us to continue permanently. pass id deserves some credit. it has worked hard to make sure the documents are not easily forged. i think we should acknowledge the value of that. given the choice between having a license that is hard to forge and a birth certificate and other source documents that are hard to forge, we should be choosing to make the birds to the goods more charitable than driver's licenses. if your stop by the police, they are going to check a database to see if that license was really issued to you in that name with your identity. even if a car's license will not get you pass a traffic stop. if you bring in a birth certificate there is no check at all. what we should have and be working towards is having the exactly -- exactly the same

implementations. it ought to be possible to say to the issuing authority, did you receive this bird certificate? that is one of the requirements of that real id is lost that ought to be fixed. briefly the other three items in my written testimony, the nine months to get a read out, i do not believe that is possible. -- the nine months to get a reg out. even if they do their job instantaneously, which it cannot. i appreciate the confidence the secretary has, but i do not believe she can do it. at a minimum, this committee should try to make sure there is some sort of insurance that is the deadline is missed the provisions of pass id are equivalent real id that are equivalent to pass id should remain. i agree entirely with senator

collins on creating a litigation magnate by creating a statutory right to fly without identification. making the expenditure of state homeland security fund this something that is a priority is particularly, for drivers licenses, is something that is valuable. the state homeland security funds come from taxpayers and should be used for things that benefit all taxpayers and make them more secure. drivers license security does that and should be a priority for the use of state grants. i urge the you enact that party for the use of the funds. thank you. >> that was a compelling story about that. when you are saying is we ought to be investing money in setting

of this national database system, in other words this "eve" system. these days are obviously not willing to contribute. >> i agree that we should be spending our time and money on that. i do not think it is a central data base. each state will have is some -- will have it's own. and not to be possible to acquire -- inquire. to standing up connectivity will be a few million dollars. it will probably be a couple million dollars per state to clean up the database is roughly. our guess is this could be done for a total of $75 million spread over two or three years. >> you are practical and helpful. i am concerned about that

omission in the regulation pass id . the sheriff of los angeles county is testifying and on behalf of the vote national sheriffs' association. he leads the largest sheriff's department in the nation. he has over 18,000 officers and staff. i think you were going through the trouble of coming across the testimony and we welcome -- across the country and we welcome your testimony. >> thank you. mr. chairman, ranking members, and senators, i am pleased to appear before you today to express the associations that were identified by mr. lieberman that i represent in support of 2-1261. -- s-1261.

as those who have testified before me talk about the problems, my testimony will focus on the critical need for a national standard for identification security. it from a local law enforcement perspective, it will help us effectively integrate what we're doing here to ensure that homeland security is in fact secure. hopefully my testimony will strengthen the core message of secretary the peloton and gov. douglas. -- secretary of napolitano. issuing a national standard for security has been a contentious one. however, we believe that pass id adequately addresses the cost, policy, and privacy concerns so as to protect the citizens we serve. nothing will ever be perfect, however. from a law enforcement perspective it gives us that much more confidence that

identification we're looking at is authentic. that really is the core reality of the 9/11 commission request. if someone is saying that this is who they are and they provide an identification card or driver's license, that in fact that is who they are. it provides one more tool to ensure public safety and is designed to make it much more difficult for terrorists, criminals, and illegal aliens to tabor with official identification. i would like to close with two or three more points here. as you have stated well, the 9/11 commission was concerned that varying state standards created gaps that were exploited by the terrorists and in obtaining state identification documents. as such, the 9/11 commission

recommended national standards not national identification cards. pass id provides a cost- effective, common-sense solution that balances griddle security requirements with input and practical needs of individual states. my second point is that pass id provides flexibility to the states for implementing the security requirements. it also provides flexibility for validating source identification documents and eliminates fees associated with the use of federal data bases. the next point is that pass id require the states to develop procedures to prevent the unauthorized access or sharing of personally identifiable information. it mandates public notice of privacy policies and the establishment of a redress process for individuals who believe their personal

information should be amended. it restricts the use of personal information contained in the driver's license or an identification card code. two purposes in support of these laws and prohibits states from including social security numbers in the bar code. finally, pass id removed the blanket requirement to electronically verify applicant documents and protect against the creation of a national identity data base containing of driver's license and identification information. i think that really is the key point. only citizens and non-u.s. citizens who are lawfully present should be eligible to receive the pass id. what we're talking about here is, in conclusion, millions of

contacts per day are made in the united states official who are here illegally. an identification system, such as a driver's license or identification card, will come into the hands of millions of times a day for a variety of reasons. the authenticity of these documents is what pass id and sure. thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. that is a helpful testimony. next, the director of the federal relations at the national governors' association. we think you for working closely with our staff and the staff at the department of homeland security to put together pass id we welcome your testimony. >> thank you, chairman of a leader in -- chairman of lieberman. happy birthday to you, sir.

my soon to be boss, governor douglas, has already spoken. i will be brief. i will reiterate some of the instructions that were given to nga by governors. douglas talked about governors coming together and talking about the issue. it is remarkable when governors come together because they are able to talk just as governors. how you have to make the state run? what is unique about that position and making everything work? it was a real id source of great frustration and remains one. we now have 13 states who have said they will not participate. governors were concerned about making investments into their drivers' licenses to increase security and integrity but also making investments that made sense. what were the rules going to be? what is the future look like? real id, unfortunately, with baggage never created that

certainty. pass id is designed to try to create that and allow us to move forward. when the governors that together, they said they wanted to find a fix and were guided by four things. the 9/11 recommendations was the commonality for everyone involved. it facilitates and encourages all jurisdictions. allow the 13 states to have said no a way to come back in and for dissipate. security standards only work if people are willing and able to use them. when you have 25% of not participating, it is hard to put verifications' together when the entire northwest is not participating. houri going to be able to verify? -- how are you going to be able to verify?

this retains a state flexibility to innovate. i think you said real id was too prescriptive. states want to do more. they are happy to have federal government's set standards and they want to innovate beyond it. the experience states have had with the enhanced drivers license show the commitments of states and governors-let's take security standards and moving beyond that because they share your interest in security and integrity. lastly, to address policy concerns and reduce unnecessary costs. that we focus on privacy. -- let me focus on privacy. privacy was a key driver in a lot of the states that ultimately have said no. privacy was a concern that there were data base is being set up that actually threatened personal identity and encouraged

by the theft by providing databases that could be hacked. that was a concern that was followed by one of implementation, questions about whether this could actually be done, and then certainly cost. this was an unfunded mandate. it was washington d.c. setting the rules and "sending the bills to the states." we have 13 states and 11 others pass resolutions saying it was a bad idea and they were not going to comply. what pass id does is to stop kicking the can down the road. let's solve the problem and create certainty. let's do what we can now. verification has increased under pass id because all states will conduct verification. it should be noted that 49 statesdo [unintelligible]

that did not exist pre-9/11. the three systems that the governor talked about that are questionable that would not be required right away, the drivers database, the better records, and passport database will be difficult to implement. pass id is not say get rid of them but it says pilot them. this make the investment to see if we can make these things work. if we can make them work and get them funded and are cost- effective, governors and dmv's will use them. as one governor said to me, david, can you tell me today how many of those systems are voids the governor, how they're paid for, who owns them, and how you are protecting my citizens identities? the answer to all those questions was "no." said, in that case how can i sign up to put my vote on ? until my questions are answered,

i will not move forward. pass id impose a solution to a problem. . pass id poses a situation. to a degree, no one is satisfied. in washington that probably means we found the right solution. >> the final witness is the vice president and chief operating officer of the center for democracy and technology. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for inviting me and allowing me to testify. i would like to thank you for your leadership are in pass id and moving this forward. our colleagues at the national governors' association, thank you for trying to bring this back to a non-partisan place where we can have this discussion. i was on the intelligence

reform committee that worked on negotiations. i think senator collins has very eloquently laid out what that committee's charge was in trying to come up with flexible rules that protect privacy while still meeting the 9/11 commission's goals of the flexibility in getting information on the card standardized. that is what the 9/11 commission's focus was. we had an ability to improve the system, to be able to use it and rely on it for purposes of national security, and then all said that we have privacy and flexibility built in. if you read the 9/11 commission report, it is clear that civil liberty issues are a great concern. unfortunately. real id .

-- unfortunately, real id pushed the conversation to the edges. privacy has been removed from the discussion. intelligent reformer, specifically said standards we needed to have in place were taken out in real id and dhs noted it in their proposed rulemaking under real id that they could not put in the same standards they would have been able to under the intelligence reform bill. that seemed to be congress's intent. we have taken a step back. on the other side, you have groups and other public policy officials that would prefer to do nothing and feel the problems that could come from tinkering with the current situation might be worse. we do not think any of those possibilities are the right solution. the truth is probably in the

middle and we need to be moving in that direction to get any answer. pass id addresses the issues are retaining the current federated system but protecting information while keeping the minimum standards. . , pass id require privacy and security safeguards including fraud and physical security. we see time and time again that the greatest weakness of the system actually is internal fraud and physical security within the dmv's from california to washington d.c., in the last two years with in the cases of workers of the dmv's selling licenses for $1,000-$2,000 to individuals that would not be able to get them. magazine several cases where they have sold the entire d of the database to identity

thieves -- have sold the entire dmv database to identity thieves. we need to make sure these are being addressed by the states. dimon to ensure these are not weakened moving forward. remove to consider other changes in this direction, and the particularly, limit the machinable zone to what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement and administrative purposes. congress should reject the use of this entity technologies that could be easily clone. they should minimize storage of copies of source documents to prevent fraud and theft of source documents. we look forward to working with the committee as you move forward and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you as always.

i am going to ask one question that unfortunately i have to leave to get to a meeting. i think the witness is very much. mr. schwartz, i want to ask you as you heard in the first panel, you referred it to the importance of the state's validating source documents, the kind of documents typically used when you come in and apply for a driver's license. his secretary and gov. douglas gave two reasons why they were either opposed or skeptical. one was the privacy concerns and the other was the cost. mr. baker spoke at some length with the anecdotes.

i wanted to ask you whether your privacy concerns about that kind of system, the mandating that states cooperate and provided to one another about source documentation and in particular were certificates, do you have great concerns about that and whether they could be taken care of? how do you feel about that? >> we support the idea of the pilot and moving forward with the pilot. the main reason for the concerns is that the quality of the intimation in these databases is very, very poor quality. i noticed, my wife's and date of birth was wrong on my son's birth certificate. when i went to change it, they attended it at the bottom of the form but did not change the

field itself. -- they appended it at the bottom. every state has different ways. if we are all going to connect the information together, which i agree that just connecting affirmation is fine, but the cost of correcting the information, getting it linked so it is standardized will be incredibly expensive. then putting security protections on top of that will be questionable as well. we know there is problem with the quality of data and then you let people going in to correct. duper tended to be these people. we know there have been problems in the past when people have said they want to correct their records and they pretend to be someone else. how do we deal with that situation? we may be able to do it, but i do not think it can be done in six months. >> mr. baker, would you give me a response to mr. schwartz's comments just now?

>> he is correct that there will be problems with respect to errors in the database. for 90%-90% -- 90%-95% which means they will rely on fraud. we ought to solve the big problem first. the secondary problem could be addressed by simply picking up the phone when you have a problem and saying to the state, can you tell us whether this bursar to begin is good or not? -- can you tell us whether this birth certificate is a good or not? that allows us to take care of notations on the certificate. it does mean that you again have to find a way to make the adjustments to the database. we should be so lucky to have that problem. >> senator collins?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. sheriff, we talked a lot today about the issue of terrorists using drivers licenses. more secure drivers' licenses also have applications for prohibiting or making it more difficult for counterfeiting to take place. could you talk more about the benefits of more secure authentic driver's licenses to you as someone who is involved in law enforcement? >> thank you, senator. the key point of authenticity and identification cool -- tools, identity that is tremendously -- a tremendously

large problem. right now, a lot of people are vulnerable with the databases that are out there and the internet world they are tapped into by people who have the skills to access that information. the key is there has to be some point where there is a reliable identification source which would be in a driver's license under a pass id system. the volume of what people are fearful of in america is that their identification card will be stolen from them as was given in the example by mr. baker. we in local law enforcement along with our federal partners are very wrapped up in a huge amounts of identity that with not enough resources to chase down all of the offenders involved.

this is an international problem as well as a national one. part of the reason i think in the discussions with major city chiefs as well as the national per share as committee members on this issue is to see the value of this not purely from a prevention tool for terrorism but for prevention of all forms of crime where people's identification cards are so easily required even if they lose their driver's license. my driver's license and one of my credit cards was taken. within one hour they were trying to purchase some products from a department store. fortunately, the clerk was alerted and said for them to show and then the jurors i sense that he would not produce it because it did not look like him.

you get the drift that this is a far more reaching solution to an ongoing problem before 9/11 and that accentuate the need now. >> i think that is a very important point. it is the point that mr. baker made, as well, that we should not overlook in this debate. mr. schwartz, i appreciate the very constructive approach that you have taken to these negotiations. there is a perversion of the bill that i would like to get your thoughts on. it is the provision that criminalizes he act of scanning information contained on the driver's license machine readable zone. it says that it would be a crime to use that information to track the use of the card to store information that is collected to

resale -- resell to a third party in. i understand what this provision is trying to get at and i support the desire to curb the unauthorized use of this private information. some business organizations, however, including the national retail association have expressed a concern that this language is over broad. the point to an earlier version of the bill that would have allowed the use of the language to prevent the illegal activity or fraud. they have given us an example of a business that uses that information to identify someone who is it repeated the returning merchandise at different locations in order to

commit a fraud. what is the concern about adding an exception if the information is used to prevent fraud, misrepresentation, or other illegal activities as indicated? that was in one of the earlier versions. >> welcome a first of all, thank you senator collins. this is an important provision for privacy advocates and allows citizens to feel that when they get their license to someone they want someone -- what to understand what is happening to it. the issue with fraud prevention is to look at how broad view fraud exceptions will be. we have seen exceptions used for many purposes down the road. there are concerns over that issue. it is my understanding that the department of justice had concerns over the fraud provision as well as groups like

ours that tells you about the concerns about how this might be used down the road. we have seen cases where they say they are swiping information to get the age of individuals but then use the same information to give to the tobacco companies to market information about students at local colleges. . . type in basic information about the individual, and when they come back and swiped the card, they can populated at that

point. we're not talking about a major -- and swiping the card is ok to make sure that it is real. the question is about using it to populate information that can be used for many multiple purposes. >> thank you. senator, i am not sure which one of us is chair right now. perhaps i should be saying thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, very much, madam chairman. mr. baker, as you may have heard in the first panel, asked the governor douglas about the sustained use of grant funds. you expressed concern in your testimony about the prioritization of identification security. you recommend that the pass id include language ensuring that grant students with approved driver's licenses are a higher

priority than other state projects. would you recommend the federal government requires states comply with the secure identification standards before they can use funds for priorities such as first responders or disaster preparedness? >> let me start by saying that we all recognize that one of the biggest concerns has been a sense that they're being asked to spend money on things they don't have. it is clearly not free with improved securities -- at the same time, the federal government has improved homeland security. it is both a federal responsibility to personal

security and a state responsibility to use taxpayer money, to use it first for things that would benefit those all over the country. that issue in the virgin islands is good in florida. we need to have a national system and encourage people to spend the homeland security funds on things that will help improve the security of all americans. i don't think it is necessary to say you can't spend money on anything until you have fixed everything about driver's license security. i do think that it should be one of the top three priorities. states should have to spend some of their money to improve drivers' license security until they are at the point where they say, we're there. >> thank you. i have a question relating to some of the electronic

databases that are required by real id. they are slowly being implemented by a handful of states. i am interested in the electronic verification of vital events records, or evve. some states are using the systems to electronically verify birth certificate information. only a few states scan birth records and are included in the system. can you speak to the current status of this -- the state use of evve, and whether it is feasible for dmv's to use it on a widespread basis?

>> thank you for the question, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. and for the help of your staff that has been tremendous in trying to pull together so many interest groups to find a solution. i know that nafsa is the organization that submitted a statement that runs the organization. about 15 states participate. only three currently use that system. there are 56 jurisdictions. only three currently use it. according to their testimony, they believe that about 85% of birth records date back. i like to see verification of that number. there is no reason not to believe that. they have had great difficulty in some states transferring old

records into electronic form to make them consistent, accurate, and usable. [inaudible] at the end of the day. they moved their license -- that state had to set up a war room for the birth certificate issue. for all of those people coming in, those that are in the united states legally had no problems. the person that had a problem showing that they were a citizen of the united states happens to be the grandmother whose birth record was in the family bible that was in the house that burned down. that person had a problem showing a record showing that they were in united states. it has been a worse time with those citizens that other people that can show these records.

transferring birth certificates into an electronic form is not an easy task. it has to be done slowly, it has to be done in a meaningful way. it is not about, should we do it? if it is there, that is great. we want to know about the government's, the privacy protections, and the accuracy. they estimate that they will have 95% accuracy. the way that translates into a light at the dmv, one in 10 people will get a false reading. that means delays. you can be in one of those citizens that has been in the same house, the same county, the same city all your life, but you will be rejected if this system does not work well and is not 100 percent reliable. the pilot project is aspiration. c of we can get it up and

running. see if we can ask those questions. if you build it right, the states will come along. we need to do that in a cooperative basis. >> thank you. mr. baker, you testified that all the participants -- certificates that are in paper form throughout the country probably could be digitized and made searchable through evve for $100 million, about $2 million per state. in addition, a total of $4 million to get evve activated in all states. what is the basis of that estimate?

>> that estimate is derived in part from the estimates that we received when i was in government, based on the experience of the states that had digitized their records, and from nafsas that administers the program and database. >> thank you, senator collins. >> there are some states that vigorously protest real id and have passed legislation forbidding compliance with it. there are other states that have invested a great deal of money and effort, and have taken steps towards compliance. vermont is one of those states. if pass id were to pass, and we have new implementing

regulations, is there concern that the investments made by states who are seeking to comply with the law would be for naught? are you -- or do you consider the pass a bill -- not with those investments still be good to it -- put to good use? >> i think it is the latter. it is built on the strength of real id. so many of those states are still part of capacity. you will see security increased across the board? --. those investments are not lost, they're actually used. it is interesting. even in some of those states that have been vocal opponents have said that in no -- said

that, you know, i want to invest in those licenses. they are fairly close to meeting those 18 benchmarks. cassidy gives them an opportunity. legislators, governors the protested, they need to reevaluate and see that this makes more sense. >> that is an excellent point. i noticed that as well. some of the states that have protested bar, in fact, close to compliance with the law. understandably, they did not like washington telling them how will consultation. they were, in some cases, resentful of the financial burden.

does every state currently have a requirement for legal presence? >> i look to some of the panelists. when reality first went into place, about 10 states did not have -- >> correct. >> there may be one left that is not have the requirement. >> do any of the other panelists know the answer to that question? >> i am under the impression that new mexico and perhaps hawaii. >> that is something that we will check with the department for the record. i know my state of maine was one of the last. the government's recently vetoed a bill that would repeal the requirement for showing of legal presence, and i salute the

governor for doing so. i think it is a fundamental reform. i am sympathetic to the situation they describe, because we have had situations because of our close association with canada where the great- grandmother came over from canada many years ago, decades ago. married in american. fog that made her a citizen. she does not have proof of being born just across the border. it can be a difficult issue. a requirement is extremely important. we should not be given driver's licenses to people but are here illegally. it does get more complex when one tries to broaden the law.

i have one last question to mr. baker, going back to the issue because i am truly troubled by creating that loophole, and how it works -- it would work in real-life applications. in addition to creating the possibility for endless litigation, my concern is that security officials are increasingly being trained in behavioral recognition techniques, that the israeli government has issues for airport security for decades, and very successfully. the individual may present himself at the airport without a compliant id, go through secondary screening, and there are no obvious red flags. he is not on the terrorist watch

list. he is not carrying anything that is picked up as contraband, and through the training the security guard has in behavioral recognition techniques, the guard may believe he proposes -- he poses a risk under the pass id legislation. with the prohibition against the individual access because he does not have a compliant id. are you concerned that the guard might not have grounds to deny the individual -- >> the capital is still standing because the 20 a hijacker was turned away in orlando by an

official that said he just gave me a creepy feeling. we really need to let people use their judgment, their discretion. it is critical that, as the israelis say, we look for terrorists, not just for weapons. i predict that once we write this in the law, the courts will be asked to enforce it. people will say, i was missed -- i missed my flight because i was cooling my hands at answering questions. i did not have id. by the same token, i think the courts will say, we have to make sure that this is not a pretext. that they are not just making up a creepy feeling to deny him because he did not have id. we will have to do a searchign inquiry.

you cannot underestimate the impact that it has on a relatively low paid employee to have a federal judge questioning his motives and saying that he did not do his job right. those will be a real damper on doing the kinds of searches that we want the tsa to do.' >> awad to make clear that i am not talking about irrational prejudices. i am not talking about profiling. i am talking about a train security guard using the specific technique that has been used in israel for many years that is being used today in some of our airports, i believe. boston i think is one of those airports that is using that technique. this is a trained guard's assessment. the burden of proof is shifting

from the individual presenting himself at the airport who has to prove that he is who he says he is to prove that he is not the person he says he is. that really concerns me. i hope that all the members of this panel will work further with us to help us sort this issue out. it is the reason that i did not join as a co-sponsor of this bill, because i felt so strongly that this undermines the security and purpose of having a secure identification. working with the sponsor of the bill, i want to thank you, senator, for your leadership.

if senator lieberman were here, the record is going to remain open for another 15 days. i am going to turn it over to you. and thank you for your leadership. i want to thank all of our witnesses today. >> i want to thank our rating -- ranking member that has provided great leadership in this area, looking at some of the issues that we have been facing. it has been so helpful in doing that. i ahve a few -- have a few questions ehre. -- here. mr. baker's testimony indicated

[unintelligible] the repeat of the real id would lead to significantly more cases of identity theft. over the years, as we have worked on oversight of real- ready -- real id, we think about privacy protections. we think about government issues. it would you address the contention that real id adequately protect privacy, and why you believe that additional protections included in pass id are needed? >> the issue in terms of whether real id improves privacy -- you can look at the record. the notes to proposed rule making.

you can look at the foot of that specifically says that they cannot add privacy controls into the law -- into the letter -- into the regulations because the law removed information. specifically, the intelligence reform act. i think the dhs took steps to say that we're going to protect security and we are going to build and privacy protections about personal information. they did not go as far as they would have, even according to dhs if they had privacy protections built in. we were moving in the direction of coming to the right balance there. real-life became and overturn that. -- overturned that fromt he com -- rom the -- from the

committee's work. i do think that that is true. there are some privacy groups that were skeptical of license reform. we still feel that the move towards license reform is important. even if we were going to repeal it, it would be replaced with another process. or to put in the privacy protections as we do in pass id. that is why we support those provisions. this idea that reality -- real id or the original negotiator is demonstrated the false -- devon -- demonstrably false. >> i would like to ask you about an especially important

issue that was magnified by the enactment of real id. this is the issue of how to protect and personally identify -- to protect personally identifiable information of driver's licenses and identification cards. cdt has been a longtime advocate for additional protection, which was put into a common readable format through real idea. -- real id. the ability to store electronic data from licenses could be detrimental to fraud and identity theft prevention. would you please address this issue? >> i have discussed this a little bit with senator collins earlier in response are question about fraud exemption.

to take it further, we should look at what is allowed under pass id. any retailer is allowed to slide it and do a comparison. they can do that. they can check and make sure the information in the database is there and do a check immediately of that. that is the same person. the only thing they can't do is store it in the database. is the aggregation of that data that represents the concern. know that we're getting the ability to put more and more information -- most states only have the information -- in the future, that is not going to be the case. the real concern is that making sure that we have this opportunity to discuss standards for security, we are also

looking into the future and saying that as we get more and more information, we're going to make sure that that information is secure. that information to cardholders is of more concern, because we're going to see what is on the front of the card, not what is in the machine readable zone. they can only use the front of the card to type that information. you know they are only using that information. it is a protection to say that if the person swipes the card, they can only read the same information that is on the front of the card. that is what we should be focused on. that is what poses the security threat of turning over more information to many many individuals. i had a conversation with the federal cio, and when he was in washington, he put up a number of thought prevention measures

to ensure that dmv workers cut only do a check against the database. that was the security in the privacy protections put in place to limit the amount of information that the worker could find out. those same types of rules to go into effect for those that want to use driver's licenses. >> mr. baker, your testimony asserts that pass id will return us to pre and 9/11 standards for the issuance of identification documents. the act actually contains many of the same security requirements as real id. including requirements of federal identity documentation showing the person's date of birth, proof of the person goes

to social security number, documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence. and prove that the individual is in the country lawfully. under passivity, social security numbers would be checked electronic -- underpass id, social security numbers would be checked electronic flea -- electronically. rather than verified with the issuing agency. none of these federal standards were in place before 9/11. my question to you is, what is the basis for your claim that pass id would move states back to pre 9/11 standards?

>> i don't mean to suggest that the items that pass at the requires are not useful. i think there are very useful. by and large, they are the 18 elements that we thought should be done as part of material compliance. one of the big problems here is, under real id in the 18 items, they are due to be completed at the end of this year. you might expect to have to give some additional time because of the crisis that states find themselves in. states knew that that was the deadline. there were no states that told us they could not do it. even the ones that said they rejected real id, they expected to be able to do those -- what pass that he does -- that is a terrible delay.

we should not accept what i think would be much more than five years. we're getting nothing that they didn't have. he talked about electronic checks. i think those are useful. the think the two administrations have now embraced it, they should follow e verify. if they don't match, you don't do your license. -- you don't get your license.

if they produce a passport, they check to see that the photos match. there is no need to say that i'm not sure that it will work. the states should go through that same process. it is not the same that employers are doing today. in those respects, we have stepped substantially back from both real id. i did not mean to say that there is nothing here. we did not deal with source documents, and address the problem that the 9/11 commissione was worried about, getting fake documents. >> thank you very much for your response.

i would like ask whether he has any comments. >> mr. baker grossly underestimates the states. to say that all this would be done until 2016 makes sense. states are going to need every single minute to bring millions of drivers back in to get this. they are not waiting until the end. they want a system in place so they can make investments and start the process. they want to do it as soon as they possibly can. the verification systems are not used today -- this will require all of them to use those. the fact of the matter is, capacity took the best parts -- pass id took the best parts of real id and brought them over.

governments were interested in finding the solution and not starting at zero. start where we are, take what works, and get the job done. i believe that states will aspire to do better than past ready. it will start a 4 that states will go beyond. -- a floor that states will go beyond. they will participate in the pilot program and find solutions. they want to have systems and protect privacy that can add the verification that are robust, reliable, and push buttons so that you can get citizens through quickly. -- through the line quickly. we all share the common goal. to say that we don't is misleading. states and the governors are on a page where passe de offers solutions -- pass id offers

solutions. it meets the 9/11 recommendations where real id fails. >> are there any other comments? if not, thank you for your support. i want to thank you for working with our staff. i want to thank you again for moving without question. we will move as quickly as we can and try to do that. it will be open for 15 days. until july 30.

submissions of statements and questions for the record -- again, thank you very much. the hearing is now adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> this week, a rare glimpse into america's highest court threw unprecedented, on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. >> the most symbolically meaningful moment for me during my public investiture. it was sitting in justice marshall's chair and taking the oath with my hand on the bible. it was like history coursing through me. >> our interviews include -- conclude tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span with an associate justice sotomayor an retired justice sandra day o'connor.

for copy of the documentary, is on dvd, part of the "american icons" collection. one of many items available at c-span.org/store. >> "the economist" magazine held a conference looking at issues in 2010. washington d.c.'s chancellor talks about her plans for changing washington's school system. this is about 25 minutes. >> good morning. i don't love to spend time outside of the school district talking to large groups of people. this one, i was particularly interested in because it was "the economist."

economists have an incredibly interesting insight into public education that we need to tap into. right now, in particular, in this time of financial crisis, all the talk about stimulus packages and bailouts, what is missing in the conversation is the need to focus on schools. until we fix the problems in public education, the last results were an indication of this. we were twenty third amongst oecd nations in terms of mathematics, well below the average. in science, we were 17.

again, below the average. if you look at statistics and what it has looked like, you can only determine from that -- that we are providing to the young people. i can tell you definitively, one thing that is not the answer. let's throw more money at the problem. we spend more money per child than almost any jurisdiction in the country. when i took control of the school district in 2007 because i got merrill country -- i

inherited a district where we had a 70 percentage point achievement gap between white students and black students. 70 percentage points. of all of the ninth graders that began high-school with us, only 9% of them would end up graduating from college. we had a circumstance where we were the only school district in the country -- according to the national assessment of education progress, only 8% of them were on grade level with mathematics. 92% did not have the skills and knowledge necessary to be productive in society. the most disheartening data that we recently looked at in the system is about our legal ones.

basically, what that shows, our children come into the system. we already know that by the time we get them in kindergarten, their counterparts -- they are on par with kids that are in philadelphia, memphis, places like that around the country. the longer they stay in our district, the worse off they are. by third grade, there below their urban counterparts. the poor black fourth graders in new york city are operating to full grade levels ahead of the poor black fourth graders in washington d.c.. for everyone that wants to blame the low achievement levels of the children in d.c. on poverty, home environment, the lack of health care, all those things, the last time i checked, the

poverty does not look all that different. those children are offering -- operating to grade level ahead of us -- two grade levels ahead of us. if money is not the answer, what is. we should radically alter the quality of human capital in the district -- if he were to take the bottom 6%-10% of ineffective teachers in this country, and

replace them with average teacher's, you're taking the worst and literally catapult this country in terms of achievement levels to at least canada, about sixth amongst all of the enter -- of the countries. potentially finland, that is no. 2. those teachers could have that kind of an impact on this country. so the question is, why don't we actually do that. i thought it was a very interesting term. the obama administration is

doing a tremendous amount about this. states are going to be eligible -- and power they doing that through evaluation? that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. essentially, what that means is that and lots of places across the country, you can be a teacher that not just doesn't meet your goals in terms of how much growth we want to see a

student make over a given year, but we could actually be a teacher who every year, your students go backwards? it used to remain employed year in and year out? there is no ability to look at how well your students are achieving. the prediction for 2010 is that we're going to be having a lot more incredibly difficult conversations about some difficult decisions that we need to make in this country as it pertains to teacher quality and making difficult decisions on behalf of the children. you get lots of opposition, lots of push back. people don't wanna talk about removing people, they wanna talk about professional development. it is incredibly important for us as the adults in this

country to stop the practice that has been going on for decades. they are all too willing to turn a blind eye to what was happening to children in classrooms in the name of harmony amongst adults. we all want to get along. we want to get along with this group, that group. we all sort of unable this kind of a system to continue on when, in fact, what it is producing is distant outcomes for kids. hopefully in 2010 with the -- we're going to have many more meaningful conversations about how to move forward. i will take a couple of questions. [applause] >> good morning. i had a question. in economics, we have something

called lead in economic indicators, interest rates, so on. what are the leading education indicators? >> we have a lot of them. we look at dropout rates, graduation rates, and we look a lot at proficiency rates. every state across the country had 50 different sets of standards and 50 different tests. one of the things that duncan and the obama administration are moving towards that is incredibly important is a set of core, common, cnational standards. the children of washington d.c., when they become of working age, they are not going to be competing for jobs with kids in national innashville or -- in nashville or san fran

francisco. it really clear movement towards national standards and the national assessment are incredibly important. here in d.c., we're looking at proficiency rates. we're looking at the achievement gap that i told you, the 70% ratio achievement gap. at the district level and at the school level, we are looking very closely at whether we are able to close that gap and to move towards insuring that every child is getting a quality education. a race and income level is not the determining factor for the educational attainment levels. >> my question -- my mom is a

teacher, actually. in 2010, you will be addressing the conversation of the quality of teachers in america. when will you be addressing the payment of teachers in america? >> i am trying. not too long ago, we introduced a proposal that would call for a radically different compensation system here in washington d.c. basically, it was very interesting. what we called for was a two- tier system. every teacher would have their choice of which one to go on to. on the red deer, you got about 24% race -- red tier, a 24% base pay. or you could take a 45% raise, and bonus possibilities based on your student achievement level growth.

as an example, a first-year teacher in d.c. makes $40,000 a year. we structured this so that that same teacher that decided to go on grain that saw the greatest achievement gains could make up to $78,000 a year. at the most senior levels, then make a base of $68,000 a year. that same teacher that chose green that was seeing significant progress could make up to $131,000 a year. by the seventh year of teaching, you would make a guaranteed base salary of $100,000 a year. this, i thought, when my staff brought it to me, it was brilliant. everybody has a choice. everybody says that teachers don't make enough money. i will pay teachers six-figure salaries. i will be the hero of the washington d.c. teachers. i could not have been more wrong. it went down like a lead balloon

because we said that in order to go on the grain tier, -- green tier, they had to give up tenure. it caused this fire storm saying that you can't differentiate. you can't make people give up tenure. all these sorts of things. we put something incredibly aggressive on the table to radically change the way that teachers are compensated away from input to output differentials that were much greater in scale. we have been an ongoing negotiations. we cannot move forward on this. someone over here? >> a quick question on the student-teacher ratios. i have a little boy and the first grade in the d.c. public

system, a big supporter of public schools. there are 28 kids in the class. the school has just put in a new playground at the cost of $1.20 million. i and a stand that perhaps budget allocations are coming from different areas. think of how many great teachers could of been hired to lower that student-teacher ratio. the playground was pretty good before. it is fabulous now. can you comment? >> i think part of the reason why, if you look over the last couple of decades, the schools and the facilities came in at such significant disrepair with exactly that calculation. let's put more and more money into people, and not infrastructure issues. that is what has led to the decrepit conditions of many facilities across the country. i think the really significant

investment in infrastructure at the front and now is going to last for years and years. it will not be a onetime expenditure. it was a bit -- it will be incredibly important. i know that all parents love the idea of smaller glasses. you think your kids are getting individualized attention. the data just doesn't bear it out. it doesn't show that class size has, at all, a significant impact on student achievement levels. and particularly, when you don't have affected teachers in the classroom. in some schools where we have the lowest student-teacher ratios are schools where the enrollment has declined precipitously over the last 10 years because they are not doing well. the student-teacher ratio is incredibly positive, but if you look at the achievement levels, they are deplorable.

>> hello. i am from the u.s. chamber. this whole topic, i know, is very complicated. one of my friends, a former hbs guy, left his career and is now teaching in one of your schools. the classroom, you know, he would probably kill me for bringing this up -- the classroom is falling apart. he has been abused by students. he is teaching a class, what are called repeaters. they have failed and are going through it again. one of the things that i don't have my hands around is, i assume he is an effective teacher, but he has a lot of cards stacked against him because of some many different factors. when you look at gauging a teacher's effectiveness, how do you take all that it to account?

-- into accoutn? -- account? >> welcome to my world. we have been doing this more and more, said very clear expectations with the teachers on the front and about the responsibility they are accepting when they decide to come and teach at one of our schools. people come to me and say, i like your doing, you seem energetic. thanks, wide. -- shy -- why? as long as we have the economic disparities, you are always going to have an educational disparity. he will have lousy neighborhoods, grade schools, poor neighborhoods, and not so great schools. i disagree with that contention. i have always disagreed with it.

i tried to figure out how to articulate why believe it necessarily has to be the cows -- case. i was fortunate enough to have dinner with warren buffett. never in my life that i think i would be having a conversation with warren buffett. there was in omaha, sitting down with warren buffett. he was a d.c. public school graduates. he said, you know, michelle. it is easy to fix the problems in public education in america today. i said, wonderful. tell me how do it so i can go back and start to implement that. he said, all you have to do is make private schools illegal, and assign every child to a public school by random lottery. think about that for a minute. if we did that in d.c., every ambassador's child, every ceo's child, every congressman's

child, and the president goes the children would be assigned to a random d.c. school. that means a huge percentage of them would be going across the river every day. you would never see a faster movement of resources from one side of the city to the other as you would in that circumstance. i guarantee you that very quickly, we would have a system of excellent schools. in my mind, it is not a matter of is it possible to ensure that equality education? it is possible. do we, as the adults, have the wherewithal that it takes to make the incredibly difficult decisions that are necessary to make that a reality for every kid. the answer to date, absolutely not. i cannot close down private schools, and i don't want to, teachers have to take personal responsibility to ensure that despite every single one of the

obstacles that our children face every single day, they believe is possible to overcome those obstacles to ensure that -- you know, if you look at some of what our kids face everyday, those are real challenges. they cannot be ignored. if you believe that those challenges are too difficult to overcome, i tell people to look at fairfax county. that does not make you a bad person, but you do not have to deal with the same issues that we do here. you can do good things for those kids. if you're going to teach in this city, you have to wake up every day feeling a personal mission to making sure that we are going to live up to our promise as a nation. to say that regardless of your income level, race, personnel --personal home circumstance,

you can live the american dream. there is no way that we can succeed unless we have people that have the mind-set. we have individual classrooms around the city that show that it is absolutely possible. we have these islands of excellence and the success stories that are round. we need to proliferate those across the city. i think i am running out of time. i will take one more question. yes? >> i'm a mom. i sent 2 children -- one is in a great, what is in fifth grade. -- one is in eighth grade, one is in fifth grade. there is a really strong element of family involvement, church involvement. i know it is very difficult nbc because of some many economic and race issues, to open up a

town hall discussion were the unions, the people, the parents -- as much as you can, to help assist youth. >> we have lots of open community forums, lots of opportunities for people the lme about various things. -- to yell at me about various things. in town hall type forms, we don't get a tremendous amount of participation. the meetings that there is a greatest amount of participation in is when people are very unhappy with the decision, removing a school, removing a principal, we get a lot of people show up. what i would say is that this idea at that generally, let's come together and talk about education is a