minister the government would have felt or at least resigned as a result of action like this and held the prime minister and himself -- >> if you don't mind me saying so with respect sir john was referring to action by the british government. we're not talking here about action by the british government. >> actions that could have been taking in northern ireland and actions that were taken by the israeli government here. >> the record will speak for itself. >> finding that in the remaining few minutes can we iscuss iran. >> i will ask the one question which a number of issues that we can tackle. one is you're about to respond back to our report if you could just maybe give us a flavor

today of what areas you may disagree with us on. two, do you think a settlement by november with iran on its nuclear program is becoming more or less likely? and just the final item is there was announcement that our embassy would reopen tehran announcement was made on 17 june maybe three months have passed why has it taken so long? >> on the first question. the committee's report. the government's response to the committee's report will be published on the 12th which i think is friday of this week. in general, we're in agreement with the reports' findings. not surprisingly there are some emphasis on certain points. one area that i could perhaps mention now is the question of trade with iran. the government's position is

that iran mportant sees agreement on a comprehensive deal as the means to restoring its trade relations so we are not encouraging companies to trade with iran. of course within the existing restrictions it is for individual companies to decide whether they wished to trade with iran although it's quite challenging because of the scale and breadth of the restrictions that are in place. on the question of the nuclear negotiations, these are at a sensitive stage and i don't want to do anything that makes them more difficult. i think both sides understand the red lines that each other have drawn. and i would hope that over the next few weeks there is going to be a determined effort by

both sides to see if more common ground can be found in particular during the united nations general assembly in new york there will be opportunities for various bilateral and multilateral and informal meetings to occur and positions to be explored. we are very clear that we want to see a deal done but we do not want to see a bad deal done. this has to be a deal in order to reassure the world, the international community, that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon and that its interest in retaining nuclear enrichment capability is purely directed at a civil nuclear program and we're some way away from being convinced of that position yet. finally on the question of the embassy, it is our intention to reopen the embassy.

we have to make sure though that this is done in a way which will provide proper protections to our staff, allow them to go about their business in performing their functions effectively. and there are some technical issues still remaining outstanding to be dealt with with the iranians. they are engaged in those problems with us. we do not expect them to -- we do not expect anything in there that is ra show stopper but there are presences that need to be gone through. we are also acutely aware of the fact that one of the principle purposes from the iranian point of view in getting the embassy reopened is to have a visa service available in tehran. and we need to ensure that we can put in place an effective visa service when the embassy is reopened or we run the risk of disappointing people in iran who have been looking forward to the reopening of our embassy

for the opportunity to obtain the visa rather straightforward and simple. we want to make sure that the two things, the reopening of the embathy and the reauthorization of visas go hand in hand. >> thank you so much. it is now let's get to this -- we've not asked you questions on nigeria and drones and the future direction of the u office generally. if we may well write you on those. on behalf of the can he i thank you very much indeed. >> thank you so much. >> order.

here are just a few of the comments. >> i just want to say what a brilliant mark i think mark ginsberg was on c-span today. the 10th of august. i thought he was really balanced and gave really good insight into some of the things that have been puzzling me over the last few weeks. so i just thank you for a brilliant show this morning. thank you very much. >> a lot of people in a lot of customers don't get access to

c-span-3. i know right now with the cable mpanies, it's not unreason for all channels for c-span. so going forward i hope c-span radio might have a broadcast locally at least in the major cities in the country. and i hope c-span continues. thank you. >> i've been watching c-span-3 this weekend and it just, one show after the other, the berlin wall, the panama canal, ere's been a number of them, i'm missing many of them, but they're just very enjoyable to watch, very informative, very entertaining. and for those of us who find this historical information

very interesting, it's really the place to be. i certainly watch the other but c-span-3 especially this weekend has just been so wonderful. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. >> at the annual convention of the national alliance of mental illness speakers talk obhow to treat mental illness. we'll hear from virginia state senator former congressman patrick kennedy and singer demi

lovato. >> we want congress to act. and so today our supporters here and around the country are going to be calling e mailing tweeting and visiting capitol hill. and when you visit capitol hill i want you to remember that you are part of the movement. we are a movement of people dedicated to providing health and hope to all of those affected by mental illness, a movement that demands a more caring and a better mental ealth care system.

a movement -- [applause] a movement that rages against homelessness, emergency rooms, jails, and prisons. we've had too much of that and we want it to change. cheers and applause] and a movement that fights for recovery for people with mental illness, for jobs, for homes, for families and for friends, for -- the ability to use all of your gifts and all of your talents. [cheers and applause] the first probably needs no

introduction. pat yirk kennedy served eight years in congress until 2011 representing rhode island's first district. he was the leadling champion of the national mental health parity bill which was passed in 008. he has been the recipient of the highest honor our distinguished service award. he continues to be a leading voice for scientific research and the trance formation of mental health care. and patrick is all of those things but he is so much more. he is a beacon of hope for all of those who struggle with mental illness and addiction. i had the privilege this summer of visiting a center in chicago on 47th street and i got a really warm welcome. but they couldn't wait to tell me about their visit from patrick kennedy and what a difference he made by telling his story in such a heart felt

way, the way he always does. and one of them said it best. they said he is one of us. and that's how we feel. patrick is one of us. he has been a great friend, a great friend to those in the mental health community. and we want to welcome our reat friend patrick kennedy. cheers and applause] >> well, when i was in congress, you know, i got used to that standing ovation. now that i'm out of congress i'm just going to stand up here and soak it in because i'm in recovery. and not only recovery from -- [applause] i'm in recovery from being in politics.

let me just say from the outset how great mary has been in terms of hitting the ground running and really coming in. talk about trying to drink water from a fire hydrant. she came in at a time that is going to be the most formative time in mental health advocacy in the last 50 years and we couldn't be more proud to have you as executive director. [applause] and ron and andrew, terrific policy team who are getting you all ready to go to go to the hill. the whole team is exceptional. i've had the honor of working with them for many years. let me just first say to demi lovato, i told her back stage, she's already a hit. we know she's produced lots of hits but she's already a hit

star with all of us because she's willing to stand up in the light and say she's one of us, too. cheers and applause] my daughter, my 6-year-old daughter loves sky scraper and i tell you, you're our sky scraper when it comes to standing up tall, when things are falling around us because of the stigma and discrimination against mental health and to have someone like you willing to take a stand means something to all of us and we're really grateful again that you're here. now, most of you have heard of my uncle, president john kennedy. but one of the things that

president kennedy was known for was his book profiles in courage. nd if he were alive today, and were adding another chapter to that historic book, he would include senator and mrs. craig eeds in that book. [applause] senator, like my family, your tragedy was exhibited in public in a way that should not have to be for any family. and instead of running away from the problem, you ran towards it. . and you took your own vastating incomprehensible personal tragedy and you showed the light of your own family's

experience facing a fragmented uncoordinated mental health system which was the responsibility of all of us to do better on, and showed what the ultimate consequences of that failed system is through the loss of your son. and you more than anyone have helped america understand what is at stake if we do nothing to repair this broken mental health system. senator deeds and mrs. deeds, we owe you a debt of responsibility to fulfill your mission, to fix the system so that it doesn't have to befall any other family like it did your own. for that we are very grateful for your leadership. cheers and applause]

>> president kennedy in 1963 talked about the civil rights act this way. he said, who amongst us would trade the color of their skin nd be content with those who counsel patience and delay? you see, at the time many people said we can take another 10, 15, 20 years to implement civil rights. it's ok. let's take our time. that means one thing to a white american. it means something entirely different if the color of your skin is dark in this country. and you are discriminated

against simply because of the color of your skin. who amongst us would trade places with that person and be content with those who tell us just wait now is not the time? we face a similar moment in history today because this is an issue that is a civil rights issue. it's about the discrimination against our brothers and sisters simply because of the immuteable fact that their their illness as immuteable as the color of their skin, is an illness of the brain as opposed to an illness of any other organ of the body. shortly after president kennedy

put the civil rights bill before congress he took on another civil rights bill, the community mental health act, and he said the meantly ill need no longer be alien to our affections or beyond the help of our communities. [applause] have you ever heard something so clear in terms of what we need today? the mentally ill need no longer be alien to our affections or beyond the help of our communities. pretty simple. isn't it? pretty basic. now, you're all going to go up to the hill today and you're going to advocate for simple things. making sure that families are art of the treatment plan,

planning, for their loved ones just as they would be if their loved one were coming out of the hospital for any other physical illness. [applause] >> you're going to go up there and say don't those with brain illnesses deserve the same coordinated care as any other chronic illnesses that is out there? and why shouldn't our health care system reflect the desire to optimize care by making sure that it's coordinated for the benefit of the nation? this is pretty simple stuff, my friends. you're going to go up there and talk about the fact that this is simply about treating the brain like any other organ of the body. [applause]

now, we could spend all day, as you often do at your meetings, going through the litany of discriminatory practices embedded in federal law and federal regulation. it's replete with discrimination. so rather than letting the congress get lost in the details, make sure as mary did in her article in roll call, we eep it simple, my friends. this is not complicated. treat mental illness the same as any other illness and we will make enormous difference in tackling the challenges that face us. [applause] >> so but how do we treat it? if this were cancer there would

be a revolution in this country. this would be -- if this were diabetes, there would be a revolution in this country. the way we pay for mental health care today is we say to the mentally ill and those with addictions, come back when u you have stage 4 cancer. that's what we would be saying to them. saying come back for treatment when you u need your legs amputated as a diabetic. we wouldn't think of saying that to anybody with diabetes o or anyone with cancer and we shouldn't think of saying it with those suffering from mental illness and addiction. [applause] and then we say well these problems are too great. we can't get our arms around them. they're intractible and they're uncurable. wait a second here.

sties to cancer met stage 4, yes, it's pretty difficult to treat. if you let diabetes get to be where you need an amputation you lose your sight, yes, it's pretty terrible disease to cure and fix. ut if you intervene on first onset of schizophrenia, first onset of addiction and put in place the kind of preventive measures that we would put in place, if it were any other chronic illness, we would have a different trajectory and people would not be forced to have their illness pathologized because of lack of care and the untreatment of the mentally ill that goes on for too long and creates too much disability and too much mortality. this is a simple issue. [applause]

so we need to be clear with congress on our vision for a new mental health system. we cannot allow them simply to move deck chairs on the titanic. you understand what i'm saying? we can't let them make this decision about commitment and forced this or that. you know what? if you treated someone early in their illness, they wouldn't be forced to take the high levels of medication that they end up having to take because you never take care of them until their illness becomes pathologized and then they wouldn't have the side effects and then they wouldn't have the compliance issues. this is a simple issue. treat it like every other issue. treat it early, treat it aggressively. you'll save lives, you're save disability and we will all as a society be better off for it.

cheers and applause] now, on the commitment issue -- because it's the most controversial out there. ommitment to what? ok, why don't we have the same expectations and standards for care for the mentally ill that we expect for every other physical illness? we shouldn't be commiting people to substandard care or lack of evidence-based treatment. but on the issue of commitment, i know about it personally. my brother and sister took guardianship of our mother. so no one needs to talk about these issues to me. because like my mother i have serious depression and bipolar and like my mother i struggle with addiction and alcoholism

and like my mother some day god forbid my children have to save my life. i want them to step up to the late and save their father's life like i saved my mother's life? cheers and applause] so i come back to it. you got my freezing rain. this is simple? just treat these illnesses as if they were any other illness and apply those standards to this setting illnesses. the biggest challenge we're facing is political will. and that political will is a reflection of the lack of

understanding and it's the result of cultural indifference and bigotry which feeds the prejudice and discrimination that affects those with mental illness like myself. , my proposal would be let's like the civil rights act, we had to pass the voting rights act to define what we meant by civil rights. then we had to pass the fair housing act, then we had to pass the fair employment act. i hope we don't have to go around and begin to define what is common sense, what is basic. and that is, like my friend tim murphy said, treat one another with dignity and respect. if you do that, the rest of it will fall into place. cheers and applause]

and i will conclude with this. my father was known for compromises. now, no one said that my father capitulated. ok? my dad was a champion and a stal wart for the liberal cause. but when it came to advancing the national interests, not just his party interests, he worked with orrin hatch and mike ensi and john mccain and all of them because at the end of the day this is about making progress not making perfection the enemy of the good. [applause] so i would say let's make sure h.h.s. and department of labor nforce, implement, monitor compliance of, health insurance

plans to make sure that they are meeting the federal laws requirements. this is simple stuff. follow the law. and let's make sure the federal government follows the law. so not only are we going to hold insurance companies accountable to the law. we need to hold medicaid and our own public health system ccountable to the federal law. [applause] so to my republican friends, this is easy. just do what everyone says, follow the law. you pass laws now you've got to live by them. apply it to medicaid. if -- my democratic friends say apply the law to these managed care organizations to, who like to impose higher treatment and financial limitations on those suffering from mental illness.

follow the law. let's implement it. let's monitor compliance. and then let's do the other things that we know is going to make a difference in deinstitutionalizing people from the new institutions, the jails and the prisons. so that we can finally treat people with the dignity and respect that they deserve. [applause] and we have a moment of time now because the newest population that are within our ranks are returning veterans from iraq and afghanistan suffering from the quote/unquote invisible wounds of war. so any members of congress who said oh well those are the mentally ill and those people with addiction, they're not a very popular crowd around here because they don't stack up in the measurement of political power in this town. tell them that what we have been fighting for our whole

lives is now what is necessary to save the lives of our returning heroes and there shouldn't be a democrat or republican out there who says no to the agenda that you take up to capitol hill today. thank you very much. cheers and applause] >> thank you so much, patrick. i told your our speakers today are going to be inspires. i'm happy to introduce to you now a wonderful leader, jim pane and long time member and advocate betsy greer. [applause] >> good morning. i'm so happy to be here.

this is such an exciting morning. and thank you mary. and i join patrick kennedy and on behalf of the board in saying how glad we are that you are serving as executive director. i am deeply indebted to our special guests here this morning. and of course saddened at some of the circumstances that at times bring any of us into this room together. i will say that i am happy at this particular moment, though, to in a moment introduce my dear friend betsy greer. my name is jim pane. i do serve as the interim president. and i am from virginia. and from active with nami northern virginia. and betsy greer, a long-time leader in the northern virginia affiliate is here. together it is our prifflidge to jointly present betsy here -- to jointly present our next

speaker with nami richard t greer advocacy award named in honor of betsy's husband who as the director. >> good morning. 35th rks nami's anniversary. richard greer served as our third full time employee and as first director of government relations. that was back when the national office was a one-bedroom apartment on massachusetts avenue. those were the days when our loved ones were being discharged from state psychiatric hospitals and returned to their home communities. they were extremely ill but their families had no skills or support to care for them. in those times richard greer

usually didn't come home for supper until 8:00 or 9:00 in the evening, answering calls from across the nation from people seeking help for their loved ones. what do i need? where do i find services? what programs help? whom should i call? it was through those phone calls that richard greer found nami foot soldiers to carry the message of the need for better services and programs. he sent them to capitol hill just as you are being asked to go today. are you ready? [cheers and applause] this year's recipient of the richard t. greer advocacy award is virginia state senator craig deans whose using the power of his own family's story as a force for change. he used it to educate the virginia general assembly about

the need for better services. he has spoken out nationally and his words have communicated many of nami's own messages. they are not easy messages. on november 19 of last year, he lost his bright son gus who struggled with bipolar disorder. as in many stories, he desperately sought to get help for his son but could not. not in time. in presenting this award, i want you to know that i am one virginian who will work as hard as i can to support you in working to ensure that other virginians are spared the pain your family has experienced. i will work with you so that our loved ones can live in our community safely and to their

highest level of independence possible. nami and i share your loss and we honor your courage. welcome to the nami family. as richard greer would say, you are not alone. congratulations. you are a worthy recipient of richard greer advocacy award for your outstanding work, your leadership, and service for all people living with mental illness. [applause]

>> thank you all so much. i've just got a couple of things to say. before i get started, i want to it knowledge my wife who is with me. thank you. and some of my colleagues and partners from virginia. [applause] and my colleagues and partners in the legislative process in virginia. i see those in the senate with me. i see those in a house of delegates. and i see one of my mentors, and the next congressman for the eighth congressional discover union, don buyer, right here. [applause] i hope i have not missed anybody. thank you so much. thank you to the national alliance on mental illness. and thank you, jim payne, and betty greer. i am honored to receive the richard t greer advocacy award and i'm humbled. although i've never met mr. brewer, his or her beautician