>> the impact of education, all those things are important. indeed, has a positive impact, but we think, to put it very bluntly, trap ourselves why trying to justify human spaceflight because of the benefits of science or what have you. we think the justification has to be an in tangible justification. it's a justification that says the purpose is to prepare a path to put human beings in the solar system. which shows american leadership,

the benefits of the american system, leadership of our technology. it provides inspiration to our students, to our young people, that go into math and science. that can have the kind of impact the apollo 11 had during the time of some purveyor in our country. these are tangibles, but we think they are not unimportant. we think they are important. we don't diminish or minimize these other benefits. they are real, they are there, but they buy themselves probably don't justify human space program. the question, i'll stop in a moment here, mr. chairman, the question of course arises perhaps should you spend money on human space flight or on cancer research. i would argue that that's an unfair question. we live in a nation where we spend $7 billion gambling on the super bowl last year.

we spent $32 billion on videos and going to the movies. we spent i think it's $65 billion on illegal drugs. so it's clear to me that this nation can afford -- i'm speaking for myself, it's clear to me that this nation could afford a strong human spaceflight program. it's simply a question of priority. >> azure committee discussed these in tangible benefits, no doubt you noted also some of the tangible benefits. what do you think they are as we continue to push forward? >> let me take the international space station as an example, if i may. we spent over two decades constructing the iss, and we now are talking about using it for only five years. during those five years we don't

have much money available to pay for the science that would produce these tangible benefits. there at one point was a large number of scientists who wanted to conduct science on the station. they've somewhat dwindled away because of the slits in the program and the lack of funds. given funds, though scientists could -- there's a significant microgravity work to be done. their significant biosciences work to be done. we've done some amazing things in terms of technical operatio operations, extravehicular activity has become -- i'm not going to use the word almost routine, but certainly more common. wwe know how to do that. we dock routinely. there are benefits like that that in addition there is always the spinoffs of what gets to

where you develop technologies for the space station or for other things in space that impact commercial products. >> senator hutchison? >> yes. if i understand correctly, correct me if i'm wrong, yesterday in the house you indicated that if adequately funded the constellation program currently underway is a good program, and coupled with the shuttle flight continuation until a replacement, human rated capability is developed, either through ares or through commercial vendor, a gap in commercial flight could be close and international space station support and utilization could be ensured. is that your view? and is in your view, the $3 billion with a cost-of-living

-- or 2.4% increases per year would be adequate for that kind of approach? >> yes. let me try to be clear. it would not be our view that you could conduct that kind of a program with the existing budget. it would be argued that with the 3 billion-dollar inflated profile that you indeed could conduct such a program, and as you know, there are no funds to take the iss in the current program beyond 2010 -- excuse me, 2015. the shuttle, 2010. >> and is also your view that the constellation program, together with an extension of the shuttle flight program would be a good approach to closing the gap and utilizing the space station? >> we looked at a lot of options to try to close the gap.

and its argue that the gap is likely to be more like seven years instead of the fighters that people talked about. the only option we can find, viable option to close that gap is to continue to operate the space shuttle. to do that, one of course have to commit funds to the shuttle otherwise could be spent on the exploration, preparing for the expiration program. and one would certainly have to recertify the shuttle to be sure that the safety issues were taken care of. but the answer to the question is not only is the shuttle close the gap, is probably the only way to close the gap. >> so you think that option -- i know you didn't pick a recommendation, but that that would be an acceptable option? >> is a viable option, yes. >> been on the safety issue, do you believe that the columbia accident investigation

recertification standards are adequate, and if those were continued to be met, that that would -- you can never insure safety because you never know all the factors, but that that, too, would give us a solid safety shuttle for continuation or as much as you can ensure? >> yes. i appreciate your qualifying that. one of the frustrating things to an engineer like myself is 90 percent of the reliability failures that we encounter, and i separate that from safety, but 90 percent of them come from causes that are even in our models. there is human error, design flaw, and so with that caveat, it is our belief that were nasa to complete those

requalification steps that we could continue with reasonable safety. we base that partly, of course, one of our neighbors, doctor sally ride was a member of that columbia and also the challenger failure evaluations, but it is our belief that that could be done. >> okay. on the issue of the commercial development, i have been certainly a supporter of the c.o.t.s., commercial orbital transportation services, i think that is a viable area for private investment, and also for kind of a fallback provision where we need it. but i do want to ask you, if we had that private capability but

not the orion or the ares ready to go, and we still have a gap in our own nasa capabilities, do you think that exclusive reliance on the commercial development is justifiable, in the face of the need to utilize the space station? or does that concern you? >> the reason we offered options that depend heavily on commercial development, are that we are trying to free nasa's money and talent to tackle the tough problems of going beyond earth orbit. we think we were in a situation a little like the airlines were when the government stepped in and awarded contracts to carry the mail. that was the thing that made airlines liable. and today, nasa has an nasa is

pursuing this opportunity that you described. it certainly bears risk. many of the firms that are involved, have not built major launch systems. in our evaluations, we are particularly conservative in assessing their capabilities. for example, some of them claim they can have vehicles ready within three years. we think it's more like six years. but certainly there is no reason that these companies can't produce viable capability given the support of nasa. >> and would you be comfortable that they could provide that service if there is a gap, and that that is reliable enough? >> i think the answer is yes. but fortunately, we don't have to answer that at this moment.

but there are other alternatives available, including french launch vehicle, continue to use the russian launch vehicles. none are attracted to me as an american, although i believe in international programs and i believe that if you're going to have international programs, that are meaningful, we're going to have to get used to having other nations on the critical path. at the same time, there is no more critical path i think in being able to carry astronauts to low earth orbit and that might be the one exception where i think we should have capability. so my answer is that there is risk, nontrivial risk, but in our mind it is a risk worth taking. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now, following up senator hutchison's question on the commercial, you're really looking at the cargo capability on commercial, because that next step of the question of safety

for human capability, what did your committee come up with on that? >> it would be our recommendation that as nasa develops new launch vehicles, most new launch vehicles, that would make arrangements so that they could be human rated at an appropriate time. and so we think it would be wise to begin addressing how would you human rated those commercial vehicles. >> and did your committee have a time at which you think that they might be ready? ready, for human rated commercial vehicles? >> i think, mr. chairman, i better provide that for the record. we did evaluate that. i can't remember the time. it's not within the next six years or so. i will provide that, for the record. >> senator vitter?

>> to directly follow up on that, is that to say that you would agree with a sap and their 2008 report that it's unlikely that c.o.t.s. would be done in time, human rated to minimize the gap? >> that's argue. >> okay. going back to the gap and extending the shuttle, if you extend the shuttle at least slightly into 2011, as you've talked about, simply to ensure that there is no launch fever, but not beyond that and you accept a gap, versus extending the shuttle beyond that to close a gap, how much do you -- let me put this record how much do you

sack of ice and extending the shuttle beyond that to close all the gap? in terms of pushing forward next generation activity? >> i'm doing this calculation mentally, but it would probably be about $18 billion over -- to close the gap by using the shuttle, would be the incremental cost. >> what does that translate into time and terms of otherwise using it to pull next generation forward? >> well, i guess the way i would characterize that would be, it would let you go the 3 billion are additional profile for six years. these are not precise numbers. which i think the most important thing is that's the amount of time it pulls forward, but when you reach these big milestone, having new launch vehicles, you would have money to have to

develop them to put on top of things to go somewhere. >> wouldn't you also presumably develop a new launch vehicles at least somewhat sooner? >> if you use that money would probably be able to accelerate the launch vehicle some. i don't think it would be -- you would certainly come if you spent the money for example on the ares v, you could clearly dry forward, and i don't know the amount, probably significantly. >> i'm not asking for a yes or no answer, how would you suggest we analyze that difference? in other words, extend the shuttle and close the gap versus accept a gap trying to minimize it, but be able to minimize that money toward where we are ultimately going? >> we did do that analysis and will provide it that it was our conclusion that continuing the

shuttle to close the gap is a viable option, and it's one of the options we offer. and i'm trying very hard not to make a recommendation here, but it -- one runs into a problem, the more money you spent in the last term the less you do an export our program. so to us the cost of continued to operate the shuttle is quite hi. >> that's what i was going. cesar lee would agree with my reaction to those figures, that that's a lot of money. >> in deed. >> to continue the shuttle. you know, i represent louisiana, which includes -- i'm also for the extra fuel tank that my concern is once you start putting off the next generation that much, you threaten every getting -- threatened really building a consensus and a reality that people think we're

ever going to get there, and so we don't. do you have a reaction to the? >> yeah, i think you're coming back to the fundamental problem of masses, and that is with a budget constraints it's had on it, it doesn't have enough money to develop the next-generation system. while it continues to operate the current system. and so the consequence of that today is the gap, with which most of us are not particularly happy. and there will be another problem that we complete the ares i, there will be another gap, what over going to do with the ares i and the orion once we get in there and then when we complete the ares v, there will be no lunar excursion modicon if you will, lunar lander, nor surface system to use. this may be just the first of three or four gaps. >> just to be clear. this concern of mine, in terms of the trade off, isn't solved

by the extra $3 billion. i mean, that mitigates it, but that trade off is still there, even at a higher funding levels you're talking about. >> the programs we have that add on the $3 billion, one of them includes the shuttle and it has the problems we have just discussed. the other ones do not include the extension of the shuttle, beyond mid- 2011. >> okay. that's all i have right now, mr. chairman. >> i want to ask a series of questions around the major themes of your report. the fact that if we're going to have a robust human space program and were going to have to commit the resources to it, you specifically talked about 3 billion a year. your architecture is various,

and engineers such as yourself and nasa leadership are going to have to determine that architecture, but the goal that the committee has set is to get out beyond low earth orbit, that nasa ought to be exploring the heavens with the human space program. and that in the meantime we've got to worry about the workforce. so i want to pick up on those three games, which i think are going to be the major things that the president is going to have to make his decision on. now, you came up with this idea of 3 billion a year. if you had additional resources, what would you do? >> beyond the 3 billion?

the primary things that we think need to be done in the near future are largely covered in the 3 billion figure. if you had additional funds, you would be able to probably move forward, somewhat, some of the work on some of the work on ares i eric but i think it would be a modest amount that you could accelerate that. you could clearly move ares v forward, or an alternative to ares v, which would be very important because that really is the long pole in our space exploration can't. >> is the ares v? >> is the heavy lift capability.

ares v is a good example. >> so you have come up with the idea of consensus that you feel like the 3 billion is enough, in order to support a robust human spaceflight program in the near term, without having to shortchange other missions in science and aeronautics? >> we believe that's true. we of course must have good management of that additional money, which there's every reason we would have. and we've also proposed creating a firewall between the human spaceflight funding. i emphasize funding, not technology or mutual support. and the science program, because as we all know, the human space light program is so large that when it has problems, it can cannibalize the science program. do you feel that nasa in order

to maintain the most robust human spaceflight program, do you feel like the realities of this gap are unavoidable? and the fact that we are going to have this gap with that $3 billion that you can keep things going by developing the new technologies on down the line? >> to eliminate the gap or significantly reduce it, would have a significant negative impact on long-term expiration program. i think the gap is something that we are presented with based on decisions that were made in the past, perhaps good decisions, i don't know. but i think that we are stuck

with a gap. >> did the committee look at taking the constellation program as it has been defined and see how much it would cost to execute the constellation program? >> we did, and there's 3 billion profile that's added permits either the constellation or several other options to be carried out, so the answer is we did, and it can be done. >> but according to one of your charts, which we can show up here in what you call the less constrained budget, the first one under the moon, first operations right in the middle of the page, the less constrained, in other words, the 3 billion additional each year,

with ares v as the heavy launch and with ares i and orion as the crew tullio which is the constellation program as envisioned now, under that funny scenario, lo and behold, the space station is going to go in the drink in 2015. so your committee also said that's unacceptable. i happen to agree with you. i mean, why would we spend $100 billion building a space station and then put it in the pacific? but that's what the funny profile is for that 3 billion, and within an extension of constellation, is it not? >> yes. i think that i can see a chart, but i think you are referring to option three. >> option three. >> option three was intended to take the baseline program of record, apply less constrained budget to it, just as we did any of the cases. and the program of record as you say, splashes the iss in early

2016. completes the flights of the use of it in 2015. >> how is it with what you call the constrained budget, which is the present inadequate, i will say, omb budget. i will not ascribe that to the president. >> nor me, i hope. >> but in the so-called constraint option, and yes, what you just said i think is very important, what you just said, i hope. from your lips to the presidency years. option number one, constraint that you can do that. note $3 billion extra. you are still putting the iss in the ditch in 2015, and you've got ares v and ares i.

so what are you buying extra from option one option three? in option three, you're getting an additional 3 billion. >> option one is of course the current funding, and with that you basically get launch vehicles with nothing to put on top of them. i'm oversupply here, mr. chairman. with option three, you are able to develop the ares v in an early time, you are able to carry international space station for an an additional five years. was also prided the full amount of money one needs, and what

gets the technology program that's rather substantial to begin laying work for the exploration program, and one gets funding to carry out signs on board -- the science and technology onboard the iss over that 10 year period. >> and i think that's the answer. it is the additional science and technology that you get under that, but let me just point out that the chart, and maybe the chart needs to be refined before your final report comes out. option one and three are a difference of $3 billion. and yet, it looks like they present the same result, because in option three you are putting the space station in the pacific in 2015 under this. the difference with option 4 is that you have replaced ares i

and orion with a commercial vehicle to get to low earth orbit. >> your point is a very good one. this chart is somewhat misleading in that regard. and there's also the matter that the dates change when things become available. for example, under option when you are probably in the 2030s when you conduct human exploration missions. that's our view. it's not necessarily nasa's jupiter whereas under option three, you can do it considerably earlier. >> since we have a consensus of opinion that we need to get nasa out of leo, do you have a preference on the architecture? either you said you're not in the business of recommending a

specific course, but do you have any personal feelings that you want to share with the committee? >> mr. chairman, we have all tried very hard to not put you or the president in a position where we've come out, endorsed an option, and you then, if you don't agree with it after. so my answer is, and i think i can speak for the committee on the options, one and two, that we deem to be not liable. of the remaining three primary options, each has some advantages, some disadvantages. and our committee has never discussed what our personal preferences are by intent. we have not done that so i have no idea what my colleagues believe. i would go so far as to say that these flexible path options are particularly interesting to me, because i'm concerned that if we

commit to going to the moon there's a reaction of passionate as a primary objective. many people's reaction is, well, we did that years ago, why do that again? if we take down the iss so you don't have things happening between 2015 and 2020, you have a problem you describe, mr. chairman. and if you say we go to mars right after them in, there is such a long period of time, how do you excite young engineers who want to commit their career to that? how do you excite taxpayers to want to pay for that? and so to me there's a great merit to having some interim milestones along the way to mars, still going to mars alternately. but where you can point to

significant technical engineering, scientific if you will, advantages and accomplishments. >> but what i'm saying to be more specific, clearly option five carries that opportunity here you can marry that opportunity with some of the other options as well, and indeed, we've done that with option five a for example which ties in to a version of the ares v. >> at the end of october, this year, nasa is well on the way to doing a full up flight test of the ares i, what they called x., and what it is is the four segments of existing solid rocket boosters with a dummy segment on the top with a dummy orion on the top. and to fly it, see its dynamics,

etc. did your committee discuss any attitude about that particular test that's right down the pike, less than six weeks away? >> the committee did not discuss that. i did discuss it with myself with administrator at nasa, and that is of course his call to make, and i have enormous respect for his ability and judgment. were him i call i would fly it. and the reason is that i think we will learn important technical -- we will gain technical knowledge. we've paid a great deal to get, we should get it. and if we continue with the ares i program, it's an important step in if we don't continue with it, it's an important piece of information to have, but it relates to the ares v and other possible options. it's archimedes you that the ares i, while it has technical problems, some not

insignificant, there's no reason to believe that good engineering and sufficient funds will not make the ares i a very good vehicle in time. >> let's talk about my third major category that i think the president, in making his decision, is going to have to look to. and that is, how is he going to keep this extraordinarily talented workforce operating? share with us what your committee deliberated about that. >> that's a very key part of this whole question. needless to say, this is a rather esoteric business, and it takes years either a third to begin to understand some of the subtleties and to gain the culture that goes with launching

rockets. one of the reasons being that is such an unforgiving business. we don't get recalls in this business. nasa has without question the largest talent base in the world today to conduct space activities, both human and robotic. that's a national treasure. the options we've offered beyond the two that i suggested are probably not liable. all have about the same -- they have the same overall budget, and unless one makes a major shift to how one conducts business, the overall nasa -- excuse me, should stay about the same. however, the knicks of that will certainly change. we will need different talent. for example, if we terminate the show in 2010 or early 2011, the

people of and focusing in launching shuttles are different people probably some that will be needed to build a ares our and ares i or ares v or what other orion vehicle. so there will be changes in skill. we looked at two kinds of assets when it comes to human talent. one is just the overall workforce, namely jobs, not an important subject at this time. on the other had, it would be tragic if you'd nasa as a jobs program. nasa has so much more to offer than just creating jobs. the other are those critical skills that only people at nasa and industry are likely to have. those that we think it's very important to preserve and we need to consciously go out and do that. an example, an example would be

the largest solid segment of rocket motors. it's an art as well as a science to build those things safely. if we lose that capability it would be very hard to get back to our ability to work with liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen. we would like to be able to do that in space as well here on earth. so those special skills we have to find a way to preserve, for sure. and i guess, mr. chairman, if i could extend your question just a little bit, one last comment. and that would be that nasa, as i said before, very high fixed cost base. it makes it extremely hard to create new opportunities and options when you have that fixed cost base. part of that fixed cost base is the sinners, the work force, the facilities that it would be our hope that the president and congress would give the minister of nasa a great deal of latitude to manage the resources that he is responsible for. >> and i want to underscore that

comment as a very important comment. so that these dislocations of the workforce, albeit as you said would the more robust funding is going to keep nasa at a fairly level a mound of employment. that's going to change among the different centers, according to what their particular -- their particular workforce does. and needless to say, in consideration of, if we're not launching human -- humans on an american vehicle, there's going to be less launches at, for example, the kennedy space center, even though we might be building the new rocket with the new technologies and the new money that you've laid out. so i hope the president and the

congress will give the administrator just exactly what you said, the flexibility, so that he could utilize that workforce in different places with different missions. so as to minimize the economic devastation. and in this regard, i will put on my parochial hat, because the center that is going to get hit the hardest is the kennedy space center, because of the lessening launches of humans. now, if indeed, for example, that the president were to pick that option of a commercial, that can come in and make some amelioration of that layoff, but it's not -- it's not going to step in. so we need to give the

administrator of nasa a lot of flexibility. so thank you for that statement. i want to ask you, what if you had more time? if you had 90 days, if you had more time, do you think the results would change? >> the first thing that would happen, my wife would have divorced me. [laughter] >> i understand that. >> all 10 of us of course have regular jobs, so to speak. when we began, i questioned whether 90 days was adequate to take on a task of this type. we clearly could have done a more thorough analysis, given more time. but it's also my belief that if the differences are small between the new options and a current program, we should stick with the current program.

and so i think we're not discussing small differences. there needs to be significant differences and those are the kinds of things we try to identify, and our conclusion was that it would have been the sheer for us and we would have been able to get the significant figure more accurate, but in terms of the basic thrust of the options we've offered in their assessment, i think we could stand behind them. >> you had testified earlier that your panel's recommendations are, don't rush the shuttle, fly out, keep safety paramount. which by the way, parenthetically, i assume, will be a theme that will run throughout your report once it is produced publicly. that all of these items, that

safety has to be paramount, given the experience, the very tragic experience that we've had in the past. budget indicated in your testimony that you thought that it's realistic to think that at least in part, if not all fiscal year 2011, would be consumed by the fly out of the shuttle on the remaining missions to supply and equip the space station. did you attach a dollar figure to 2011 in that fly out? since the president's budget right now, and i will refer it to the omb budget, and i say that sarcastically, only provides for fiscal year in on

the fly out of the shuttle. did you attach a cost to it? >> we did. we have spoken with omb about a. they are aware of the number. i can't speak for omb obviously. my recollection is the number is like a billion and a half dollars, but mr. chairman, you should check that to be exact. is our view that's very important to add that to the 2011 budget. as you say is not there today. the problem is not being there it introduces pressure on getting the launch off by a given time. i refer to that as launch fever, something would always try to fight at the company i used to serve. it's a subtle pressure. and a challenger, kay spoke to that pressure, as one of the causes they thought the challenger accident. and having said this, i would

hasten to add we've spent a great deal of time talking with the people who are responsible for launching the remaining shuttles, the six remaining ones. and they are very conscious of this. they have taken at attitude that they will not be hurried. i think they're doing everything right. the problem is they're going to run off the budget clip 12 months from now. we need to fix that for them. and i think if we do they will manage things very properly. >> and i have been amazed, as i have watched this entire space team, knowing that the space shuttle is likely to come to an end. and they haven't missed a beat. with a still high morale. i mean, to me, i am just -- i'm amazed and very appreciative. >> i say, too, i never cease to be amazed when having to close a

plant, terminate a program, of the commitment of the people to doing just what you said. and that's particularly true in the space arena, and the defense arena, where what they're doing is more than building widgets. >> that's correct, and i might say, thank you for putting that on the record. i think it's important that the white house and omb hear what you just said. the congress has provided in its budget for the out year 2011, and additional budget authorization of $2.5 billion in order to fly out the space shuttle in year 2011. but that's in a budget planning document that it has to be put into reality, and there's only -- only the white house can do that. with the congress concurring. let me ask you, as you look to

the future, do you think -- well, let me ask you. what is your opinion about the constant source of funding and an adherence to a defined plan, once the option is chosen as a key success for nasa's future? >> that clearly would be a key factor to success. particularly if that number included a reserve to account for the unforeseen, every serving time, reserving funds, reserving technology. it's almost an possible, as you know to manage a program that goes out to the year 2030 when you don't know what the funny commitment is and when you had to redesign the program each year. this is a program that probably involves tens of thousands of contracts and subcontractor agreements. and when you change the budget, you have to renegotiate those.

rarely do they go down when you renegotiate, so your total costs go up. stability of funding would have been enormously positive impact. having said that, i also recognize the difficulties that you face in your chair when you don't know that the economy is going to collapse on us a year ago. and that the government receipts are going to drop. and so it's not clear to me how one can guarantee a program budget for the kind of time period it takes to undertake these major pursuits. but anything that can be done by the congress and the white house to put stability in the funding, and to let the nasa leadership know ahead of time what that funding is going to be, so that they don't have to guess would be one of the greatest contributions you could make to

the human space flight program, or any spaceflight program. >> let's talk about these options in for a through the bottom. where the crew to low earth orbit is by the commercial provider, instead of a nasa vehicle. you know the history of developing spacecraft. you think that seven years, that you really could have one of these commercial operators be able to get a human crew up to the space station? >> i think if you were to have several paths with several operators, several commercial firms, not necessarily only the smaller firms that are very

quick on their feet, but also some of the larger, more experienced firms that are probably less quick on their feet but have more scar tissue, i think if you could have several firms involved through a competition, that the chances would be very good that one would have a success. i think back to earlier in my career when we had icbms as launch vehicles, you're familiar, i speak to the titan and at less, icbms in those days, i was involved were designed to live those that don't even approach the reliability we talked about today for human rated vehicles. and yet we did find a way, we call that man rating in those days, we did a way to manage those eagles and to use them. jim and i and they perform very

well. and so there's no fundamental physical reason why they shouldn't be possible. but i would say again, it's not without risk. there are backups that one can consider. that is, other launch vehicles, including foreign launch vehicles during that great of time. >> and so when it comes to u.s. commercial cargo capability, your committee felt pretty confident of that capability? >> i think that's true, and nasa of course has embraced this idea, has provided nasa technical oversight and nasa help. which gives me greater assuran assurance, and these firms have some very talented people. and i think there's every reason to believe that they can be successful. >> you want to talk to us about the differences between the ares

v had the capability and your discussions as an alternative to an ares v light? >> i be glad to do that. the ares v, of course, is part of the current program of record, although unfortunately it's not been able to be funded because to keep the budget for the ares i and the orion unchanged, we delayed in starting the ares v, things that might go with it. the ares v light is very similar to the ares v, but it has less payload capability, and the basic measure, as you know, it's 150 megatons. am i getting mixed -- 140 metric tons i guess for the ares v, and 130 i think -- there's about 20

metric tons different in terms of payload throw weight. the ares v light basically has one less engine. has half a segment less on the solids. and could be designed to have more margin. and that's important to us because the ares v, even today many years from first launch has a very shallow margins. and if there's one thing we've learned i think is that having margins is the blessing of the space program, to be able to do you rate things. the ares v would be used in companion with an ares i. is referred to by nasa as ares

one point by. were as the ares v light would be used with another ares v as its companion. that also has the advantage that you old would have to have spares and launch facilities, and so on, launch vehicles of the type. so you would use to ares v which could be -- my numbers for summaries are escaping me at the moment, but let me just check. >> it's 160 metric tons for the ares v, and for the light it is 140 metric tons. >> that's why couldn't make it work. thank you. so you have throw weight with the ares iv light and you have 40 less -- excuse me, you have substantially less throw weight with ares i and the ares v combination. so we think there's a good deal of merit to the ares v light

approach. a disadvantage, of course, is the ares i is partly developed, and the ares v is not. >> and according to your much more complicated chart, you could have the ares v light ready to go in the early 2020s, if you went to the flexible path. if you went the moon first. so it would be the early '20s. of course, you remember that the president said in a campaign he wanted to be on the moon by 2020. so that's pretty much out the window, according to your panel, isn't it? >> that's true. >> so you're talking early '20s you could have ares v light ready, and you would have

a scenario by which you could get the ares v up with a crew as also with a lunar vehicle and do rendezvous, perhaps in lunar orbit? >> we're speaking to the larger budget level of course, and the answer would be a. >> yes. do you want to, for the record, give any comments about the alternative on the elv's, the expendable launch vehicles? >> yes. the expendable launch vehicle down as of course one that's been with us for many years, traces its history to the icbms or ram in fact that it's been extended by the department of

defense. and these vehicles have been used in various forms, some not yet in the form are carrying the full throw weight that would be needed for this mission. and the vehicles are proven. they are not human rated. and they would require additional development. they offer a legitimate alternative. they also offer the advantage that the department of defense and the intelligence community might find them useful. and we could have some savings they are. that offers a disadvantage of having to coordinate vehicles coming down the line, who gets what and who gets first priority. but it would be our committee's view that elv family is a viable

option for that consideration. and we have not attempted to make specific choices here, in part because would require a great deal more analysis that we have done of our not wanting to take a position. it's a choice that good engineering could make. >> i'm curious, one of the earlier years of accomplishment is under using an eelv going the flexible path, and you're looking at the years 2015, 2016. can you comment on that? >> yes. the reason for that, of course, is the goal has changed. the goal is much less demanding one under this flexible path option.

>> so that would still get you out on things like astroid or one of the martian moons, utilizing and eelv? >> yes. spirit and you could do that in the span of 2015, twice 60? >> no, it would be well beyond the. unfortunate i don't have the numbers here with me but it would be well beyond that. >> i was looking from this complicated chart. >> i don't have that chart here. >> right. well, under that plan on this same chart, you would be late 2020s in doing an actual landing on an? >> that sounds more correct. >> did your committee discuss an atlas or a delta on the eelv's? >> we did. they are both certainly plausible candidates.

oh, i do have it. thank you. >> how did your committee arrive at the cost estimates for the different options? >> the committee, as i mentioned, hired the aerospace corporation to assist us in this regard and i also had a good deal of help from nasa. and we obtained the nasa estimates that they have and the probabilities of confidence levels that go with them. the aerospace corporation has a models that are based on large number of prior programs. i believe it's 77 prior programs, space programs. and those models show correction factors to account for real-world experiences compared with estimates that were made at

various points in those programs. we took the work, took the work breakdown structure line by line and considered what was the maturity of the work under that line item. is this a component that exist? in which case, the fact that it would add 1.0. if it was a component that was just beginning, depending on the kind of component on average they use a factor of about 1.5. if you go through that whole set of items, the average is about 1.25 factor they have used. in estimating costs. the factors, as i say, way in the maturity of the item in question. and so that tends to reduce the

factor that was added somewhere more. nasa has raised the point, they consider that some of these factors, in fact, many of them were included in their original estimates, and that when aerospace had taken the step they don't count it. the aerospace corporation and ourselves believe that's not the case, even if it is the case, it's unlikely that we have been too conservative. and i will give you one reason. that if you look at the set of programs that the aerospace corporation uses to derive the fact is, i think it's 77 programs, for the whole set of programs they have a zero factored into takeover the human space program from that set, you have a factor that's almost twice as great. so even if we have double counted, the chances are we'd double counted by on the order of 10% or so.

and experience would suggest that that's probably not a bad thing to do. >> how do you answer this question. that we spent $8 billion thus far on the present architecture which includes ares i, and now we're going to abandon that, having spent $8 billion? . .

and recommended at that time. so ares i, we do not recommend that it be continued or abandoned. we think there should be compelling reasons to abandon it. one of the strong sentiment it arrived in my career is constantly changing programs is one of the worst thing you could do and usually make changes for a very compelling reasons. we have offered the pros and cons and it is up to the reader to decide the definition of compelling in their mind. there are liabilities to continuing with the aires i. one of those liabilities is under the current program plan as i mentioned at the outset, we won't even get it until two years after the international space station goes into the

pacific ocean. by our estimate. if we extend the international space station we ought to use the ares i for three years to support it. then there won't be that much to do until we get the ares v which we will get later because of the money spent on ares i but the ares i is the most reliable vehicle ever built. there's a good chance that will be the case. we spent $8 billion on it. that is a cost issue. a lot of people are working on it. we are getting ready to conduct a test of one might call the prototype of that vehicle. it too is a very viable vehicle. i would like not to make a choice here but just point out the pros and cons. >> if the president were to pick

the option of the ares v you are certainly going to utilize the technology that you have developed for the ares i so that you don't lose all the value of that $8 billion that has already been spent. is that what the committee concluded? >> that is absolutely true. similarly if you pick another option you can complete the ares i by adding money as i recall. i don't have my data but it is something like $1.5 billion. pretty soon -- we tried hard to scratch for money so that our profile was $3 billion. >> what was the committee's thinking on promoting the development of an on orbit refueling? >> interesting question. verner von braun in some of his

writings pointed to the enormous advantages of on orbit refueling. over the years, we have had some efforts begun to look at the subject but have never turned them to any great fruition. print the plea for financial reasons, cost reasons. it is our belief that it would be too dangerous today but there's no reason we know it from an engineering standpoint that we can't do it. we would like to run tests on the ground and in the vicinity

of the international space station of refueling on orbit. once that has been done it could have a significant impact on some of the options like closely derived shuttle options benefit substantially from refueling. that is ready for a major technology efforts today but not anything further. >> in your discussions, any idea of the time in mind as to when we should try the target for on orbit refueling? >> i would like to provide that for the record. >> does any of the staff have additional questions or do you want to keep the record open? we will keep the record open for any of the members of the committee. i know senator pryor was trying to get here and he was with his father, the former senator

pryor. i am sure he will have one. can you give us an estimate of how much it will cost to continue flying the shuttle until ares i or a commercial solution is available in that range of 2016/2017? >> that was -- >> let me complete the statement. it is one of your options. that would also support the international space station until 2020 and maintain the development of heavy lift capability by the early 2020s. >> if you continue the shuttle to support the iss through 2020 you would probably have to add -- >> just until a new commercial cumin rathuman rated vehicle wo

developed. that doesn't seem to be one of the options. >> what staff is pointing out is the best of all worlds. you continue to fly the shuttle. the question is what is it going to cost? until you have human rated capability on commercial, you keep the station up there until 2020 so that we have the value of that and at the same time, you do your technology development of heavy lift capability by the early 2020s.

>> my estimate would be the initial cost would be on the order of $10 billion. >> over that whole time period. that is above the $30 billion over that ten year period. >> you have to add that or take it out of the 30 and if you take it out of the 30 you slip the other things we would like to be doing. if you did continue the shuttle, one benefit of that other than closing the gap is it makes the closely derived shuttle vehicle options very much more interesting. because if you still have the shuttle operating and in production for that period of time, driving from the external tank and so on becomes a more

plausible option. the difficulty of course is we only have three shuttle's left. the launch rate will be very low. when you go low launch rates, you start worrying about safety. >> that would be more like option 5-c shuttled the rived except the shuttle light would continue to service the space station. >> you would continue the shuttled's operation. >> any further questions from the staff? the record will stay open for a couple of days.

again, i want to thank you for what you have done. this was very unselfish work and i think the president really has a major decision here. there is nothing like a president making a bold decision to focus the nation on where we ought to be going technologically. he is at that point. you have laid out a lot of parameters. i think it is going to be up to the president. we will certainly advise him but it is his decision and it is at a tough time. because of what we are facing with the budget deficit. just look at these gyrations we are going through right now in the senate finance committee trying to come up with a

consensus on trying to meet the health care problem straight on. it is very difficult. but i believe the president is a visionary and i believe that the president is going to make a bold stroke, not unlike president kennedy. and he set this nation on a course that was extraordinary. it is my belief that president obama will do that. with that optimistic note, thank you, mr. augustine. the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> several organizations have published their lists of the best books of the year. we are airing coverage of the award winners this week during prime time on c-span2 beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern. our coverage tonight includes ron paul on his book in the fed and in fed we trust and linda gordon in her biography of dorothea lange. the lists are available at booktv.org in the news about books section.

>> in a few moments a hearing on funding for autism research and live at 10:15 campaign management institute at american university looks at how to frame political issues. >> the nature of most human enterprise is to ask yourself in an introspective way by doing this the right way. >> auld this week a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented on the record conversations with ten supreme court justices. tonight associate justices anthony kennedy and samuel lido. that is that a:00 p.m. eastern and get your own copy of our

original documentary on the supreme court on dvd on the american icons collection, a three diskette including programs on the white house and the capital. one of many items available at c-span.org/store. >> according to the centers for disease control and prevention one in every 100 children in the u.s. has autism. now a hearing on funding autism research that includes testimony from the head of the national institutes of mental health and parents of children with autism. this is a little more than two hours. >> good morning. the subcommittee will come to order. to day's hearing is on autism. regarding research the digital treatment and intervention. the centers for disease control

and prevention estimates that one in 150 children will be diagnosed with autism. among boys the rate is even higher. most researchers agree there is a genetic component. there's not one genetic cause but many and we don't know what the triggering mechanisms are. many suspect environmental factors may be at play. we don't know what they are exactly or if they take effect during the child's first few months or years or during gestation. we know a little bit more about intervention. some behavioral interventions help if started early but we are nowhere near shore. the number of people with autism continues to grow with the rate of incidents growing. this subcommittee has taken a strong interest in autism in

recent years. we held a hearing on autism two years ago in april of 2007 and fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill that was approved by the full committee last week includes a range of activities related to autism such as outreach and education, medical research and the interagency autism coordinating committee. the bill includes $14 million for a new program to help students with intellectual disabilities make the transaction -- transition to secondary education. we have an outstanding panel of witnesses to help us examine autism from many perspectives. research, treatment bleep it will intervention and another problem that hasn't received enough attention. how to address the needs of a growing population of adults with autism.

let me just thank all the witnesses for coming here today. i will leave the record open for his introductory statement. we have two panels. we have dr. thomas insel and dr. gillian dawson and joshua cobs from iowa. dr. pickens boyd from minnesota and dana halverson from iowa. we have covered all the aspects we wanted to cover on autism with these two panels. we will open up with dr. thomas insel from the institute of mental health, not a stranger to this subcommittee.

dr. insel, welcome. as with all the people testifying here, your statements will be made part of the record in their entirety. go-ahead and proceed as you so desire. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a pleasure and honor to be here with the other panelists. i know this is a busy time for you and your colleagues and we appreciate your taking time in the middle of the summer just before recess to hear about the latest research and challenges with autism. my brief is to get you a quick update on the research since we last met which was two years ago and i can tell you this has been an extraordinary period with lots of exciting progress. i will try to review that. the testimony i hope will be

submitted for the record. i thought i would take you through three questions. what do we know at this point, what do we need and what are we doing it we will summarize those very quickly. to get you on track, let me make sure we are all on the same page. autism starts by age 3. we are talking about three symptoms that characterize autism. reduced social behavior, abnormal language and as we talked about before, repetitive, restrictive behavior's. is clear that these are the definitions many children with autism come in with additional complicating features and i just listed a few of them here. 20% to 30% will have an associated seizure disorder that is part of the autism syndrome. intellectual disability of

various sorts. many families are concerned about gastrointestinal problems of many kinds. about 10% of children who have an autism label have odd appearance. and about somewhere between 10% to 20% have what is often called regression. everybody mate regress to some degree. children seem to develop quite well for 18 months and clearly lose language and function. the result of understanding these complicated features and the fact that this is such a heterogeneous syndrome is we increasingly talk not about autism but autisms. we think about this as many different disorders and in some ways we are prisoners of our own language by thinking of it as a single syndrome. the term that has now been most widely accepted that you will

hear about this morning is the autism spectrum disorder. all that means is we are talking about within this syndrome a range from children who have very limited functioning, no language whatsoever, may have severe in delectable disability, shown no interest in social interaction and lots of motor abnormalities, hand flapping, they often have these days more kick facial features. at the other end of the spectrum are children who will be highly successful. they may in fact have social awkwardness or called geeky or nerdy or be interested more in numbers than people but they may be tremendously useful and successful and make huge contributions as engineers and computer scientists in areas that are not going to -- allow them to use what they do best

which is to think about mechanical, numerical and less social aspects of the world. all of those people whether you call them classic autism or not fit within this spectrum. as you hear the debate about what is available and what the treatments are, remember you will hear about this, to 80 within the spectrum. let's dive into what we know about what will be important for us in thinking about this as we go forward. there is wide recognition that this is a developmental brain disorder. we don't know yet where in the brain or what in the brain or when in the brain things go off track. the most recent research suggests that we are not talking about a specific lesion in a particular area but it is a

problem of brain connections. it may be diffuse and the reason you see problems in language and social interaction is those are functions that require the greatest number of synapses and if you do not process information as quickly as you need to or if you process it in a way that is too quick and not filtered you will see deficits if your connections are not working in those kinds of functions. the greatest degree is in genetics. it is not surprising. it is true in the last three or four years, we are seeing an explosion of information from genomics. it does not deliver the cue wars we're looking for yet but it has helped us to understand much more about the heterogeneity of these disorders.

we would have said it is important because we know the percentage of the children with autism have recognized syndromes, tubular sclerosis, single gene mutations in which 50% of the children or more have a diagnosis of autism as well. in the last two years we discovered a range of other rare but apparently highly significant mutations in the form of structural lesions within the genome that seem to contribute. two years ago i might have said two or four or 5% of any population of children with autism would have one of these syndromes peter cheadle that number will be considerably higher, perhaps more than 10%. we don't have names for all of the syndromes. is changing almost every two months, new reports about rare mutations that may explain

another 1% or 2% of children with this disorder. there is clearly a genetic factor at work. it doesn't explain all of autism. we need to learn more about how the genes and environment interact. there will be a lot of research in the future. that is an important area of progress. we spoke about this two years ago. as you said in opening remarks behavioral interventions are helpful. they're especially helpful when started early. you will hear more about this from other panelists. i will not take a lot of time except i want to flag this. the issue here is making sure the best behavioral interventions are available to the people who need them. we are not just talking about children but children in transition to adulthood and adults themselves. these are not always available or paid for. at least not paid for through insurance. we need to have a conversation later this morning about how that is going to happen and you

might want to ask dr. dawson about the impact of behavioral intervention. her own work in this area is setting a new bar for how far these interventions will go if they are done early. finally, the issue you brought up in your opening remarks is of great concern to you specifically is this increase in prevalence. the centers for disease control and prevention now reports from 2007 a rate of 1 in 150 children being given a diagnosis of something on the autism spectrum. i don't think that number is at great variance with numbers we have seen elsewhere. is also true that that is a 10fold increase in the numbers coming from the cdc from the 1992/1993 period. the tenfold increase is of

interest to us. i want to caution you a change in prevalence is not unique to autism. we have seen a 40 fold increase in bipolar disorder over this same period. we have seen 10 fold increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in the last three or four decades. this kind of change isn't unique to autism but it deserves our attention and we have to remember the difference between prevalence which can be affected by change in diagnosis and a number of other features and a difference in incidents which we don't have right now. good evidence that there is an increase in an incidents and the rate of new cases. that is an area that requires more research. if that is what we know, what do we need? we need to fill in the gaps of what we don't know. we will take you through what we are thinking about.

understanding more about risk. the risk architecture of the whole spectrum will be critical. beans argenes are important, environmental factors are important. we want to know about molecular targets because that is when new therapies will come and they have begun to emerge. new aspects of this syndrome. we want to understand this far better. the point of this is to develop ways of detecting this disorder much earlier. we know for brain disorders behavior is one of the last features to change. that is true for alzheimer's and parkinson's disease and huntington's. it will be important to move upstream by having a bio marker that will allow us to detect risk and the disorder earlier. we want to have interventions that are more effective.

they are for many children but they are expensive and take a long time to work. is not where we want to be at the end of the day. we want to offer more than the behavioral interventions. we want to know which treatments will work best for people. you will hear about personalized medicine. we hope the new nih director will be confirmed by the full senate. you will hear from him the high priority put on personalized medicine. that is something we need for autism as much as cancer and heart disease and diabetes. i want to point your attention to an issue that is not on the research agenda but needs to be on the social policy agenda. as you mentioned in your opening remarks we have a whole wave of children with autism who will soon be adults with autism, how we make sure they have access to services that takes care of this transition and coverage for

different kinds of care they need deserves urgent attention from this committee and others who make policy. let's say a little about what we're doing. what we are doing can be summed up quickly through the work of the interagency coordinating committee. we have a new strategic plan which was released in january of this year. that provides a whole range of activities short-term and long-term that we hope to be able to invest in so we can get the answers to what we needed. we have an extraordinary opportunity. when we came out with this plan in january what we heard most often was this is a great road map but is there any gas in the car? what happened soon thereafter with the american recovery of the investment act was the opportunity to make some very substantial new investments to jump-start this strategic plan

particularly focusing on short-term objectives and we hope within the next six weeks to be able to announce publicly the large number of grants that have been funded through the american recovery and investment act and the special are half a done through five institutes to support new autism research to the tune of $60 million but also large number of challenge grants and grand opportunity awards that will be announced before september 30th of this year. we have also tried to jump-start this progress by creating the national database for autism research which will be essentially a meeting ground electronically for scientists around the world to be able to share data and to share the tools that are necessary to accelerate progress in this area. as you will see in the strategic

plan there are six questions that guided the effort to steer research and help us think about the most important issues. the iaccwas charged to the combat and not to the mac in 2006 and includes public members and federal members and these questions came out of a rich discussion about what is it that families and people on the autism spectrum are looking for? we have taken each of these to heart and come up with a summary of what we need for these six questions and we have short-term and long-term objectives being addressed through the recovery act and other sources of funding n nih. this talk about what we are trying to do as we move forward and that is to inspire research that will everyone on the

spectrum across the life span. i can emphasize enough the importance of attention to adults and soon to become adults with autism. this plan will not only provide a road map for research but set the standard for public/private cooperation and engaging the broad community who will be so invested in making sure we expedite research progress. with that i will make a final comment. i know you have been -- many things you have done for autism and nih and many of the other issues you deal with but i would like to send a personal thank you for giving us alan murray who will be joining us very soon. this was a lot to offer and a lot to give up but for those of us act hss we are delighted to

have her so thank you. >> thank you, dr. insel. >> i am pleased to join you and thank our witnesses who have come to share their experience about what we can do to deal with the challenge of autism. we had hearings before but it is important for us to continue our efforts to stay up-to-date and join forces with the victims to help make sure we triumph and don't let victims of the families down. we want to support the cause. thank you for being here to lead it off. >> thank you for your leadership and the interagency coordinating committee, i was just looking at the list of people on the

committee. our interest is in research and finding causes which will lead to prevention. and q hours. we are interested in early intervention programs and how to get to these kids early. do you have enough expertise in terms of looking at that aspect? one of the most effective early intervention programs? >> one of the things we do each year is update the plan by bringing in experts and all the areas we are concerned with. we heard about the ends of this spectrum. early intervention, we use the term preemption when we can as one of the places that needs a big push and the other end of the spectrum is adults who need a lot more in the way of intervention.

>> which treatments and interventions will help? your group, this interagency group, is actively looking at different interventions and trying to find out which ones work best. are you also promoting -- are you instigating different early interventions to see which ones work best? >> let me go through the process quickly. we did a portfolio analysis. this was unprecedented. the question of intervention or other aspects of those six questions we asked not only nih and the department of education

but the private groups which are substantial players for autism and are putting in significant amounts of research dollars. for the first time everybody has shared their information about what they are putting into it and we are able to use that to say what is missing. one of the places where we look like we are underfunded across the six questions is interventions. how do we fill that in? the first thing we do is bring the experts on an annual basis to tell us not only what the needs are but the opportunities. what can we do and what is hot in terms of techniques or things going on in other areas of medicine? the meeting this year will be on september 30th and october 1st. the previous one would have been in january of 2008. we used four days to hear from a

broad panel of experts. not only your typical academic grantee but family members who may have had an interesting experience they think we should hear about and bringing in clinicians' as well who may be trying things we don't know much about. we are trying to throw as broad a net as possible to bring in all the best ideas on to the table before we decide what we want to recommend for nih and others to be looking at for funding. >> what do we know -- we talk about behavior therapy. seems to be successful. call early in ahow early in age

that? >> the world expert on that is behind me and you will talk to her in a second. she has just completed the landmark study on just that question going as early as possible. i would love to steal her thunder but because she is a friend and i don't want to alienate her it would be better to hear from her directly about her own data. >> a lot of talk today about this issue of vaccines. can you summarize the state of the science? >> i can tell you what we know scientifically. there's no question from the community that there are environmental factors at work and some aspect of the environment is going to be interacting with genetics to make children and maybe even unborn children vulnerable. maybe these are prenatal

environmental factors. the only factor that has been explored in great detail would be vaccines and part of that has to do with increasing number of vaccines which as we talked about at the previous panel has gone up over the last 30 years or so. i made a slide so you can see what that looks like. there has been a striking increase from 1900 to 2009. there are more vaccines in the recommended schedule. there are more injections and perhaps more injections per visit that are possible currently. it is important for you to realize that while the number of vaccines have increased, the quality of vaccines has changed in the same time. if you look at the number of androgetigens that go into thes

vaccines and personal the proteins are less than when you were getting a single shot in 1900. they are far more refined and targeted and look different than they would have when your children would have been vaccinated in the 70s and before. not quite comparing apples and apples looking at this change over time. the research focused on vaccines has a potential association with autism has been epidemiological research. there have been a total of 16 studies involving hundreds of thousands of children, literally. there's no evidence at this point of any association between the number of vaccines and kind

of vaccines we are showing here and increase or particular fulmer ability to autism. >> what i don't understand is how you can have a study involving hundreds of thousands of children and the number of vaccines because they all get the same number before the age of 2. go back to the first chart. i have a little bit different chart from the center of disease control and prevention that shows that in 1983 the maximum number of vaccine doses administered before age 2 was eight. in 2009 it is a minimum of 21, maximum of 29. from what i can ascertain it is closer to 29. we have gone from eight in 1983 to 29 this year before the age

of 2. most pediatricians do that. how would you find a group of kids who don't get those? >> it is not comparing -- just look at the number of antigens in 1983 versus the ones present in vaccine the child would receive in 2000 or 2008 and there's a striking decrease. these are not the same formulations. what we are talking about is the numbers have gone up. a profound reduction in the amount of protein and antigens. >> some of these vaccines were not around in 1980. number of them here like influenza -- some of these were not even around. hepatitis a, they were not around in 1980. >> the ones that were around

have been changed in many cases. they are not actually the same vaccines in many cases. they are not the same. they have the same names but the formulation has been refined. that is how you get these claims of changes. >> i get confused in this area. the one to focus on the number of vaccines and affected their put together a lot of times before the age of 2. not talking about the number of antigens. the total number has gone up and i don't know of any studies that would compare a cohort of children from 0 to age 2 that didn't get these shots and the incidence of autism and those that did receive 29 vaccines and did come down with autism. i don't know of any study that has done this.

>> we had a discussion within the iacc about this issue. could we mount a study of vaccinated versus aunvaccinated children. with consulted another federal advisory committee that reports to the secretary to get their expertise because they do have it. we met a month ago to have a conversation with them. we sent them the question saying has there been such a study that you described and if not, why not? the first response was it hasn't been done. they didn't think it was feasible to do it. they didn't think it was ethical. they had real concerns about the ethics of randomizing a group of children to not receiving vaccines because they were concerned about the risk involved in not vaccinating a

large number of children and you would lead -- need a large number of children for such a study. >> i do know of people now, children who are not letting their children get those numbers of vaccines and some of those numbers are highly educated professional people and they have decided they are going to stretch them out--not give it to them by the age of 2, maybe 5 or 6. i know a lot of that is happening. a lot of pediatricians will not treat a child if in fact they aren't getting these immunizations. if you don't agree to the vaccination schedule i cannot -- you cannot be a patient of mine. lot of people are not having their kids vaccinated. i don't know the ramifications of that. i don't advise that but i know

it is happening. the problem is we don't know. we don't know if 29 immunizations by the age of 2 do have an effect. we don't know that. >> let me share with you the conversation we had on this committee on the iacc. this is a topic that has come up. the communities polarized on this point. we hear from those people who are convinced that vaccines are the problem and those who are convinced it is not. they are both ends of the spectrum. we hear from lots of families with child with autism and they want to do about their next child -- they don't know who to believe or what to listen to. the group of people who feel there is an issue here and we ought to be concerned because there is the relationship

between vaccines and awesome -- autism talk to the numbers you increased. there have been 16 studies which demonstrate no relationship. however those are epidemiological studies and you can't rule out the possibility that there is a very small signal there that might have been missed. on the other side of the coin we are hearing from other people, scientists and family members on this committee who are saying enough already. there is an environmental at -- environmental factor at play and we're spending time doing the studies and nothing has shown up on this question may be we don't need to turn that rock over again. let's move on and look at something that is more likely to shed light on what could be an important factor in increasing the prevalence or increasing the risk for autism. that is what we are hearing and we are trying to balance both of those points of you and make

sure there is information available for people who are concerned about what to do with their next child. >> research on the causes and triggers and intervention and how we help people right now that are having a tough time dealing with children on their own. we have to focus on those early intervention programs and we will get to that in the next panel. >> mr. chairman. i want to join with you in welcoming dr. insel to the hearing and recall that we have had hearings in the past and efforts in the past to develop a body of information that will help us identify better ways of dealing with autism. what are the causes? are there other causes?

what are the possible changes in the environment or nutrition or health care generally that we can turn to for help? to deal with the challenges and difficulties autism brings to our society. i recall in mississippi joining with families to help raise money, have benefits, go on television, invite people to attend and contribute. some of the experiences i had then, observing children who were victims of autism and talking with families and getting to know more about it made a big impact on me and how challenging this situation really is. my heart goes out to those families who are dealing with it. i want to be here today to support the effort to identify how government can be more

helpful. what are the other possible causes for autism? what are the things we can do? to continue to work and not give up. a lot of people have invested time and effort and research and personal energy to cote with this situation. i am curious to know from you is there hope? have we learned things over the last several years that we have embarked in this joint effort that give us any hope that we're making progress? >> absolutely. there is rapid progress. the next period of time will be extraordinary because we are ramping up investments rapidly. in 2008 our budget for autism

research at nih went up 25%. in 2009 it will go up more than that because we are seeing this recovery act effort and we have put money specifically into an autism request for applications. the only disease specific such requests in the recovery act from nih for this year, we have lots of other things going, this is the one that has a disease name on it because we realize there is an urgent need and equally important, there is a tremendous opportunity right now for progress. we have the tools we need to move quickly. we want to do that over the next two years. >> thank you for your efforts and being involved as director of the institute of mental health. we appreciate your being here to help us fully understand the

challenges we have ahead. >> thank you for your interest and support. >> we would like to call our second panel. didn't talk to you earlier about this but if you have time to stay i would appreciate that. if you can stay for a second panel i would appreciate that. >> i would be happy to stay and i want to hear the panelists. we want to hear the personal experiences. >> stay where you are. you don't have to move. let's call our second panel, dr. geraldine dawson. mr joshua cobb's. miss nicole pickens boyd. david miller and dana halverson. thank you all for being here.

some of you have come a great distance. your statements will be made a part of the record. if you can summarize, we will start from left to right. the chief science officer, professor of psychology at the university of washington, founding director of the autism center. she received her ph.d. from the university of washington. thank you very much. if you can summarize in five to seven minutes we would appreciate it. punch the button. >> good morning. i want to thank you for inviting me. i am honored to appear before this subcommittee. i want to thank the committee members and you for your leadership in providing full

funding for the combating autism act and for your most recent fiscal year 2010 appropriations bill. more children will be diagnosed with autism than with aids, diabetes and cancer combined. autism research is still significantly underfunded despite greater public and congressional awareness. leukemia affects one in 25,000 people but receives research funding for $310 million annually. pediatric aids affects 1 in and 10,000 children. its funding, $155 million a year. autism affects one in 150 individuals and yet nih funding is estimated to be $122 million. as you have heard, most scientists agree that autism is

caused by a combination of genetic risk factors and environmental factors. we discovered the autism risk genes but we know very little about the role of the environment and how it interacts with these genes. we have come to understand that autism is not one disease but many different diseases with many different causes and each costs will likely only explain a minority of cases. piece by piece we must discover each of these causes so that treatment and prevention will be possible. to identify the causes it will be necessary to invest in large scale population based studies that broadly examined genetic factors and environmental triggers such as the nih national children study. will be important to invest in large scale databases and biorepositories like the national database for autism research and the autism genetic

resources exchange and the autism tissue program. a recent study suggests that autism may be fundamentally a problem of the synapse as you heard from dr. insel, the connection between brain cells. the best nerved scientists in the world are working hard at understanding how genetic mutation can change the way in which neurons communicate and they are developing therapeutic strategies that might restore the function of the synapse. this work is offering a real hope, the pace of discovery is too slow in large part because of lack of adequate funding. we can now screen for autism at 18 months of age. there are several clinical trials evaluating intervention for at risk infants as young as 12 months of age. the hope is by detecting autism early we will be able to reduce

its severity or even prevent the syndrome from developing. however, the impact of this work will not be felt unless pediatricians are using the available screening methods and parents have access to trained professionals who can deliver these interventions. that is why it is critical that we study dissemination methods, invest in training professionals and caretakers and support federal mandated insurance coverage for behavioral interventions which we know are cost-effective in the long run. behavioral interventions are effective for some individuals but most individuals with autism suffer without relief from the autism itself and a wide range of conditions like sleep disorders, gastrointestinal problems and epilepsy. very few clinical trials address these medical conditions and virtually no cost effectiveness studies have been conducted to

determine which treatments are most effective. parents are left to sort through confusing and often inaccurate information about the various treatment options and claims and clinicians are often at a loss in helping parents to make evidence based treatment decisions. this gap in autism research must be addressed. very little research has been conducted that addresses the issues that adults with autism face despite the fact that adult care accounts for the bulk of the $35 billion spent annually on caring for individuals with autism in the united states. unlike other health conditions we have limited information about autism health-care utilization, barriers to access, health care disparity in the u.s. or cost-effectiveness models. mr. chairman, over the past two years your subcommittee and you have been responding to the challenge of autism with resources anhi