vaccine doses administered before age two was eighth. in 2009, it is a minimum of 21, a maximum of 29, and from everything i can ascertain, it is closer to 29. we have gone from eight in 1983 to 29 this year, before the age of two. most pediatricians do that. so how can you find a group of kids that do not get them. >> it is not comparing -- look at the number of antigens that are present in 1983 versus what is presence in the vaccine that the child will receive in 2000 or 2008. . there is a striking decrease. these are not the same

formulations. they are not the same kinds of vaccines. what we are talking today, while the numbers have gone up, is a profound reduction in the amount of protein and the number of antigens. >> some of these vaccines were not around in 1980. we have a number of them here, some of these were not even around. hepatitis a -- they were not around in 1980. next the vaccines that were around in 1980 have been changed in many cases. they are not actually the same vaccines in many cases. >> they are the same. >> they are not the same. they may have the same names, but the formulation has been greatly refined. that is how you get these kinds of changes. >> i get confused in this area. i just want to focus on the number of vaccines, and the fact that they are sometimes put together before the age of two.

i am not talking about that antigens, just the total number has gone up. i do not know of any studies that would compare a cohort of children from 0 to age two that did not get the shot and the incidence of autism. and those that did receive 29 vaccines and that did come down with optimism. i do not know of any study out there that has done is -- that did not come down with optimism. >> could we now a study of vaccinated vs. undetonated children? we do not have a vaccine expertise on that committee. we had decided to consult a federal advisory committee that reports to the secretary to get their expertise, because they do have it. we met about a month ago to have

this conversation with them. before meeting with them, we said then the question, saying has there been such a study? just the kind you describe. if not, why not, and could we do such a study? their first response to us was, first of all, and has not been done. they did not think it was feasible to do it, but they did not 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. you would need a very large number for such a study. >> so we really cannot tell that. i do know of people now with children who are not letting their children get those numbers of vaccines. some of these are highly educated, professional people, and they have decided -- they

will not give it to them by the age of two, maybe up by the -- may be bought age of five or six. i know a lot of that is happening out there. a lot of pediatricians will not treat a child if, in fact, they are not getting these immunizations that -- will tell the parents that if you do not agree to the vaccination schedule, you cannot be a patient of mine. i know a lot of people that basically are not having their kids vaccinated. i do not know the ramifications of that. i just know that is happening. >> the problem is that we cannot know if 29 vaccinations by the age of two do have an effect. we do not know that.

we are not only from those who are convinced that vaccines are the problem but those who are not. we have both ends of the spectrum. we hear from lots of families who have a child with autism and are wonderin what they should do about their next child. that is often a question on the table, because they do not know who to believe and who to listen to. the group of people who feel that there really is an issue here and that we ought to be concerned because there is a relationship between vaccines and optimism point to the numbers, the large increase. all 16 studies demonstrate a relationship. however, those are all epidemiological studies, and you cannot rule out the possibility that there is a small signal there that might have been missed. on the other side of the coin, the other end of the spectrum, we are hearing from other people, not a scientist, but even family members on this committee who are saying enough,

already. if there is an internal factor at play here, and we have spent a lot of money and time during the 16 studies and nothing has shown up on this question, maybe we do not need to turn that rocked over a 70 time. let's move on and look at something that is more likely to shed light on what could be an important factor in increasing prevalence or the risk for autism. that is what we are hearing. we are trying to balance both of those points of view and also trying to make sure there is information available for those who are concerned about what to do with their next child. >> early interventions and how we help people right now who are having trouble dealing with children. we have to focus on those early

intervention programs. we will get to that in the next panel. >> i want to join you in welcoming ininsel to the hearing. we have had hearings in the past to try to develop a body of information that will help us identify better ways of dealing with autism. are there other causes? what are the possible changes in environment or nutrition, health care generally that we can turn to for help in dealing with the challenges and difficulties that optimism brings to our society -- that altruism brings to our society.

going on television, inviting people to contribute, and some of the experiences i had then, observing the children who were victims of autism and talking with families and getting to know more about it really made a big impact on me and how challenging the situation really is. my heart goes out to those families who are dealing with it, and i just 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, and what are the things we can do? and to continue to work and not give up. a lot of people have invested time, ever, research dollars, personal energies, to cope with this situation. i am curious to know from you, is there hope? have we discovered things and

learn things over the last several years as we have been embarked on this joint effort that give us any hope that we are making progress? >> absolutely. there is always hope, but there is even more than that right now. there is very rapid progress. i think is next. time is going to be even more extraordinary -- this next period of time is going to be even more extraordinary. in 2008, our budget for autism research went up, and it will go up even more in 2009 because we are seeing this recovery act effort. we have put money specifically into an all it is requests for applications through the recovery act. the only disease specific such request in the recovery act from nih for this year, this is the

one that does have a disease name on, because we realized that there is an urgent need, and equally important, there is a tremendous opportunity right now for progress. we have the tools we need so we can really start to move quickly. we want to do that over the next two years. >> thank you very much for your efforts and being involved as the director of the institute of mental health. we appreciate your being here with us this morning and helping us fully understand the challenges we have ahead. >> thank you for your interest and support. >> would like to call our second panel. i did not talk to you earlier about this, but if you have the time to stay, i would appreciate that. if you could stay for a second panel, i would appreciate that. >> i would be happy to stay, and most of all i want to hear the copal analysts, because i think all of us need to hear some of the experiences picture >> you

can stay where you are, you do not have to move. let's call our second panel, but dr. geraldine dawson. let's start from left to right as i call your names. mr. joshua cobb's, miss boyd, david miller, and dena 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 in their entirety. you kind of summarize, 5 minutes or so, i would appreciate it very much. we will just sort from left to right here, dr. geraldine dawson, the chief science officer for autism speaks.

dr. dawson received her ph.d. from the university of washington. thank you very much, and please proceed. >> good morning, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for inviting me. i am very honored to appear before this subcommittee, and i want to thank the committee members and you for your leadership in providing full funding for the combating autism act, and also for your most recent fiscal year appropriations bill. this year, more children will be diagnosed with autism, as you may know, than with age, diabetes, and cancer combined. autism research, however, is still significantly underfunded, despite greater public and congressional awareness. for example, leukemia affects

one in 25,000 people, but receives research funding for $310 million annually. pediatric aids affects one in 8000 children. its funding, 200 feet $5 million a year. autism, as you know, affects one in 150 individuals, individuals,nih funding for fiscal 2009 is estimated to be $122 million. as you have heard, most scientists agree that autism is caused by a combination of both genetic risk factors and environmental factors. we have discovered some of the autism ris genes, but we still know very local about the role of the environment and how it interacts with these genes. we have come to understand that optimism is not one disease, but many different diseases. has 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 effective 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 internal trekkers, such as the nih national children study. it will be important to invest in large skillet databases such as the national database for autism research, the genetic the resource exchange, and the optimiautsim tissue exchange. research suggests that it may be the connection between brain cells. some of the best it is in the world are working hard at understanding how genetic mutations can change the way in which neurons communicate, and they are developing therapeutic strategies that might restore

the function of the synapse. all this work is offering real hope, the pace@@@@@@@@s', we can now screen for autism at 18 months of age. autism speaks is funding several clinical trials that are evaluated interventions for at-risk infants who are as young as 12 months of age. the hope is by detectiving autism early, we will be able to reduce its severity and prevent the syndrome from developing. this work will not be felt unless pediatricians are using the screening methods , and parents have access to train professionals who can deliver these interventions. that is why it is critical that we continue to study dissemination methods, invest in training professionals and caretakers, and support

federally mandated insurance coverage for behavioral interventions, which we know are cost-effective in the long run. all behavioral interventions or effective for some individuals, most individuals with autism suffer without relief from the optimism itself and a wide range of medical conditions such as sleep disorders, gastrointestinal problems, and epilepsy. very few clinical trials have been conducted that address these medical conditions, and virtually no cost effectiveness studies have been conducted to determine which treatments are most effective. thus, parents are left to sort through confusing and often inaccurate information about the various treatment options and claims. clinicians are often at a loss in helping parents to make evidence based treatment decisions. this gap in 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 that is 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 disparities in the u.s., where cost effectiveness models. mr. chairman, over the past two years, your subcommittee and you have been responding to the challenge of autism with resources. this is beginning a meaningful fight against this very challenging disorder. but more is needed to better understand the disorder, diagnosis, and to better treat those individuals who have it. i want to end by thanking you for your time, for your commitment, and for your leadership. i am very happy to entertain any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much, dr. dawson. before we go on, i want to

recognize my good friend and colleague from pennsylvania, with whom i have shared the gavel here over the last almost 20 years. senator specter is a member of the judiciary committee. they are on the floor now with the sotomayor ofoundation. >> thank you for yielding. we are taking up the confirmation hearing of judge sotomayor or for supreme court. i am due on the floor shortly, but i wanted to thank you, mr. chairman, and the ranking member for scheduling this hearing on this very important subject, and thank the witnesses for coming in. autism is a heartbreaking alemaailment.

one of the toughest part is talking to parents who have children suffering from autism, and there's a real question of doing more. we have worked hard on funding for the national institutes of health. for a decade, we are able to raise funding from $12 billion to $30 billion, at a time when senator harkin and i have transferred the gobble -- gavel. regrettably, that is not enough. i know that funding for autism is slightly under $52 million, up to $122 billion now. cdc funding has increased to little over $22 million. we he been successful in getting it -- getting into the

stimulus package $10 billion. it is my projection that some of that will be going to autism. these funding levels were set by nih in order to avoid what we call politicization. our job is to get the money, but not to distribute it. i think there ought to be a bigger share for autism. we are pushing to make that happen. on comprehensive health care reform, which we are working on now, we are trying to get $10 billion added as a base, and start with $40 billion, which will give us an opportunity to do more. staff will be here to follow the testimony and will have a chance to review it.

i appreciate your coming in, and you have are assurances we will do everything we can on this very important malady. >> i understand you have to be on the floor for the nomination. now we will go to mr. cobbs. if i remember right, you are from iowa, of near sioux city. you or the chairman of the iowa autism council, the father of a nine year-old boy, no, with autism. i understand your wife, tina, is with you. >> you have two other children, and you were here at our last hearing a couple of years ago. >> i was in the audience at the last hearing. >> i am interested in what has happened in the last couple of years, so welcome to the

committee, and please proceed. >> thank you for having me. good morning, mr. chairman, and members of this distinguished committee. high and the chairperson of the iowa autism council. i am the parent of a child with autism. i spent over seven years trying to better the lives of individuals and families affected by autism through insurance and education reforms. when i was last in front of this distinguished committee, spoke of the successful and cost- efficient service is my son received. these services were provided in my home in iowa from professionals in florida through the celeste foundations federally sponsored national research project. we are one of 15 families that participated in this demonstration across the nation. in this model, after a brief phase of on-site, face-to-face training, which is crucial to build up their peake relationship, we were linked by an interactive video system that

allow consultation and support directly into our home, when and where we needed. for this model, we receive professional support in teaching our son language, life skills, and overall improving its quality of life. one of the main components of the study was the reduction in our family stressed for empowering us as frontline teachers and therapists. additionally, through training and education in this project, we had a better understanding of our child condition and those things we could do to bring to bear to improve his life. not only did improve my son's quality of life, but it had an impact on my family as well. also as a family, which showed a dramatic reduction in stress, anxiety, and became more focused as a family unit. i will never forget the call from my wife saying it will never guess what our son did. he went potty on the big boys

potty. this becomes a super milestone when your child is five years old and has the additional burden of societal rejection. we are given the right teaching skills and able to achieve what previously was unobtainable. our experience is chronicled and aired during autism awareness month. we have footage that we would like to share with the committee and it can also be viewed online. i cannot stress enough that the needs of a person with autism do not convene with professional hours or appointments. just having the support in my home and allowed natural interaction for my son and allow the professionals to see the behaviors as they really occurred. as chairperson of the iowa

autism counsel, i had the opportunity to speak with many family members and stakeholders within the autism community to learn their needs. from my perspective and my experience, these families are desperately in need of services. today, as parents search online for opprobrious services for their children, they are confronted with an array of and validated technologies and various individuals claiming expertise in treatment. unfortunately, there are no safeguards in place to protect vulnerable parents and children. for example, from anywhere in the world, anyone with a personal computer, a web cam and internet access, can offer internet services termed as advice. under the circumstances, any individual or group can claim qualifications in helping parents and children with autism. not only our families experiencing the emotional burden of treating the child the disability, but they also had the financial burden of paying for this treatment with no assurance as to the quality of care provided. when individuals or

organizations are collecting fees for services and can distance themself into the cloud that is the internet, what can families expect? the reality of standard setting is evident, because without standards, there can be no reimbursements. all the systems are cost- effective, without proper reimbursement model, they still remain unattainable for most parents. they are struggling financially to find care for their children. millions of dollars are being placed into rural networks. however, few if any methodologies exist. the current wave of statewide health insurance requirements and to abide reimbursements for individuals with autism do not have well-defined standards for reimbursement. in the absence of consistent reimbursement policy and standards, families and children are not granted access to proven an effective care.

i know this committee has recognized the need to assess "best practices and professional criteria standards, and to make recommendations to the committee concerning national standards that advances and encourages this type of technology." i commend the committee's foresight and urge that this momentum continues. in closing, you may be wondering how my son is doing today. he is now 9 years old, and my family is still utilizing this technology. we are addressing such behavior is as expressive language, academic skills, just to name a few. it is important to note that as my son grows, his treatment program continues to grow at a direct -- and address his ever evolving needs. it has been an effective delivery system for our family. has been so effective that now might 8-year-old daughter has become a mini-therapist, using teaching strategies that we

learned in the program with my son. at this point, he continues in the role of student and teacher to us all. indeed, his future is bright. i would like to thank you for your time and the opportunity to share our story and the stories of thousands of families here today. thank you. >> thank you very much. we will have some questions for you later. now we turn to the vice chairman of the mississippi autism task force. an attorney and mother of two children, her second child developed aggressive autism at around 22 months of age. she was recently appointed to mississippi's department of education, special education advisory committee. she attended mississippi state and received her doctorate from ole miss. >> i want to thank this committee. on behalf of the many families

with optimism that i represent. we have had various meetings throughout the state of mississippi. in fall of 2005, our family was living in san antonio, texas, has been completed his fellowship. my of his job, at the age of 22 months developed regressive autism. almost overnight, he digressed from using words and sentences into language with fine and gross motor coordination well above his developmental pierce, to someone who lost almost all of those skills sets. it was as though a tornado had hit our lives, and there was no end in the foreseeable future. at age 25 months, i son began a rigorous program filled with behavioral, speech, and occupational therapy, that has continued after our move back to mississippi. currently we can see he's quite verbal and his motor skills have improved.

his condition is always tenuous. he was believed have suffered from a mitochrondial disorder. today, he will attend his kindergarten open house at bram let elementary in oxford, mississippi. he'll have some classroom assistance. as the class of 2022 starts kindergarten, schools across this country are going to look very different. 20 years ago in this country he would have probably been the only child in his kinder guarantee with autism or even his own school district. -- his whole school district. his kindergarten class will have six children diagnosed with autism spectrum, all of them

very high functioning. if you do the math, that is roughly one in 34. in mississippi, according to surveys, we know that children typically do not get diagnosed much later than 5. that number is probably going to go higher. this is a very high number compared to what we see as national statistics, but i think you can see this number replicated in kindergartens throughout this country in various places. we know that the rate of autism goes up 10%-70% per year. can you imagine what autism is going to look like in the next decade? the medical establishment gives itself a pat on the back for saying they are doing a better job diagnosing this, but we know there have to be contributing factors that are the root of this increase. better diagnosis does not

completely explain the explosion we are seeing here in america. we often see adversarial relationships develop between pediatricians and family members who believe that there autism was caused by vaccines. we also see adversarial relationships when parents do not accept the advice of physicians that there could be multiple causes of autism, and reach an impasse. the autism society of america currently estimates that the lifetime cost of caring for a child with autism is from $3.5 million to $5 million. taking those numbers, we are looking at facing almost $90 billion annual cost in autism. the question we have to ask is, can we afford not to put the

money into research and treatment, if these are the numbers we are looking at? i am glad you are sitting beside me. the combating of citizen group brought great hope to parents. --, adding optimism grew. we have to move quicker. we have to see the coordinating committee look at all aspects and possible causes to autism. we also have to see that committee quickly make some identifiers and look at populations of these children's to find out what are the general pictures we see of these children's parents, their family members. what are some health indicators that we see? in has to be done quicker than we usually operate at government bureaucracy levels. the other thing, i would be remiss in represent the parents across this country if i did not go back to your question.

we have to look at the causation with vaccines. dr. healy, who i am sure has testified many times, and does not have any financial interest, has noted that there is a dearth of research in truly looking at the vaccine-odd to some connection. there are some very good steadies' that have yet to be done -- the vaccine-autism connection. i know this committee does not like to tell the nih how to spend those research dollars, but on behalf of parents across america, i ask that you look at this when you are confirming a new nih director. i want to give you some optimism. in this classroom, five of those

children have been blessed to be able to receive intensive behavioral therapy. their families have in one situation taken to jobs to be able to afford this intensive behavioral therapy. that is not often the case in mississippi, and is a rarity. the average annual income in mississippi is less than $35,000 a year, and yet this private therapy runs most of us around $50,000 a year. it is impossible for many of the constituents back home to a for the therapy that they know will make their job better. -- to afford at the therapy. i beg you to look at ways that we can afford intensive behavioral therapy for all children. these children that i mentioned who have received this therapy, even at the age of 5, they already are requiring less classroom support than they would have.

you can see the financial bright spots down the road of investing in early, intensive behavioral therapy. the question i will leave you with is, if we know that we are looking at a $90 billion annual health care cost, and we are looking -- we are looking at initial investments of around $32,000 a year, and we know that over that child's life, we can see health care returns at roughly $2.5 billion of health care savings for their children who get this, the question is, can we afford not to make that investment? >> a very profound statement. thank you very much. now we will turn to david miller, a resident of fairfax county, virginia.

he is on the board of directors at northern virginia community college where he co-founded the consortium on autism and intellectual disabilities. he has a master's in public administration and a law degree from george mason university. he is retired from the armed forces and the father of two identical twins who have autism. >> thank you very much for holding this hearing. as the chairman indicated, i am a board member. we are the second-largest many college in the nation. i and the co-founder of the consortium on autism and intellectual disabilities, comprised of 41 community college presidents. i am pleased to say that a

colleague is a very active member of our consortiu as well as the president of hines community college, which he tells me is the largest one in mississippi. both of these leaders could not be here today, because a previously scheduled board meetings, but we do have some community college presidents here that i would like to introduce the subcommittee to. the first one is willing duncan. he is the chairman of taft college and the chairman of our consortium. we also have dr. wayne burton, president of the north shore community college in massachusetts. we have the chairman of passaic county community college. also with the is jeff ross.

if you look at my testimony, the summary of the measurable results that taft has achieved these last 13 years with respect to students with intellectual disabilities and developmental disabilities is astounding. at the committed college level, we aspire to have programs that affected. this hearing has particular poignancy to me because i am the father it of 27-year-old twins who have autism. their sister is the youngest of these, and thankfully -- she is the youngest of these triplets. thankfully she is a healthy, happy, seven year-old. i am concerned about the long- term viability of these children to live independently and develop a career checked that will allow them to support

themselves financially well meeting in overcoming challenges that you and i have never faced in our entire lives. i am not as educated as some of these presidents. i am not as well versed in the nuances of optimism or as well read as my wife, who on a daily basis meets the challenges. she is a wonderful and very accomplished woman. she should be seated in this interest -- in this witness chair. when you do the next hearing, she needs to be invited. people talk about takeaways. i think that when you go on to further activities, the two takeaways i would like to have for my testimony or, number one, my kids are here to stay. what you are doing with respect to research is excellent. we need to invest funds in

screening in diagnosis and all that. we need to do that, but having said that, my kids are here. all the panelists who have autistic kids are here, so what are we going to do with these kids? as i talked to more advocates and opponents, what is the game plan here? what are we looking towards and working for? most of these kids are below the age of 17 at this stage, but more and more of them are entering middle school and high school. at some point, they will be adults. what are going to do with these kids? that is a critical question will have to consider. we have to keep that objective in mind. at the community college level, we are seeing our first beginnings of autistic kids on our campus. you are chairman, chairman kennedy, obviously gets it. we have had a number of discussions, and he has called this a tsunami. he said debt -- based on his

offer ship, he authorized awarding five-year grants in support of model demonstration programs that promote the sec's -- successful transition of students. i have a letter from senator kennedy where he requests funding for these types of programs. the reason for this bunning request is that the vast majority of autistic and disabled students are currently in committee colleges and will attend community colleges because we have open admissions policies. they reach age 21, and the, on our campuses. they are here, and frankly we have no effective programs to deal with these children.

they enroll in normal academic courses and are soon put on academic probation, and then soon academically dismissed, and that is in it. they have no further contacts with respect to job training programs. they have no further or additional educational opportunities. that is it. what happens to these kids after that? that is what senator kennedy is really focused on. some schools will tell you, these are expensive programs. they run roughly $30,000 a school. there are limited by law to approximately $2,000 to $3,000 for tuition. they do not have access to any further funding. with the reduction in state operating funds, they did not have the financial resources to develop programs to assist the students. i know i am over my time.

these funds are are essentially economic development funds. they are essentially local stimulus funds. they will be focused in life skills training and vocational training. we appreciate the fact that you have seen fit to put approximately $80 million for this program, and we hope that in conference, you will walk away with at least that minimum amount of money. again, thank youery much. >> now we have a co-founder of beat iowa. usually we do not say that. [laughter] i should have looked at that before i set it. -- before i set it. that could be misinterpreted. she lives on a farm in north would, iowa, way up in northwest iowa with her husband and three children.

ra)u@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aá@ @ @ @ and a b.a. in french south dakota state university. >> she was diagnosed a little over age 3. she regressed between 15 -- the diagnosis was at three years. >> would you punch that button on your thing there? thank you very much. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman and senator cochran and colleagues for this opportunity to encourage more thought and action on autism. on a daily basis i am the wife and mother of an iowa farm family. my days are filled with joys, blessings and challenges. of my three children, i have one daughter who has heavy metal toxicity. daughter who has heavy-metal toxicity. her original diagnosis and just over age three was of his mental retardation.

although my daughter was given the label of autism, this failed -- this term fails to describe the nature of her disorder. after her diagnosis, i discovered by medical origins of our condition. over the next several years, we confirmed multiple medical diagnoses, including intestinal this bias is, multiple few -- food allergies, growth hormone deficiencies, in the crib disfunction, pituitary dysfunction, hypothyroidism, allergic colitis, and heavy metal toxicity, to name a few. we have only been able to help robyn by struggling to travel all over the country and working with many medical practitioners, spending thousands of dollars on tests and clinical visits, mostly not covered by insurance. the list of diagnoses is long for such a young child. her healthy appearance belies the death of her medical problems. based on her appearance, people expect her to be able to respond to them, speak to them, and

share with them. robin has come a long way, but still has difficulties. i know of children who have fully recovered with the properties for their medical conditions. . needing only psychological therapy. autism is a neuroby logical disorder. many families hesitate to use the word autism. we call it the a word. because this medical underlying problems exist in our children and can cause the very symptoms that are labeled autism. i have been involved in multimeetings with elected officials, doctors and parents

and researchers for eight years. because no action has been take, thousands more children have suffered damage and their families lives have been destroyed. very soon the financial burden of their 24/7 care will not fall only to parents and families but to taxpayers as well. they cannot work and must collect disability checks. lifetime care for a child like robin will cost millions of dollars. i have accepted your invitation because i want to set the record straight. you cannot address autism without addressing some other a words. we have the sickest generation of children with one in nine children suffering from asthma, one in six with some form of narrow development disorder, and a least 150 with some sort of

what is and disorder -- autism disorder. agencies charged with protecting the health of our children suffer from serious financial conflicts of interest. these government agencies need to be held accountable. senators, it is difficult for me to sit at this table and tell you that you have been lied to. we have all been lied to. rovin's vacc -- -- robin's vaccines were administered red after her birth. the data sheet identifies the chemical effects as follows. the mercury component has caused nervous system affects in experimental animals including mild retardation and motor

impairment. he did not need to take my word for the scientific facts. the former founding editor of " environmental health perspectives," and former associate director of the toxicology program, considered the world's's largest toxicology research is with me today. the number of vaccines since i was a child has risen from around 10 to 49. those who create vaccines option -- often set the table and vote to approve vaccines, read the dollars, and are immune from legal liability. where else do we see this scenario of no accountability and conflict of interest? who is on the table on behalf of the children? very few are doing it.

we need transparency, honest communication, and once and for all, as you suggested earlier, a valid, unbiased study of the vaccinated verses on vaccinated -- unvaccinated populations. men voluntarily and inject themselves with steroids while thousands of children are injected with a neurotoxin under government mandate. some children are injured by vaccines. their access to legal compensation is barred by many legal obstacles. although i do not have time to describe the necessary reform, please take a look at the on fairly restricted three-year statute of limitations among other legal problems facing these families. heavy metals like mercury and other toxic substances should not be injected into people, especially babies and young

children, and others susceptible to a vaccine injury. vaccine safety certainly encompasses more than concerns -- mercury is so highly toxic, it is the 600 pound gorilla in the living room. it only takes a 0.6 micrograms to harm human tissue. according to scientific studies, it continues to be used in some vaccines including tetanus and flu shots. that is a fact. it is damaging at minimal levels -- nanomolar levels. it has been replicated and ignored. we pretended not to see. those in power do not discern facts. they did not protect the health of the children of this generation. they protect industry and government. my hope is for action. can we really afford, with

continued inaction, to risk losing another generation? thank you for listening and allowing me to share my concerns. as i return to our iowa farm, i will reflect on what we have lost. into the many other mothers and fathers whose hopes and dreams have been crushed with this chronic illness. we will continue to hope for action. our children and our future depend on you. >> thank you very much. i think we have heard the whole gamut of everything here now that we are confronted with. since your first on the left here, i will start with you. you mentioned that no comparative effectiveness have been done to allow for treatment of autism. this is something we have the focus on. -- we have to focus on.

we are in the here and now. families are struggling and facing this whole generation of growing up and what is going to happen to them as adults. this committee provided over $1 billion to hhs in the recent recovery act for comparative effectiveness studies. $1.1 billion to be exact. again, we do not say exactly where to put them. do you know of any of those dollars will be spent on autism? they said it was one of the conditions that should be studied. you have any thoughts on that? have you been watching or have you been involved with trying to see that some of these comparative effectiveness studies are done on early intervention programs?

>> yes, i am aware of the focus by the agency for health care quality on comparative effectiveness. we have submitted recommendations in terms of the kinds of questions we feel need to be asked. i think it is so critical that parents have a sense of whether one thing is effective more than another treatment. the other aspect of comparative effectiveness work has to do with method of service delivery. what we know now is that when children receive care, they often receive it by a set of professionals that work with the child. the parents of himself has act as a case coordinator. there are other models for how to effectively work with a child with autism. it has a kind of financial

aspect that goes to coordinating care. we feel this model is much more affected. it is an example that needs to be done to look at different models of service delivery it is ultimately -- and is ultimately more cost-effective. the other question has to do with personalized medicine. we know that autism is not going to be a one size fits all kind of treatment approach. we need to understand the effectiveness of understanding -- the medical conditions that parents talked about, genetic conditions, and how to direct treatment approaches. we are at a very early stage.

they seek out answers themselves and often are acting on decisions. >> that kind of brings me to mr. cobb's. i come from a rural state, and we don't have a lot of the access to facilities that people in urban areas do. finally, i became more interested -- more attuned to the issue of autism a few years ago. families with young children are at their wits' end. they do not know what to do. there are some residential programs for traditional things

you're talking about. correct me if i'm wrong, and i think there is evidence that the earlier you get to these kids and provide them with supportive services, interventions by trained people that know what they're doing, that they really do get over a lot of these things. they get over a lot of the problems -- the earlier you get to them, the more effective it is. how you do -- how you get to them if you're living in at no. what, oxford, or someplace like that? this project of looking at telehealth, and you can get together with a group of professionals early on with

high-speed internet, it is like your in the doctor's office, it is like you are right there. tell me a little bit about -- you have been in this experimental program to go since last time we have continued services to continue the study and test the longevity. >> have you talked with other people? you're the head of the iowa autism council. i do not know how many people are on this system right now. have you talked to them about this? what interest is there? >> that is a great question. in fact, just this morning, we were talking. it is the light bulb that goes on. the mean i can get services where and when i need them? for instance,@@@@@@@@@ @ @ h@ @

with the foundational of applied behavioral analysis and other proven methodologies or if he is having a bad day, it is not because we're in an abstract physician's office, it is because we're dep his own home and there is something that has triggered that behavior. it is an immediate response to track down what is causing that behavior and we can get immediate results when the behavior is happening, both good and bad. >> the other thing that kind of got me thinking about this. a lot of times kids with autism, you know, they don't act up or anything when they are in the doctor's office but when they get home, so -- >> in our case, it might be the exact opposite. the environment of a doctor's office may have too much stimulus in the area. and so you're going to get the reverse effect. you're going to get maybe we went in for an ear ache but all

of a sudden we have a behavior taking place and therefore we may have to leave that environment without properly getting the care. ms. dawson said, it is also a great way to bring a comprehensive team together to treat the child in a natural environment. >> have we been doing anything to show comparative effectiveness? is this something that the million dollars will start taking a look at? does anybody know that? have we looked at these early intervention, telehealth type programs? >> not with respect to the teller health -- telehealth study i am aware of.

>> the recovery act has given us this opportunity to open up the doors for additional work. we do have exciting proposals on just this topic for autism specifically. i think this is the chance to see real progress in this arena. it is not only for the child, it is for the family. that is where some of the big implications will be. >> i am assuming you are not on this telehealth? >> we have really hit all aspects. we found out to the medical side first and found out about aba, and used both. i feel both have been essential in robin's progress.

i know a lot of other families agree with me that at least exploring if your child does have these biomedical issues, you're going to get better results when you're using the aba. >> how would you feel as a parent if you had access in your own home, 24/7, so that anything that happens in terms of behavioral problems, you would have ready access to train specialists. -- trained specialists? >> behavior's became not nearly as much as an issue. for me, the medical care that she needs i can only obtain at our doctors' offices. if i am taking her in as an example, monthly right now, she has been undergoing a six hour

infusion therapy in our doctor's office. that has to be done for us. it is a drive no matter what. >> i have taken 10 minutes of time, so i will yield. >> your very kind. i appreciate you calling the hearing. it brings back memories of other hearings we have had. we will just try to tailor programs of support that are needed that will help make positive contributions. i am wondering, is there something that any of you have in mind to suggest -- and financial support and willingness for government to try to figure out ways to be more supportive, benefits of some kind? insurance programs that maybe

the government can help support in terms of costs of premiums or disbursements for sharing responsibility? it seems to me that we have a lot of organic medical disabilities and frailties that come within the area of insurance that this challenge is just not being helped with. i wonder if you have any thoughts. >> i would like to comment on this notion of early intervention and actually tell you about the steady that the doctor was referring to. this was the study that i was the principal investigator of this study, funded study where children began the intervention below 30 months of age. it is the first clinical trial that has been conducted with toddlers who are at risk for autism.

it is the standard care in the community or intervention that focused not only on working directly with the child, but also taught the family how to use intervention strategy so that intervention occurred throughout the daily activities with the child. the intervention went over a two-year. -- a two-year period. all assessments were done blind with respect to the knowledge of whether or not the child received early intervention. they all had iq's in the mentally retarded range. their iq -- the increased iq -- the average iq increased. their diagnosis was less severe.

it was a less severe diagnosis, and remember, it was only two years. early intervention could continue for at least another one or two years. we know these are effective. the studies are impressive and will come out soon. what we don't have is two things that limit access. one is financial support for families. it is going to save us money. it is going to help families. it is going to help individuals take advantage of some of the programs we have heard about at the community colleges and so forth. the second piece is training for professionals and parents. we're working now with infants and toddlers. they're teaching parents to

deliver the interventions. in many of these interventions, we need programs such as telemedicine or web =based -- web-based programs around the world like africa and india, to train professionals. comprehensive coverage and professionals is going to be absolutely key. we will get kids on the right trajectory, and we will look step-by-step throughout the life span how we can continue to support people with autism to become the most productive citizens they can. >> is a very interesting and helpful analysis of some of the options we should seriously consider. you were seeking recognition, and i wanted to call on the next.

>> the task force looked at this in mississippi extensively because of our financial system -- financial situation. it is already a program that is out there federally. it needs to now include behavioral services, because many of these children are starting to be identified very early. i can speak to the success of that. as we were in san antonio this summer, i met a precious child named catalina. they began behavioral therapy after a year. the child is 4 years old now and is absolutely amazing. senators, u.s. never recognized that she was a child on the spectrum. -- senators, you would never recognize that she was a child on the spectrum. states have an option whether they can give a not as an

specific waiver -- and on to some -- an autism specific waiver. i ask that you not give that waiver. the other thing that dr. dawson mentioned is private insurance. there are virtually no policies in our states that cover autism therapies. in fact, not only does it not be covered behavioral therapy, but senators, it only covers 20 visits of any type of speech ot or pt. usually by the first six weeks of the year, you have run through your insurance coverage for your child. that is. speech and -- that is combined speech and ot. the visits are kind of costly.

those are the things that we looked at as to gaps that needed to be filled. >> we ought to introduce a bill to modernize our laws on medicaid and reimbursement. this ought to be included. >> how to people afford to do this? >> they can't. >> frankly, they can't. we have been working quite a bit to get insurance in virginia. it is a foxhole by fox whole thing. in virginia, the average income is about $40,000 or $50,000. the average cost of service is about $85,000. the families have to do without. it is being done on a state-by- state basis. if you could do some sort of insurance preemption, that would be ideal.

this is an educational issue, not a health issue. if you see my sons, it is clearly a combination of education, and health related problems. >> another thing that i would be remiss if i didn't quickly tell you is the financial stress that it relates to families -- the divorce rates. conservative estimates is that a minimum of around 80%. there are some estimates -- her divorce rates were among 90%. these are absolutely incredible numbers. we lost to parents in mississippi this year who could no longer handle the stress of having the child on the spectrum.

that is not unique to mississippi. those are things that we foresee all around the country. >> i would like to go ahead and piggyback off that statement. the government needs to move rapidly to go ahead and advance a great technologies such as telehealth technologies and insurance policies. in order to make a true change, we have the have the standards and reimbursement model for applied behavior analysis and other proven therapies as miss dawson said. the private insurance companies typically did not reimburse that for families with autism. >> i wanted to say that we do have a unique opportunity with health care reform to address

this issue. the house bill does include coverage for behavioral intervention for autism as well as ava. i think it is critical that with this opportunity, what we're looking at in terms of health care reform, we need to include this. in terms of the financial payoff down the road, it is going to be tremendous. it will help with the tsunami, and the impact on families will be tremendous. we must not miss the opportunity for federal mandate of insurance coverage for treatments that are cost-effective and that work. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to introduce something together. we will find out the details a

little later. >> from the iacc perspe%@2h @ @ m someone mentioned that you get all kinds of misinformation. you have been on this telehealth for three years now.

when you mention standards, is that what you're talking about? >> absolutely. when we start our treatment program, it is a comprehensive treatment program. unfortunately, families can pop up in the internet search and tiepin -- type in telehealth treatment. i do not see how it is possible to form a true therapeutic bond and go ahead and treat the child. is very disconcerting. you can quarry pretty much anything with autism and related disorders. whether it is some way to repair your car, somebody who can paint

your house, it is so sporadic. parents do not have a consistent place to ensure that they're going to receive quality care. i am encouraged that you have folks meeting and talking about new treatments. until we get a set of parameters for standards so that when parents go to get treatment, especially over at innovative technologies like telehealth, they have the assurance that they will get a trained, quality professional. and they're actually standards that they can rely on. right now, those aren't there. >> i just wanted to mention a program that is a wonderful example of a public-private partnership that is beginning to address this issue of standards. that is the odd to some treatment network. -- autism treatment network. cystic private -- to cystic

fibrosis was in the same boat, not getting quality care with no standards on how a child should be treated. it is 15 hospitals that care for children with autism that have come together both to look at quality of care, models of care as well as develop standards that can be practiced standards, published in journals that physicians can use to guide things like assessments, behavioral interventions, and so forth. there is a mechanism where this is beginning to be addressed. it is indeed very early stages. it is co-founded by of autism's speaks -- autism speaks. >> who does this? who is charged with responsibility for coming up with standards that have to be met so we don't have people out

there that don't know what they're doing trying to treat people? >> you have stumbled onto a really important issue. it is not unique to autism. we have built standards that are overseen by the fda. in the broader psychosocial intervention arena, there is not an agency or a licensing body that oversees this in quite the same way. it is a gap as we look at this. even in this healthcare reform consists -- discussion, when you talk about treatments that may not be a one of the 15 hospitals but involves training families to administer care 10 or 15 hours a week, how does that get reimbursed? how do we set standards for the

degree of care and level of care that is needed to be reimbursed? >> did you ask me that, or as a rhetorical? [laughter] -- is that rhetorical? >> i am a psychiatrist. [laughter] >> how do i feel, doctor? [laughter] >> that's true. again, obviously we have a whole range of interests here. everything from the research into the causes -- obviously, there is a lot of talk about vaccines. you covered that in your testimony. we had a couple of questions about the number of vaccines and

how we set up that kind of a steady -- a study. ms. halverson talked about the kind of a steady. -- study. if you wanted to determine that, i did not know how you would do that. >> one of the reasons i wanted to bring that up, senator, is that there are some many families right now -- and this greatly concerns me. i believe in vaccines, i think they're one of the greatest public health achievements that we have ever had. i am a huge proponent of it. what i am concerned about -- there are so many families that are not vaccinating their children.

and we do vaccinate our children. there are some many that are not vaccinating because of what they perceive as a huge risk. i am concerned that the nih and the cdc, with their failure to look at this and give good, valid, scientific studies free of people that might have some interesting in this, that they are doing more harm to lower the immunization rates than anybody that is yelling out there to be concerned about vaccines. there are so many people right now that are choosing not to vaccinate their children. i do not think that populatn is going to be as difficult as scientists perceive that it is. within the autism community, we see that going on right now.

many of us feel that vaccines are very important. we hear families, to us and say, we are not going to vaccinate our kids. having a husband as a medical professional, i worked as an attorney in public health. that greatly concerns me. they do not have any of the possible health characteristics that some of us who did have children with vaccine reactions have that could have been red flags. now that we know that, it could have been studied. the scientific community can find these people to do this. >> go ahead. ms. halverson. punch the button. >> i was going to mention, i do

not know how many people would be needed to be included in a steady -- in a study, but in the chicago area, there is a practice of about 35,000 patients. many of them choose not to vaccinate, and their optimism rate is next to nothing. there are populations -- and there autism rate is next to nothing. the homage people can argue on that. -- the amish people can argue that. it is people from every walk of life. >> i do not know about that. >> let me be very clear on this point. i am representing what we know about the scientific evidence so far. that is really an unequivocal. it is not that cdc and nih and

multiple studies have not looked at this, this problem has been looked at over and over again. 16 large-scale studies that have plowed into this question that many different levels and many different populations. whether you read those studies or institute -- >> you mean the total number -- >> the possibility of a connection with particular formulations or without. and the prevalence of autism. whether this is a risk factor. studies have found no risk of a connection. we have heard that from the institute of medicine. we have heard it from the -- >> when i mentioned getting a study done of the number of vaccines in the first two years

of life, compared to 20 or 30 years ago, would be the incidence of optimism -- autism that received 29 vaccines compared to a cohort of kids that got five or six or seven or eight, what they did in 1980 compared to 1929. i do not know any studies. >> are you asking the question, as the prevalence of what is an increase over the time when the number of vaccines of increase, is there a relationship? we know they have both gone up. >> but what we don't know is, is there any causal relationship between the number of vaccines that are given -- is 29 over two

years now. in 1980, it was 8. is there any causal relationship between the number of vaccines, 29 in two years, and higher incidence of autism. we don't know that. >> the way to do such a study clearly would be asking -- we would have to do randomized control. we would want to look very carefully at those who are vaccinated and those who are unvaccinated or vaccinated in a different way. that is when we get into ethical problems. >> she just mentioned somewhere in chicago -- i do not know where this is, but they do not vaccinate.

are there places like that? and you mentioned people that there are -- you mentioned that their people not vaccinating their kids. >> the question one would ask is not only about does this have an impact on autism, but what is the impact on other diseases, a whole series of preventable illnesses for which we know the cause diarrhea we know the vaccines can prevent them. -- for which we know the cause of, and we know the vaccines can prevent them. is there a potential relationship here? >> senators, this is where there are many people in the medical community -- and i mentioned the doctor that feels like this

issue has not been appropriately evaluated, particularly also looking at sub populations to look at whether -- their mitochondrial issues involved with that. i think it is imperative that we look at those particular studies. i and the stand the ethical thing about asking parents to do this. senators, we already have populations of families that are not doing this anyway. absolutely, we should look at whether their children developed measles. quite frankly, senator, measles and autism? >> if you had a choice?

i had all those diseases when i was a kid. we had imams, measles, chicken pox, everything like that. >> is important to recognize that many of us were exposed to those illnesses and did quite well. they are also fatal. i grew up as a physician watching children died with meningitis -- children die with meningitis because we were not preventing those diseases at that point in time. i can tell you, to think that we have been able to finally succeed in that sphere, and to go backwards --- we are better than that. the science tells us we are better than that. >> i know we're better off in

that regard. i would like to see it -- i have had a lot of hearings and talked to a lot of professionals about whether or not we need all of those vaccinations in the first two years of life, or should they be stretched out longer. it is an open question. i do not know the answer. >> i have to point out also, vaccines do not always work overtime. my son is a walking example of that. the chicken pox vaccine was brand-new when he was 2 years old. the doctors said i should get it for him. i had chickenpox, it was not a big problem, but i missed a couple of weeks of school. six months later, after being immunized, he developed a full- blown case anyway. that was my first clue that i was not necessarily going to choose immunizing my daughters

for chickenpox, my future children at the time. i was pregnant at the time that my son developed chicken pox six months after his vaccine. had i not had it as a child and had a lifelong immunity, my baby could have been at risk for birth defects as i understand it. there is more to consider than just a blanket statement of the vaccine is automatically going to protect. it does not always work that way. >> miss dawson. >> in many ways, i agree with the doctor that we have answered some questions definitively. it does not appear that thimeracol accounts for this large increase in the prevalence of autism.

i do think that there are important questions that still remain to be addressed that have not been addressed by the large epidemiology studies that have been conducted so far. in particular, i think it is important to understand the role of underlying genetic in the medical susceptibilities and whether they may lead to an adverse response to an exit -- to a single vaccine or a set of vaccines that are given over a short period of time. the era of personalized medicine is beginning to and used our practice of treating infectious disease. the underlying variation in genetics has not been studied in the context of responses to vaccinations. autism's speaks -- autism speaks

looks at mitochondrial disorder, responses to vaccines, developing seizure disorders, and whether these may count for, again, some minority of cases of autism. another thing i might suggest is, i agree with the doctor that randomized study in which we ask parents to forgo getting vaccines is not ethical and not feasible. we could, however, study the potential role of vaccines in the context of two ongoing nih studies. one is a study that we are finding, following a cohort of that risk infants. infants who have an older sibling with autism who have a

higher chance of developing its. -- developing it. some parents are choosing to vaccinate, and some parents are choosing not to vaccinate. we must leverage those studies to see the effect that outcome. the other study is the national institute of health's national children study. this is 100,000 children that are being followed from conception through adulthood. keep in mind that 600 individuals will develop and autism disorder -- an autism disorder. we oversee the expert advisory panel that is advising the national children's study on how to leverage this study. one of the weaknesses in the

current design is that they are not collecting medical records. they are not collecting information that would inform how parents are vaccinating their children. again, with many parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, this is another opportunity with the collection of medical records that we could leverage an ongoing study to address this important question. and i want to say that our position is one of very evidence based -- we are very agnostic with respect to whether the vaccines play a role or not. by addressing parent's questions -- we think is going to be critically important for public health. >> i have been a big supporter of that children's study. i have used my position to make

sure that we continue the funding for it and keep it going. i think it is one of the most vital longitudinal studies we have ever done. you're telling me that of all the money we have put into that , this is a 20-year -- how many years is this? are they not keeping medical records? >> they do not have the funding to go back, obtain the medical records, and extract the information we need. it also affects our ability to address really critically scientifically based questions like, what is the effective of a flu infectin during --

infection during pregnancy. these are all obtained through a questionnaire rather than medical records. our advice to the national children's study is that this is a key component. the reason for not doing it is strictly financial. they just don't have the funds to do it. >> i want to make sure that you do not go away with the idea that they do not have medical records. they are not able to obtain the original records with the current budget. they have looked at the possibility of getting supplementary funding that would allow them to obtain the raw records from the physician of referral. that has not been done. dr. dawson is right about that. i know we're running out of time, but i just think it should be set by somebody here that there will be a time in the future where we will have a much better understanding of the

environmental causes of autism. one concern that people have is that if we get stuck looking at one thing over and over again, we will miss the opportunity to look at another cause. we agree that the evidence now is very clear -- it does not explain very much about what we know about autism. we may be able to eliminate a rare event that is in place here that would connect the two. all the evidence says this is not the main story. the question for us is, where is the main story? where should we be looking? i would hope that the focus on this topic, particularly in this conversation today does not obscure the fact that there is probably something out there that is truly important that we need to be focusing on very quickly and move into very quickly.

the hope is that the kinds of studies that dr. dawson suggests that are agnostic also include some postnatal factors and we will begin to see a pattern emerge. so far, we do not have that. >> we're going to explore that for the idea -- i wrote that down. i will have to find out about that. again, i know we're out of time. we have three things -- let me see if i can capitalize this. the research and needs to be ongoing -- the research needs to be ongoing with what is causing this. then there is the other elements of interventions and helping families right now. we know families in the next several years are still going to be having kids with autism.

we have to think about what we do about early interventions and how we structure that better. the next thing is, we have a whole group of people out there that are going to be adults pretty soon with autism. how do you work with transition programs for independent living and things like that. it is a big task, but one that we can't shirk from trying to address in multiple ways. that is what this committee is going to try to do. i have picked up some good ideas this morning. is good to be refreshed of the information. i wish i had a simple answer. the you have anything dad? -- do you have anything to add? >> thank you for interest. >> thank you for your

leadership. >> i would just encourage you will to continue to talk with more of our independent researchers. i really take issue with dr. insel's statement. all of the evidence says this is not a connection -- it does say that thimeracol is very much a concern. i would encourage you to talk with other doctors, i could name a whole bunch of scientists that you would clean all lot of really great information from. >> i believe in open inquiry. i do not believe in closed mines, closed doors, or open inquiry -- or closed inquiry. i want open inquiry. the vast majority of the scientific community, after looking at this, says there is no correlation, we have to move on to something else.

again, i am always for open inquiry. any other last things before we go? >> chairman hock -- cochran, thank you for telling -- think you for letting us tell the story of the amazing technology that has helped our family. >> kids that just been diagnosed, they can't go to one office every day. you are an example of what happens when you have someone, when the child is acting up, a professional with the standards can come in and say, here is what you should do. >> exactly. >> the problem is, you do not get reimbursed. >> you hit the nail on the head, sir. >> if you went to a hospital,

there might be some reimbursement for that. >> somewhat. as the others pointed out, there is a complete public and private insurance breakdown. >> hopefully, we will look at that issue of reimbursement. i almost put that in preventative -- that prevented category of services. again, thank you all very much. to me, it has been very informative. we will continue our involvement in this issue. it bedevils us all on getting a good handle on it. thank you for the interagency task force. thank all of you here. believe me, we will continue to pursue open inquiry and if there are questions out there, let's have some answers. thank you all very much.

calle[cap >> good morning.

i am an intern scholar here at the young america foundation, a leading organization on college campuses. if you would like to take advantage of the resources or campus activism, such as booking speakers were getting materials for events, please contact us by phone or online at our website, www.yaf.org. our next speaker is president of the washington d.c.-based

research council which leads the way in defending the judeo- christian values upon which our nation was built. he served in the louisiana state legislature as recognized as a pioneer by offering many measures. he hosts a national radio program called "washington watched weekly." his first book was released just last year. copies will be available of this book for purchase and signing after his talk. a veteran of the u.s. marine corps and a former police officer and tv news reporter, he brings a unique blend of experience and leadership to the pro-family movement. please welcome mr. tony perkins.

[applause] >> good morning. it is good to see a friendly crowd here in d.c. for a change. do not take what blair said too seriously. it sounds from my bio that i cannot hold a job. i've been with my current job for six years. i ran for the united states senate about seven years ago. my family and i traveled the state of louisiana for about six months and visited all kinds of places. it renews your hope in the people as you begin to talk to people and understand their hopes and aspirations and their desires for changing the community and the country. we had a great time.

i enjoyed it thoroughly up until election night. on the heels of that, i was recruited to run for commissioner. i was a reform candidate and was favored to win that race. i had a pretty good chance of winning. then i was recruited to come here to washington. i had to make a tough decision on what to do. i decide to analyze the situation. i took a sheet of paper and drew a line down the middle. i looks at the time that the family research council and their 20-year history. i looked at the three previous occupants in the presidency. kerrey ran for presidency earlier. -- gary ran for the presidency.

i looked at the three previous occupants and all three of them had gone to jail. so i showed my wife and said, honey, what you think? she said, you do not look too good in stripes. we decided to come to washington because we had an opportunity to deal with issues that are of significance and great importance to our country. i encourage and applaud you the fact that you are here and that you remain and increase your involvement. i was fairly young wife first ran for office. unlike you, i was not involved in the political realm. i was doing enough to pay the tuition. it was all i could handle at the time. it was when i realized things were not going to when they

showed that i needed to get involved. i remember my first campaign. has anyone in here run for public office? a couple. great. it is tough work. it is fun, but it is tough. it is challenging. especially in an environment where people are distrustful of government. you would appreciate this in the month of august when campaigns get their zenith. it is hot and humid. i was campaigning one day. we have these afternoon rain showers. i had gotten caught in one of these rain showers. i was probably not looking at my best. i went to a door and knocked. the woman looked at the picture and she looked back at me and said, that picture is sure flatters you.

so you have to roll with the punches. if we were to take a picture of america today, the picture may not be too flattering. but maybe it is a picture of just this moment in time. i think you are part of painting what the future picture of america looks like. it is really in encouraging and hardening to see so many young men and women coming to washington to embrace the value of faith and freedom. congress is at of town. i am wondering if we could make this trade permanent. i want to have a frank conversation this morning. i think it is time that we speak frankly. i may say some things that are controversial. i make no apologies. you are here i suspect not because you hear -- you care

about an issue or two or you love this country. but because you know that you are heirs to a great tradition, a legacy. it was captured in the run for office made by the most consequential president of the 20th century, ronald reagan. ronald reagan announced he would build his campaign on five pillars -- work, family, neighborhood, peace, and freedom. it is easy to forget after the legacy was built, revitalizing our economy and putting communism to the ash heap of history, he dedicated himself to what some consider to be local or social issues. ronald reagan did not see it that way. he dedicated himself to the

propositions and he began his campaign not at the defense place but in the south bronx, a community where pope was dim -- we're hohere hope was dim. ronald reagan dedicated himself to an even deeper proposition, one that is summarized in the phrase he took from governor william bradford, a vision that predates our founding and inspired our founders. the vision of america as a shining city on a hill. it -- is the acceptance speech in detroit in the hot summer of 1980, a speech delivered in the time in nearly as economically fragile as ours today, ronald

reagan called on his heroes to pray for the future, pray for our nation, and for the monumental challenges ahead of us. how large were those tasks? mortgage interest rates were in double digits. general interest rates of 20%. the embassy in iran. hostages had been taken and held for over 400 days. a deteriorating family structure. military service -- president carter proclaiming that the coming century and a new era of limits in scarcity. in many ways, the challenges we face today pale in comparison. we did not just face sagging car sales of them. we faced a growing belief that

the american spirit itself was sagging and could not recover. ronald reagan challenged the doomsayers. on the right as well as on left. they said america's best days were behind her. one by one, he faced the challenges of his time, the challenges of every time. he restored america's faith. he was right when he said, you ain't seen nothing yet. the doomsayers today are claiming we're facing a new era of limits. our population has grown too high. we have to cut growth. they ignore the history of the last century. this see our government -- they see our nation as a negative force in the world. elected officials are going on

apology towards all over the world. literally on the backs of babies born today who will be handed the bills and the iu used. they think that is the way forward. -- the bills and the i know yo'. when the treasury secretary blurts out the tax hikes may be coming for middle income americans, he or she gets a presidential smacked down whose insincerity would make the world wrestling federation proud. [applause] you are here today because you know that we are not a nation of doomsayers. we are not a nation that is destined to the past.

but yet, we are a nation whose future is bright as those who can dream about tomorrow. you hold the key to what america looks like. it is a picture that only you, your generation can be. we were not born to crouch and flinch before the opportunities before us by virtue of living in this nation. we are blessed to have the opportunities to shape our future. not everybody in the world can claim that. as americans, we have that ability. you are neither dividers or young people willing to be divided. there are calls in some quarters that the core principles of reagan's conservatism be abandoned. usually the appeal is to lower

our forces -- lower our voices on issues like abortion or marriage. @@@@)x today, ronald reagan, who was the commander in chief when i enlisted in the united states marine corps, who brought back a sense of worth to this nation, who made the men and women who wore the uniform of this nation proud to serve, willing to give their lives. i believe that if he were alive today, he would not be succumbing to these causes.

economic freedom and social values. they represent the essentials of a conservative resurgence. ronald reagan showed us the way to build a winning coalition in the 1980's. i believe his model still applies today. at the end of his presidency, a few days before he left office, "ronald but reagan said his greatest regret was that he was unable to do more as president to protect the lives of the unborn, and that america would be completely civilized as long as abortion on demand was legal." [applause]

today, but my friends, future leaders of this nation, i urge you to stand strong with a vision of ronald reagan. the resolute in your convictions. -- be resolute in your convictions. if you are the only one standing, i assure you you will not be the only one for long. people will stand and speak out of conviction. there will soon be a crowd to echo your call. you are for liberty. you're not a pacifist. you are for peace through strength. you are not laissez-faire economists. your for allowing men and women to dream, to invent, to profit, and to invest in keeping our

community strong and our nation prosperous. your compassionate people -- you are compassionate people. you cherish human life. you recognize families as the fundamental unit of life. it is -- that is the legacy that you inherit. on a warm, autumn day in the fall of 1999 on the campus not too far from here at st. john's college, the nation's third oldest college, a 400-year-old popular tree was cut down. this tree had succumbed to years of disease and decay and had dealt -- had been dealt a final blow. experts who had examined the tree declared that it was in

danger of collapsing, proposed -- said it posed a safety hazard for those who walked on the campus. this was not just any old tree. it was a significant tree. in fact, it was the last of the liberty trees. the trees under which the sons of liberties and the patriots gathered. there was a treat like this in boston. -- there was a tree like this in boston. on that autumn day as this tree was cut down, a bell tolled 13 times, one fce for each of the 3 original colonies. the men and women had to establish this nation, this tree

became an object of the past. i read that article on the morning after it occurred. while it was symbolic, but also saw it as a warning. our liberty granted to us and secured by those who love gone before us must not be taken for granted. it must be protected and nurtured by each succeeding generation. i questions and night -- my question and my challenge to you this morning -- will you take up this challenge? will you protect and nurture the liberty that has been given to you by those who have gone before you? not just because of this will honor a tradition or even carry the hope of extending the legacy

of ronald reagan, all of that which is noble. but because it provides future progress for america and will help unify nations across lines of history, ethnicity, and culture. that is your challenge, as the next generation. to on the blast -- to unapologetically stand for conservatism. that means defending faith, family, and freedom in this nation. i have interacted with many young people across this nation, rising leaders, and i will tell you that i have great hope for the future of this country. you represent that picture of what tomorrow looks like. i hope that when i look back in my golden years, the picture is one of great hope that will

challenge future generations. may god bless each and everyone of you, and may rise to the challenge that is before you. [applause] thank you. i am just about finished with the 12-step recovery process for recovering politicians. i did not take all of my time. i'll be happy and excited to take your questions. i did not tell you you would have a microphone. i said you could ask questions.

>> i have seen you on tv and as a proud catholic, i respect you and pray for you and my family does. i think that is important. i am a proud catholic who wants to make a difference in the world. i know a lot of my friends want to make a difference. a lot of us are torn on whether we should run for office or seek fame -- help other people in the private sector or go into charity work. my question is, what do you think the process is besides prayer? what advice do you have for us? >> i would say d, all of the above. i do not think they are exclusive. i should mention my background. i have served in the military, and marine corps. i served as a police officer.

i served in public office. i have been working at a public shelter for 20 years. i have worked at an orphanage where there are children who have died from aids. those things are not mutually exclusive. i write about this in our book. i think we have allowed the media and others to define what conservatism is and that somehow conservatives are only about public policy of restricting liberties. we are about encouraging the formation of those liberties and being involved. we are working on a project show the toll dimension of our faith. we have come to a point where i want to help people. i want to serve in shaping the

next generation. do 1/2 to choose that? i did not think we have to choose. i think we can roll them all into one. >> do you think as conservatives we should stop looking for the next obama and start looking at ourselves? >> that is an excellent question. i agree wholeheartedly. we need leadership. i look across this room and i see leaders here in this room. i would say the question has been asked about social conservative movement that a lot of the elders that have retired and who will replace them? i did not think you'll have one or two people. there is a whole host of people that are taking responsibility in the age of the web.

i encourage, right where you are, use the influence you have to in it -- to move forward those ideas of conservatism. you can influence people in that realm. >> god bless you. thank you. >> my name is melissa harrison. i ever from a louisiana. >> welcome to washington. i will be in lafayette in the not too distant purchase -- in the not too distant future. >> my question is, from your experience in working in politics, considering the current cap and trade bill, how do you think it will affect our oil-driven economy in louisiana and southern parishes? >> that is a good question, one we should be asking, not just

how it will affect those in our states about being dependent on energy, but all of us. i am an outdoorsman. i was on a river in tennessee this week and rafting with my family. i loved tennessee. i have five children, so i am pro life. i have the evidence. i take it with me wherever i go. my oldest is 18. my youngest is 20 months. we love the river. they want to put us in the context of we want to pollute the environment. i flew over the glaciers recently. i am along the lines of the teddy roosevelt. i believe we have a responsibility to protect our natural resources for future

generations that cannot walk and drink water as i did as a kid. i think every generation should be able to do that. but i do not think that those ideas of protecting the environment and creating affordable energy are mutually exclusive. we have been given these resources by god of energy, coal, oil, and we have the technology to use these things in a responsible manner. i think the capital and trade bill is a disaster on many fronts. i think it will drive up energy prices in this country. it will transfer at least 2.5 million jobs outside of the united states. it is an international welfare program by which we will force businesses here to buy these exchanges for pollution rights

from developing countries. it is a bad policy. i am optimistic that there is a little more chance that this will be defeated in the senate and that it will not become law. but we cannot rest on that. it is important that those of you speak out on this issue and let your congressmen and congresswomen and senators know where you stand on this issue. >> are you going to lafayette for leisure? >> i was thinking lafayette. i'm going to be in a different city. i am going for dinner. >> thank you. my name is naomi. i am a science student. you talked about ronald reagan. i am of the opinion that his success was the great economic

policies or his charisma but the fact he was dependent on god and gave god the glory. @ @ @ @ @ e)e @ @ å my only question, when are you going to run for office? i could not have said it better myself. i think that history shows, and i think -- i am not alone in this. you share the same opinion.

millions of americans share that same view that we do have to have our priorities straight. ronald reagan was one. i remember the statements we made. he was -- he was not afraid to say these things. i want to underscore this. this is important. i have picked up on this in this room, that you are not afraid. you are people of courage. you get a very small minority that wants to marginalize people of deep conviction and faith. i found this out in politics. i did not think you have heard from mike yet. he is a dear friend of mine. i probably stole his opening line.

just clap when he says it. but i share that with him. i have seen in my political career in the republican party where there is an effort to marginalize people of deep christian conviction. it is because social conservatives are really pretty fixed in their position. there are not a lot of negotiable. a lot of times i have seen economic conservatives who will negotiate away their conservatism. we have to be strong and unyielding and not afraid to be challenged. i had an opportunity to see cable tv. i call them gladiator tv. when i speak the truth, even though there may be those who

disagree, people respect that and i hear from across the country and people said, i wish i had the opportunity to say that. the point is, you do. don't be afraid to speak out. did not be afraid you will be marginalized by the other side. they are trying to push us into silence by attacking those values that have transcended from one generation to another. >> thank you. >> hello. i am from houston. i represent texas right to life. i am a single mother who became a mother in high school. >> thank you for choosing life.

>> one of the things that bothers me most is that there are more programs for women than there are to help women to choose life and decide to do what is morally right. i get a little of emotional about this. there have been 45 million abortions in this country and nobody is doing anything about this. the biggest planned parenthood is being built in houston, texas. i do not want to have to pay for tax dollars going to women getting abortions. i want to be able to sets them up for a success. i didn't feel like our country is helping us do that. >> i do not know that i can respond to that. you have stated that so succinctly. you should be concerned about

this health care bill. this is a bailout bill. they are going to receive millions more tax dollars through this. abortion will be funded in this country for the first time in over three decades. there is no escaping that fact. i serve on the board of a crisis center and have for about 18 years. i think we have made great advancements on the issue of life. >> i agree. >> we are this close to becoming a predominately pro-life nation again. i do not think it is because of the policy battles we have waged. i did a number of those in louisiana that advanced the culture of life. that is important. but the number one reason i think we have gained ground on

the life issue is because of the care pregnancy movement across the nation. there are over 1800 of them. to 0.5 million women who received services every year. -- 2.5 million women who receive services every year. these are private citizens who care passionately and help women. we need to do more to expand that. under this congress, there is and will be an intense effort to shut down that network of care pregnancy centers. planned pregnancy does not want competition. they are investigating and harassing these citizens who care enough about young girls and women in times of crisis to help them make a choice that they will live with for the rest of their lives with happiness

and not regret. i encourage you to keep speaking out. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> if i can, there is a young girl -- have any of you heard of lila? she is a one-woman army when it comes to exposing the agenda of planned parenthood. she will be speaking in washington september 18-19. if you're able to come back, i would encourage you to do so. i would encourage you to do that. we have a number of young people and bill o'reilly will be there as well receiving an award for his stand. he has been attacked because of exposing george tiller and the late term abortions and the

media have been hounded him. so we are going to give him an award for exposing the truth. >> my name is joshed lerne lear. there is economic, social, and foreign policy. one issue that comes up is a philosophy and there are tensions between these. their issues built within. i am a huge supporter of capitalism. the primary mechanism with which it works is creative destruction. it is destabilizing. people do not like that. if you do not have a philosophical defense of capitalism, people forget why it is the best system in the first place. as a representative, i think you

are probably more capable of making a philosophical case for capitalism. do you think -- i am right? the do you think this is an issue? what do you think this case would be? >> overwhelmingly, social conservatives are also conservatives economically and support the free markets and the whole idea of capitalism. go back to adam smith and his invisible hand. the idea that there are ways in which the economy works that functions well. there is this invisible hand that he acknowledged which is the hand of god and the way he has structured the world. it just works. look at this nation. we hear a lot about the four.

we should all be working to help those who cannot help themselves. -- we hear a lot about the poor. compare it to the rest of the world. why is it that our folks are doing so well? the poor have -- it is a government definition. that is prosperity in most parts of the world. [applause] i would argue that the reason for that is that we have pursued a free-market system. we do not determine from the government. this factors into the health- care debate. we were talking about this this morning in our morning meeting. there is a loss of understanding of how a free market operates.

i think that is by intention. there is rationing that takes place in the market. it is rational rationing. we can predict what the market is going to do. i think most would do the rationing based on supply and demand and who participates at and what choices consumers make, as opposed to the government being the rational force which is irrational and unpredictable. that is what we are going to experience in health care. there is going to be rationing. we have seen it in oregon where people need treatment are not given the treatment but rather they are given the treatment -- the option of physician-assisted suicide because it's cheaper. >> mr. perkins, i am not

talking about capitalism is good because it works. is there a moral case where you couldn't say capitalism is good? i think the case can be made from it philosophical and religious aspect. >> it can. the best evidence in defending it is by saying it works. there is nothing that compares to it. as a christian, my thoughts on these do emanate from the truth. i think it speaks for itself and bills the idea of property rights. samuel adams -- i do not know if you have read one of the biographies on samuel adams. i highly recommend it. he was one of the primary

founding fathers. he was really the father of the revolution. he constantly harp on two issues -- religious freedom and property rights. those two ideas are closely connected. they were connected in the minds of the founders and in the scripture. i think this is at the cornerstone of the capital system. >> thank you. good morning. i just graduated from college in northern california. >> a beautiful place. >> pretty, yes. how can there be such a thing as a christian democrat? [laughter] [applause] >> i guess if you have a computer, you can write

anything. there are some members of congress that i know that have deep convictions. we're grateful for the so- called blue dog democrats who have brought attention to the issue of abortion based upon their strong religious beliefs. i remember in the 2004 republican convention, probably the most conservative speaker of their was a senator from georgia who was a democrat, zell miller. i spent a lot of time with him. i have no question about where his convictions emanate from and his allegiance to god. i actually think -- >> why is he a democrat? >> i actually think -- he is

across the board conservative. i think that is good@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ h gb@

connecticut. as the youngest of eight children, my mother and father have been through a lot throughout the years. had you feel about tax hikes with respect to our economy? >> great question. i am very, very concerned about how we're going to pay the debt we are running up. it is spinning out of control before our very eyes. i want to comment on the particular think you pointed out, coming from a family of eight children. the family research council put forth the idea that -- the idea of the child tax credit which eventually caught on and was

signed into law and was expanded under the bush administration. i think we should be encouraging families to have children. i did not just say that because i have five kids. what my family is doing and what your family has done is that you are raising the next generation of those who are going to pay social security, medicaid, medicare, you're going to be paying the freight. there are those who have no war few kids. we're creating a work force. i think families should be encouraged to have kids and that the tax structure should be encouraging and should recognize the contribution that those families are making by raising those children, feeding, clothing, educating, and equipped thiing those children.

we'll see what it cost to fund this health care plan if, god forbid, it is successful as proposed. when you combine that with the tax breaks that are going to expire at the end of next year, we are going to see the largest tax increase in the history of this country. race will go back up even higher than when ronald -- rates will go up even higher than when ronald reagan was in office. it does not encourage growth in the economy. it does not encourage growth in our families. i encourage you to look it demographics. demographics tell you what the future are going to look like. we're just at a sustainable rate. i cannot figure out how out gore and others can talk about how we are overpopulating and we are

destroying ourselves by having too many children. we're at a 2.1 fertility rate. in many places in europe, there decline is irreversible. there is no way they can pull it out, even if they try. we should not discourage family growth. we should do everything we can to promote the health and growth of families. >> thank you. [applause] >> my name is the victor. i am with penn state university . the conservative movement is growing. my question is, is that hitting home with people in washington? do politicians realize this is something that will be around for awhile like the obama rally

was? >> that is a good question. if you happen to see the front page of "the washington times" today. they talked about going to see parties as an astro turf movement. that somehow we are directing people. i wish we could direct that kind of energy and angst across this country. i think americans have had enough. i think that this administration and these members of congress ignore or deflect that angst and anger at their own peril. i think this is here to stay. i have seen it and have been a part of these tea party movements. people are starting to understand. the arrogance of congress to propose and pass a health care

bill they haven't even read. captain and trade, which they did not read. people elect members of trade in a representative form of government to do business in their place. you would think they would read a bill before they vote on it. i think this is something that is building. i do not think it has reached a zenith. i think it is building. i do not think it is a windfall for the republican party. until they get the message straight and understand who they are and where they are going, they are not going to benefit. a lot of republicans were forbidden from speaking at those empty parties. there is a concern. there is a desire to change things. we have to make sure we change it from the right direction and not just the fault to another

party. >> i did not think any of us will stop anytime soon. >> that is good. keep on going. [applause] >> hello, my name is tracy abrupt. i feel unersal health call is being pushed and people did not know all of the facts and they're getting swept up into the facts of free health care and they're on aware of the dangers like poor quality. you have any suggestions on how we can spread the truth about universal health care? >> as a premed student, this is an issue we're concerned about. it is the issue of conscience rights. there is no prohibition in this bill. the act. administration adopted some strong conscience regulations to

protect health-care workers. a nurse in new york was forced to participate in a late-term abortion against her will. she said she was a catholic mayors and did not want to be part of it. she was forced to do so. if you are forced going into the field of health care where you would not have a choice to engage in whether it be an abortion or end of life treatment if you're in a state such as organ or washington state, would that impact your decision to go into the health- care field? >> absolutely. i am already questioning where my future is going. i will not be forced to do an abortion. i would definitely rethink my career. >> that is the answer to your question right there. you need to let people know

that your generation will not be forced to person. -- forced to participate in ill- conceived policies. it looks like you are the caboose. >> hello. i grew up in a middle class, largely white neighborhood. there wasn't a planned parenthood to be found. if i drove down to a largely black neighborhood, there was one on practically every corner. this is not racism. it is genocide. 95% of african americans voted for an individual whose policies are exterminating their race. how can they convince them that this is something worth caring about? >> i think it's somewhere between 80% and 90% of these clinics are in inner-city spirit

there is no question. 75%. i was close. thank you for correcting. 75% are in these neighborhoods. clearly there is an agenda. what is happening is there are african american leaders, pastors and others, who have caught on to this. they know exactly what is happening and they are beginning to speak out. there will be a documentary released very soon talking about the genocide that is taking place through planned parenthood and indirectly through our tax dollars. a third of their budget comes through tax dollars. it is -- it covers a their overhead. it operates in the same clinics that abortions take place.

it is an educational aspect. this is another area where we talk about democrats and conservative democrats. i see the prospect of a conservative african americans in these districts that will be challenging the present leadership going into congress and legislatures that holds it to a pro-life, pro-free market position that will challenge the status quo. i think we should in courage it. .

we should go into those districts and encourage them to challenge the status quo. that should work in state legislatures all across the country. >> thank you. >> thank you all very much. it has been a treat to be with you this morning. i am encouraged to know that you are here. if as you dispersed across the country, you'll take back the challenges you received in washington and you'll make a difference right where you are. the courageous. be bold. be strong. -- be

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> what happens if this does not pass? what happens if there is no money? >> we have brought this up to the people on capitol hill and we have been very clear, and they have been very clear with us that we will continue to deliver the mail, and that this will go on uninterrupted. we have made it clear to the employees that payroll will not be interrupted, and the employees will receive their payment for the artwork that they perform, and we have also informed the treasury that if we come up short, we will not take

the money into the trust fund, this year. and so, we have been very clear about what would happen to all of the interested parties. >> this is where the money would go? >> the fact of some -- the fact of the matter is that the postal service does not want to do anything to interrupt the economy. there are over one trillion dollars that moves through the mail, in any given year, and we are an industry that employs 8 million americans, and so we have no intention of doing anything to disrupt the flow of mail. i am fairly confident that the action will be taken, the

legislative action will be taken -- >> >> we will have to work on the long term. >> when it comes to the postal service, we are facing a public policy issue. the public policy issue is, how will the postal service operate, this year or next year, because it is time to set a path for the future, in terms of the business model to give us and provide for universal service for americans for many years to come, or to adjust the business model that would provide greater flexibility to become more productive, to deal

with the legacy costs', like retirement health benefits, and make certain that whatever the payments are, they are affordable, and we can look at the structure of the postal service and one of them that needs to be debated is five day delivery. this is because there has been a reduction in demand of the services. >> the house and senate bills are different, do you have a preference for one over the other? -- >> i have a preference that the legislation is moving. and the bill is somewhat different, but they are both looking to help us, and they both are -- they are both focused on the short term.

i look at this as the first phase, of what will be the multi faced legislative effort, to put the postal service on a proper path going forward. >> there was a report last week reporting a $7 million deficit, and they said this was after $8 billion in cost reductions. can you keep cutting the work hours? >> the plan is to cut $3.8 million next year, and 80% of the cost is labor. part of the saving -- savings are labor associated. we continue to try to make the delivery network of the right size, and we are working with the international association of letter carriers, to adjust the

number of routes that we have, and we have been bringing these down. and we continue to have opportunities to do some consolidation, and so we are taking the ships, and we are consolidating the taurus, and we are working within the constraint of the labor agreement, a large percentage of this is labor associated. when it comes to the contracts that we have, adjustments to the transportation, the bulk is labor related. some of the facilities -- they may do this but this is modest. this will be more associated with tour consolidations and adjustment to the process, and

the basic staffing, so the opportunities are there and we know where they are, and dave -- we are modifying this with the contracts and we are modifying the employees and the taurus of duty, the days of work, and there will be some consolidations. but the bulk of saving -- savings is with labor >> on that consolidation, at the house hearing last week, there were four different numbers that were shared about the number of facilities that may be closing. this went from 3000 to 1000, what is this and what is the process, and what do you say to the lawmakers who have expressed

concern -- concerns that you have not been straight with them about the facilities and the process, and would you consider a commission that would basically go city by city, these are the ones that will close. >> let me discuss the process. this is something that has occurred multiple times in my 30 year career. there is a 2006 law that tells us to be transparent. when we were looking at the cities, the cities with multiple postal facilities within them, like chicago with multiple stations and branches, financial units, maybe we just

sell stamps and have a post office boxes, but we have never had a law that says that the review has to be done in a transparent way. we have filed paper work with the regulatory commission that said that we were undertaking the national review of the larger cities, to look at where the facilities were, to determine whether they were needed, and to determine whether there were opportunities to consolidate the backroom operations. this is something that has been done over the course of the years. if there is someone who is too close to the microphone, thank you. we were hearing some heavy breathing on this side. we have notified the regulator that we were going to conduct

this review, and we put some testimony before them, and over the course of filing the testimony, and then a hearing that occurred last week, we were asked by the committee, to provide an update on where we were standing. we went from 3200 places, the facilities to be reviewed, and we have narrowed this down to under 800. we provided the information to the committee, not necessarily thinking that there would be public disclosure. the regulator asked for a copy of this and published the information. this has created a firestorm,

because there is the assumption that everyone who has been published -- that these were going to close down. this includes facilities that have not yet been looked at, but they had to take these off of the last. there was a review that says there will be followed up. my expectation is that we will consolidate the back room of some stations around the country, in the case of where we have the facilities that are blocks apart, we may not need these retailing outlets, and i suspect that we have some valuable property in the downtown areas and if we are able to consolidate in the back room, we may move out of the property, with the retail outlet

that will continue to provide access for the customers in this area. and again, i believe that if anything, the matter that we have been transparent has created a lot of attention, and i think that is great that people care. if nobody reacted to this, i would be concerned as the postmaster general, that people did not really have a need for the postal service. this is showing that people need the postal service and we are reinforcing that people like to be able to go to the facility and disrupt their business, with a human being who was behind the counter to answer any questions. we are working very hard to provide access and reform, and the internet web site has been improved and when all is said

and done, this will be world class. we want to have people think of their computer as the post office, and to be able to walk into the facility and conduct business at the automated postal center, or conduct business with the retail associates behind the traditional counter. >> one official suggested that any of the 200 facilities may be closed. >> there is no prejudicial bone in my body. we are reviewing everything in the postal service to determine if there is an opportunity to cut the costs without affecting service to the american public. i do not have a number, and i will tell you this.

there will be a local review and then we will move to the area office, and we will have nine of them around the country and we will move from those offices to the headquarters where this will be reviewed to make certain that no one is being overly aggressive. i cannot commit to a number. but i can say that we have brought this number down and for the review is on the way. >> is the current financial situation the kind of circumstance that you would consider a circumstance where you may try to be able to break the cap on the increase in the rates? >> when it comes to this situation, this is obviously a big challenge. everything has to be on the table.

and decisions about the rates are made by the board of governors of the postal service. there have been some rumors that we will double the rates by double digits, and i can tell you that i will not be making a recommendation like this to the board of governors. i think that to raise rates would drive male further away from the system, and would only compound the level that we are dealing with. >> if you were going to invoke this, is this something that you understand that you would have to wait until next year, waiting until the normal cycle -- or is this something that you could look for at any time. >> my belief if i read the rules

right, i am not a lawyer. my belief is that we can do this at any time. i will not say that this is what we will do, but i will say that i believe that we can ask for this at any time. this was put in for emergency purposes. when they were discussing this part of the law, it was after 9/11. and i think that it was -- the perception was that there could be an emergency that we would have to react to, so this was a very liberal law and when we would have to ask for the adjustment. remember my response to your first question. raising rates -- this will only drive us out of the system and this will not be helpful.

that is not to preclude that in next may, there will not be a modest adjustment in the price, and we may have to use a process to make this adjustment. >> are there any other questions? >> going back to the shortfall in cash by the end of the year, even without making the payment, you will be short? >> the payment is $5.4 billion. i said we were $700 million short. 5. ford is larger than 700 million.

thank you for coming today. this was a little bit bigger than the normal quarterly get together, but we're happy that others were available to join us. thank you very much. >> we have just heard from the postmaster general. he is on capitol hill this morning to talk about the financial state of the u.s. postal service. live coverage begins at 10:00 eastern. the senate will vote on sonia sotomayor today at 3:00 eastern. next, we will hear from a number of senators to talk about the nominee, with female democratic senators. this is about 90 minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is

recognized *fplt ms. klobuchar: thank you very much, mr. president. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those strong remarks on behalf of judge sotomayor, strong remarks for a very strong nominee. more importantly, as chairman of the senate skwraourbgts i want to thank you and -- judiciary committee, i want to thank you and senator sessions for the way you conducted the confirmation hearing, the dignity that was shown to the nominee in that hearing. i think that was very important to the process. we may not have agreed with the conclusions that some of our colleagues reached, but no one can dispute that the hearing was conducted civilly and with great dignity. this is a nominee who shows great dignity every step of the way. today i will be speaking in support of judge sotomayor's nomination, but first i'm going to be joined by several of my esteemed fellow women senators, including senator shaheen of new hampshire, who is here already. senator stabenow of michigan. senator gillibrand from new york. and senator murray of washington state. we all know that this nomination

is history-making for several reasons, but one of them, of course, is that judge sotomayor will be only the third woman to ever join the supreme court of the united states of america. we know she's incredibly well-qualified. she's got more federal judicial experience than any nominee for the past 100 years. that's something that's remarkable. but i do think it's worth remembering what it was like to be a nominee for this court as a woman even just a few years ago. it's worth remembering, for example, that when justice o'connor graduateed from law school, the only offer she got from law firms -- after graduating from stanford law school -- were for legal secretary positions. justice o'connor who graduated third in her class of law school saw her accomplishments reduced to one question: can she type. justice ginsburg, when she entered harvard law school, she was one of nine women in a class of more than 500. the dean of the law school

demanded she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. later she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials. nonetheless, both of these women persevered and they certainly prevailed much their undeniable merits triumph those who sought to deny them opportunity. the women who came before judge sotomayor, all those women judges, helped blaze a trail. and although judge sotomayor's record stands on her own, mr. president, she is also standing on those women's shoulders. i am pleased to recognize several women senators that are here today to speak in support of judge sotomayor and the first is my great colleague from new hampshire, senator shaheen. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire is recognized. mrs. shaheen: thank you,

mr. president. i'm delighted to be joined by my neighbor, mr. leahy, in support of senator sonia sotomayor -- in support of sonia sotomayor. this week we have the opportunity to make history, to bring an hispanic and only the third woman to the united states supreme court. senator klobuchar spoke eloquently about the challenges women faced and i'm pleased to say as governor i appointed the first woman to the new hampshire supreme court. i come today to the floor to speak in support of sonia sotomayor's nomination, however not because of the historic nature of that nomination, but because she is more than qualified to sit on the supreme court. i'm really somewhat perplexed by why the vote on her nomination will not be unanimous. judge sotomayor is immensely qualified. the nonpartisan american bar

association standing committee on the federal judiciary, which has evaluated the professional qualifications of nominees to the federal bench since 1948, unanimously -- unanimously -- rated sotomayor as well-qualified to be a supreme court justice after carefully considering her integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. her decisions as a member of the second circuit court of appeals are well within the judicial mainstream of our country. the congressional research services analysis on her opinions concluded she eleads ideological categorization and demonstrates adherence to judicial precedent on issues of facts of a case and avoidance of overstepping the circuit court's judicial role. described as a political centrist by the nonpartisan american bar association

journal, she has been nominated to the federal courts by presidents of both political parties. when president george h.w. bush in 1992 nominated sonia sotomayor to the u.s. district court for the southern district of new york, this senate approved her nomination by unanimous consent. when president clinton in 1998 nominated her to the second circuit court of appeals, this senate voted 67-29 to confirm her on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote. her now familiar personal story is no less impressive. the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the highest court of our country will inspire girls and young women everywhere to work hard and to set their dreams high. americans look to lawmakers to work together to make the country stronger.

they expect us to put partisanship aside, to advance the interests of the american people. if there is one issue we should be able to come together on, to put aside our differences on, it is the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. i look forward to having the opportunity to vote in support of her confirmation with the majority of my colleagues. thank you, mr. president, and thank you, senator klobuchar. i yield back the floor to senator klobuchar. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. having looked at judge sotomayor's whole record, as senator shaheen pointed out, her 17 years on the bench and the fairness and the integrity that she will bring to the job, i am proud to support her nomination. when judge sotomayor's

nomination was first announced, i was impressed by her life story, as was everyone else, which all of us know well by now. she grew up in, in her own words, in modest and challenging circumstances, and she worked hard for everything she got. her dad died when she was nine years old, and her mom supported her and her brother. and one of my favorite images as a member of the judiciary committee from the hearing was her mother sitting behind her every moment of that hearing, never leaving her side. the mother that raised her on a nurse's salary, who saved every penny she had just to buy an encyclopedia britannica for their family. that struck me because i know in our family we also had a set of encyclopedias that had a hallowed place in our hallway and that's what i used to write our reports. she went on to graduate from princeton summa cum laude and

phi beta kappa before graduating from law school. she has worked as a private civil litigator, been a district court and appellate court judge, and she's taught law school classes. but one experience of hers in particular resonates with me. immediately after graduating from law school she spent five years as a prosecutor at the manhattan district attorney's office. i want to talk a little bit about that because it's something that she and i have in common. i was a prosecutor, myself, mr. president. you know what's that like to have that duty. i was a prosecutor for minnesota's largest county. as a prosecutor after you interacted with victims of crime, after you've seen the damage crime does to individuals in our communities, after you've seen defendants who are going to prison, and we know their families are losing them, sometimes forever, you know that the law is not just an abstract

subject. it is not just a dusty book in a basement. the law has a real impact on the real lives of real people. it also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor. no matter how many years may pass, you may never forget some of the very difficult cases. for judge sotomayor, we know this is the case of the serial killer turned burglary. for me it was the case of taisha edwards, an 11-year-old girl with an unforgettable smile. she was at home doing her homework when a bullet went through a window and killed her. as a prosecutor, you can't just know the law, you have to know the people. you have to know the families. you have to know human nature. as judge sotomayor's former supervisor said, she is an imposing figure in the courtroom. someone who could weave together a complex set of facts, enforce

the law an never lose sight of whom she was fighting for. as her old boss robert morgenthau said, she is a fearless an effective prosecutor. before i turn this over to my colleague, the senator from michigan, who has just arrived, i think it would be interesting for people to hear a little more about judge sotomayor's experience as a prosecutor. and you can hear this firsthand from her own colleagues. this was a letter sent in from dozens of her colleagues that actually worked with her -- worked with her when she was a prosecutor. it wasn't her bosses necessarily. this is what they said in the letter -- they said we served together during some of the most difficult years in our city's history. crime was soaring, a general sense of disorder preveiled in the streets and the popular attitude was that increasing violence was inevitable. sonia sotomayor, they say in this letter, began as a rookie

in 1979, working long hours prosecuting an enormous caseload of misdemeanor. she was so challenged herself that she was among the first in her starting class to be selected to handle felonies. she prosecuted a wide variety of felony cases including serving as a co-counsel in a trial. throughout awful this she impressed us -- this is from her colleagues, as one who was singularly determined in fighting crime and violence. for sonia, service as a prosecutor was a way to bring order to the streets of the city she dearly loves. they go on -- we are proud to have served with sonia sotomayor. she solemnly adheres to the rule of law and believes that it should be applied equally and fairly to all americans. as a group, says this group of dozens of prosecutors who were

her colleagues, as a group we have different world views and political afil our support for sonia sotomayor is entirely nonpartisan and the fact that so many of us have remained her friend over three decades, sparks -- this speaks of her warmth and collegiality. i see that my colleague has arrived and i will continue my statement when she has completed hers. i am happy to have sen. 7 now here to talk about sonia sotomayor -- stabanow to speak about sonia sotomayor. her wonderful words about judge sotomayor, as well as her advocacy on behalf of minnesota we have a lot in common between

minnesota and michigan and so it's always a pleasure to be with the senator from minnesota. mr. president, i rise today to strongly support the confirmation of judge sonia sotomayor as the next justice of the supreme court. over 230 years ago alexander hamilton called experience that best oracle of wisdom. and his words continue to ring true today. judge sotomayor has over 17 years of experience on the federal bench. she will be the most experienced supreme court justice in over 100 years. our lifetime. but it isn't just her years of experience that will make her a great justice. it will be the experience of a uniquely american life. the american dream. she was raised in a south bronx

housing project where her families instilled in her values of hard work and sacrifice. at the age of 9, her father, a tool and dye worker, died tragically. after that, her mother, a nurse, raised her the best she could. i would say she did a pretty good job. her mom urged her to pay attention in school. she pushed sonia to work hard and get good grades, which she did. she studied hard, graduated at the top of her class in high school. it was through education that doors opened for judge se r fore sotomayor, as they have opened for millions of other americans. after law school, she went to work as assistant district attorney in new york prosecuting crimes like murders an robberies and -- and robberies and child abuse. she later went into private practice as a civil litigator working in parts of the law

related to real estate, employment, banking, and contract law. in 1992 she was nominated by president george h.w. bush and confirmedly the senate unanimously to serve as a district court judge. she performed admirably. and president clinton, having been nominated first by a republican and then again by a democrat, president clinton elevated her to the second circuit court of appeals. it is in part due to this enormous breadth of experience as a prosecutor, a lawyer in private practice, as a trial judge, as an appeals court judge that the american bar association has given her their highest rating of well qualified. judge sotomayor's story really is the american story. the young person born into

poverty can work hard, take advantage of opportunities and then succeed brilliantly and rise to the very top of their profession. judge sotomayor is really an inspiration to all of us. she's a role model for millions of young people of every race, class, creed, and background living in america today. last november we demonstrated that every child in america really can grow up to be president of the united states. judge sotomayor proves that with hard work and dedication they can be a supreme court justice too. mr. president, i strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm judge sotomayor. thank you very much. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota's

recognized. ms. klobuchar: i thank the senator from michigan for her strong words in favor of this very strong nominee. as i was talking about elier, i was the -- it was the experience that judge sotomayor brings to the bench as a prosecutor. for me it means she meets one of my criteria for a nominee, because i'm looking for someone who deeply appreciates the power and the impact that laws and the criminal justice system have on real people's lives. from her first day in the manhattan d.a.'s office, judge sotomayor talked about and understood how it was important to be the law, it's about people and not just the law. but when you talk about people, it means that you have to look at their cases and it means you have to look at the law and it means you have to look at the facts. and one of the things that we learned in the hearings was that sometimes judge sotomayor had to make very difficult decisions. when she was a prosecutor she had to turn down some cases,

although she was by all accounts more aggressive than a lot of other prosecutors and took on some cases that many wouldn't. when she was a judge she sometimes had to turn down cases and turn away victims, like the case involving the crash of the t.w.a. flight. and she actually disagreed with a number of other judges in there and said as much as she found the victims' families in that case to be incredibly sympathetic that the law took her somewhere else. that the facts and the law meant something else. you can see that in a number of her cases where -- which is part of the reason people don't think of her -- who look at her record as a judicial activist, they look at her as a judicial moderate. someone in her own words who has fidelity to the law. now, what are we looking for in a supreme court justice? well, i think actually one of sonia sotomayor's old bosses, robert morgenthau said it best. he came and testified on her behalf. he said this quote many years ago about what he was looking

for when he tried to find prosecutors for his office. and he said we want people with good judgment. because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. he said i also want to see somes signs of humility in anybody that i hire. we're giving young lawyers a lot of power and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance. these are among the very same qualities that i look for in a supreme court justice. i too am looking for a person with good judgment. someone with intellectual curiosity and independence, but who also understands that her decisions affect the people before her. with that, i think comes a second essential quality, quality of humility. i'm looking for a justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility that she will be given if confirmed, a justice who understands the gravity of the office and who respects the very different roles that the constitution provides for each of the three branches of government, something that judge

sotomayor was questioned on extensively in the hearing an made very clear that she respects those three different roles for the three different branches of government. finely, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. a supreme court justice must interpret the laws without fear or favor. i'm convinced that judge sotomayor meets all of these criteria. she has been a judge for 17 years. 11 years as an appellate judge and six years as a trial judge. president george h.w. bush, gave her the first job she had as a federal judge in the southern district of new york. her nomination to the southern district was enthusiastically supported by both new york senators, democratic senator daniel patrick moynihan and republican senator d'amato. she was nominated by george h.w. bush, supported by a republican senator and confirmed unanimously by this senate.

judge sotomayor, a i noted before, has more federal judicial experience than any nominee in the past 100 years. and i think the best way to tell what kind of justice she'll be is to look at what kind of judge she's been. one person who knows a little bit about something about sonia sotomayor is a judge -- as a judge is louie freeh, the former director of the f.b.i., who served as a judge with her before he was the director of the f.b.i. and he he actually came, a republican appointee again, he came and testified for her at her hearing. and he didn't just testify based on a review of her record. he testified based on is his own -- on his own personal experience. he was a mentor when she arrived as a new judge. i want to read from the letter that he submitted to the judiciary committee. louis freeh writes -- it is with tremendous pride of a former colleague that i recommend wholeheartedly that you confirm sonia sotomayor to be an associate justice of the supreme

court. judge sotomayor has the extensive experience and the judicial qualities that make her imminently qualified for this ultimate honor and i look forward to watching her take place her -- her place on the nation's highest court. freeh goes on to say, i first met judge sotomayor in 1992 when she was appointed to the united states district court for the southern districts of new york. as the then newest judge in the storied courthouse at foley square in lower manhattan, she followed the tradition of having the newly minted judge mentored by the last arriving member of the bench. despite the questionable wisdom of this practice, he went on, i had the privilege of serving as judge sotomayor's point of contact for orientation and to help her get under way as she took on a full, complex civil and criminal case docket. into this very pressurized and

unforgiving environment were a new judge's every word, decision, writing and questioning were scrutinized and critiqued by one of the harshest professionals imaginable, judge sotomayor distinguished herself as a highly competent judge who is open-minded, well-prepared, properly demanding of the lawyers who came before her, fair, honest, diligent in following the law. and with that rare and valuable combination of legal intellect and street smarts. louis freeh, republican appointed judge, goes on to say, "to me, there is no better measure by which to evaluate a judge than the standards of the former chief judge of the united states district court of minnesota." mr. president, i like this part. "and nationally renowned american jurist, edward j.

debit. judge debate was appointed to the federal bench by president eisenhower and became one of the country's leading trial judges and teachers of judges. a standard jury instruction book, debit and blackmun as well as the professional's most coveted award recognized outstanding judges. the debit award bears his name." freeh goes on to say, "i recently had the honor of participating in the dedication of a courtroom named for judge debit. the lawyers who spoke in tribute to judge debit very ably described the critical character eufgz which -- characteristics which define great judges. rather than discuss his decisions, particular rulings or sound bite analysis which could have been parsed from fact-specific cases which crossed his docket, they focused on those ultimately more profound judicial qualities." and he goes on to talk about those qualities of a good judge.

judging takes more than mere intelligence, always take to the bench prepared, call them as you see them. he then goes on to say, "judge sotomayor would have gotten an a-plus from the judge from central casting -- judge debit, former judge from the state of minnesota." i think that says it all. you have louis freeh here testifying in behalf of judge sotomayor. as i read earlier, you have dozens of her former colleagues, republicans, democrats, independents, writing about what kind of a prosecutor she was. every step of the way she impressed people. and i see we're now being joined by the senator from new york, my distinguished colleague who will also be speaking in favor of judge sotomayor. she actually -- senator gillibrand had the distinguished honor to introduce judge sotomayor when she so eloquently

spoke at the hearing. and it's very, very -- i'm very honored to have her join us here today. so with that, mr. president, i will turn this over to senator gillibrand. and i do ask for the record, since i am giving my remarks about judge sotomayor in five or six different pieces as my colleagues come, that my remarks be combined as one set speech. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: thank you, and i turn it over to senator gillibrand. mrs. gillibrand: i'm very grateful to the senior senator from minnesota. thank you for your kind words. thank you for your extraordinary advocacy on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor. your words and real belief in her contributions is extremely important. so thank you. i stand today to speak on behalf of judge sonia sotomayor and lend my strong support to her nomination to the united states

supreme court. judge sotomayor will bring the wisdom of all her experiences to bear as she applies the rule of law and willrace and she will grace the supreme court with the intelligence and the judgment and clarity of thought and determination of purpose that we have come to expect from of great justices on the supreme court. personal story. there has been great import afforded the characterization of the wise latina. clearly the life lessons and experiences of justices inform their decisions, as has been noted during the confirmation processes time and time again. justice antonin scalia discussed his being a racial minority in his understanding of discrimination. justice clarence thomas indicated that his exposure to all facets of society gave him the -- quote -- "ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum

of this country." end of quote. justice samuel alito described his parents growing up in poverty as a learning experience, and his family's immigration to the united states as influencing his views on immigration and discrimination. as americans, we honor the diversity of our society. as our esteemed jurists have noted, the construct of the court is shaped by the diverse experiences and viewpoints of each of its justices. however, sonia sotomayor's ethnicity or gender alone does not indicate what sort of supreme court justice she will be. rather, it is judge sotomayor's experience and record that more fully informs us. the breadth and depth of her experience makes her uniquely qualified for the supreme court, her keen understanding of case law and importance of precedent

is derived from working in nearly every aspect of our legal system as a prosecutor, corporate litigator, civil rights advocate, trial judge and appellate judge. with confirmation, judge sotomayor will bring to the supreme court more federal judicial experience than any justice in 100 years and more overall judicial experience than any justice in 70 years. as a prosecutor, judge sotomayor fought the worst of society's ills. from murder to child pornography to drug trafficking. judge sotomayor's years as a corporate litigator exposed her to all facets of commercial law, including real estate, employment, banking, contracts and abling is i law. her pro bono work for the puerto rican legal defense fund demonstrates her commitment to our constitutional rights and the core value that equality is an inalienable american right. on the u.s. district court for

the southern district of new york, judge sotomayor presided over roughly 450 cases, earning a reputation as a tough, fair, and thoughtful jurist. as an appellate judge, judge sotomayor participated in over 3,000 panel decisions and authored roughly 400 published opinions. as evidence of her integrity of her decisions and adherence to precedent, only seven cases were brought up for review by the supreme court, reversing only three of her authored opinions, two of which were closely divided. in an analysis of her record done by the brennan center for justice, the numbers overwhelmingly indicate that judge sotomayor is solidly in the mainstream of the second circuit. judge sotomayor has been in agreement with her colleagues more than 94% of the constitutional decisions have been unanimous. she has voted with the majority over 98% of constitutional

cases. when judge sotomayor was voted to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional, her decisions have been unanimous over 90% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with her decision to hold a challenged governmental action unconstitutional nearly 90% of the cases. when she has voted to overrule lower court agency, her decisions -- or lower court or agency, her decisions have been unanimous over 93% of the time. republican appointees have agreed with judge sotomayor's decisions to overrule a lower court decision in over 94% of the cases. judge sotomayor's record is a testament to her strict adherence to precedent, her unyielding belief in the rule of law, and our constitution. i strongly support the nomination of judge sotomayor, and i firmly believe that she will prove to be one of the finest jurists in american history. i urge my fellow senators to

join me in voting for her confirmation. thank you, mr. president. ms.-- ms. klobuchar: mr. president? i want to thank the senator from new york for her fine remarks. as she was talking, i realized she is a pioneer of sorts being the first woman senator from new york who took over as senator with two very small children. i have seen them, and they are small and babies. and she's been able to manage and do a fine job in her role as senator while being a pioneer as a mother at the same time in the state of new york. and with that, it is a good segway to introduce my colleague from the state of washington, patty murray, one of the first women to serve in the united states senate. and she -- i love her story because when patty started running for office, she was working on some school issues, and she went to the legislature. one of the elected hrerts actually said to her, how do you

think you're ever going to get this done? you're nothing but a mom in tennis shoes. she went on to wear those tennis shoes and wear them right to the floor of the united states senate. with that, i'm proud to introduce to speak on behalf of judge sotomayor, my colleague from the state of washington, patty murray. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. and i thank the senior senator from minnesota for all of her work in helping to move this critical and important nomination through the united states senate. and i am here to join her in support of the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to the united states supreme court. you know, the united states supreme court is the final arbiter of many of our nation's most important disputes. and as the constitution provides for a lifetime appointment to this court, supreme court justice has a tremendous opportunity to have a profound effect on the future of the law in america. that is why the constitution directs that the senate is responsible for providing advice and consent on judicial

nominees. so i take my responsibilities in this nomination and confirmation process very seriously. but, mr. president, i take a special personal interest in supreme court nominations, was actually watching the supreme court confirmation hearing many years ago that inspired me to challenge the statu quo and run for the united states senate. i was deeply frustrated by the confirmation hearings of then-nominee clarence thomas. and i believe that average americans, people all over this country did have a voice in the process. there were important questions, questions that needed to be answered that were never even raised to the nominee. so, i have worked for years to be a voice for those average americans when it comes to judicial appointments and make sure those questions are asked. now, i've had the opportunity to meet in person with judge sotomayor and ask her the questions that will affect all

americans, including working families in my home state of washington. i've examined her personal and professional history, and i've studied her 17-year record on the federal bench. i followed her progress through the senate judiciary committee and watched her answer a number of difficult questions. and with all of this information and her answers in mind, i am very pleased and proud to support her nomination. by now, many americans have heard the remarkable story of judge sonia sotomayor. she's truly an embodiment of the american dream. although many americans today have now heard of her story, some points, i think, bear repeating. judge sotomayor is the daughter of puerto rican parents. her father died when she was just nine years old, and she and her brother were raised by her mother in a public housing project in the bronx. sotomayor's mother, who was a nurse, worked extra hours so that she could pay for her

schooling and buy a set of encyclopedias for her children. after she gad waited from high school, judge sotomayor attended college at princeton and law school at yale. she spent five years prosecuting criminal cases in new york, seven years in private law practice, and 17 years as a federal judge on the united states district court and court of appeals. judge sotomayor's story is an inspiring reminder of what is achievable with hard work and the support of your family and your community. of course, a compelling personal story of triumph in tough circumstances is not itself enough. mr. president, i have long used several criteria to evaluate nominees for judicial appointments. are they ethical and honest? are they qualified? are they going to be fair and independent and even handed in administering justice? and will they protect the rights

and liberties of all americans? i am confident that judge sotomayor meets those criteria. she has 17 years of federal judicial experience and unanimously received the highest rating of the american bar association which called her well-qualified based on a comprehensive evaluation of her record and her integrity. and she has directly answered questions about her personal beliefs and prior statements. she's been clear with me, with the judiciary committee, and the american people that her own biases and personal opinions never play a role in deciding cases. more importantly, her 17 years on the bench stand as a testament to that fact. judge sotomayor has demonstrated her independence of she was nominated to the federal district court by president george h.w. bush and appointed to the united states court of appeals by president clinton. judge sotomayor has received

rave reviews from her fellow judges on the second circuit, both republicans and democrats, as well as strong support from a diverse cross section of people and organizations from across the political spectrum. finally, mr. president, it's clear to me that judge sotomayor is committed to protecting the rights and liberties of all americans. she understands the struggles of working families. she understands the importance of civil rights. and her record shows a strong respect for the rule of law and that she evaluates each case based on its particular facts. having followed the criteria by which i measure all judicial nominees, i am confident that judge sotomayor wil be a smart, fair, impartial, and qualified member of the united states supreme court. i believe that any individual or group from my home state could stand before her and receive fair treatment. and that she will -- will well

serve the interest of justice and the public as our next supreme court justice. so, mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor to enjoin with many of my women colleagues in the senate and let the people of washington state know that after reviewing her qualifications and her record and reviewing her testimony, i am very proud to stand and support this nomination. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i first want to thank the senator from washington for her excellent remarks on behalf of judge sotomayor. during this hour, we've heard from several of my colleagues, all strongly supporting judge sotomayor. and i have talked, first of all, about her growing up and her difficult circumstances. i spoke about her work as a prosecutor and the support she's received from her prosecutorial colleagues. talked about her work as a judge and read extensively from a letter from louis freeh, former

director of the f.b.i. and former judge. and now on the final part of my talk here, i wanted to address some of the other issues that have been raised with respect to judge sotomayor. i have to say, mr. president, i woke up this morning to the radio on my clock radio and heard one of my colleagues who decided that he was not going to support her in his words because of the empathy standard. and i kind of put the pillow over my head and i thought, you know, he must not have been sitting in the hearings. because she was specifically asked by one of the other senators about how she views the cases. and he specifically asked her if she agreed with president obama if you should use your heart as well as the law. she said, actually, i don't agree with that. i look at the law and i look at the facts. so people can say all kinds of things about her, if they'd like, but i suggest they look at her record. my colleagues in the senate are entitled to oppose her

nomination, if they wish. that's their prerogative. but i'm concerned that some people keep returning again and again to some quotes in speeches, a quote that she actually said, a phrase that she didn't mean to offend anyone, and she should have put it differently. when you have 17 years of a record as a judge, what's more important? 17 years as a record of a judge or one phrase that she basically said was not the words she meant to use. what's more important? in the words of senator moynihan, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. so let's look at the facts of her judicial record. this nominee was repeatedly questioned -- and i sat there through nearly all of it. she was questioned for hours. she was questioned for days about whether she would let bias or prejudice infect her judging. but, again, the facts don't support these claims. in race