launched an ambitious program for 2020 taking such measures as reforming aspects of its i.t. management. as these actions gain momentum, it will be important that they enhance the bureau's capacity to conduct accurate count, control costs, management risks and be more nimble in adapting to the social, demographic, technical and other changes that can be expected in the future. inthese incremental modificatios have not kept pace with societal and technological changes. the bureau is well aware this and are planning more cost- effective enumeration in 2020. it is important for congress to continue oversight of the senses. -- census. this concludes my remarks and i would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have. >> thank you very much.

let me ask if i could of you, you heard dr. groves testify today. we want to get a better count going forward for less money. what did you hear from dr. groves today that you were actually pleased to hear? and what did you not hear that you wish to hear? >> i had the opportunity to review dr. groves' testimony before i came here today. i would have to say that i think that dr. groves' observations, the observations from my office, and mr. goldenkoff's observations are all right on the same page. we are in agreement with what dr. groves has laid out. i think of what we would want to

see more of that is more attention paid to some of the nuts and bolts management's issues for budgeting and project management. >> i am glad to suspend record. i wanted to ask senator brown to do something. i'll pick where we did pick up where we started. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. groves, the costs at been unsustainable. one of the measures of costs per household on from $16 to over $12 billion for 1990 to 2010. and we cannot continue on. what is called the -- what has caused the explosive growth? >> if you look over the decades, there are several drivers to it.

one has to do -- most of the drivers could focus in on the non-response follow-up procedures. people are sent mail questionnaires. >> how much does the mail actually costs? i know i get about 30 of them. >> what we said throughout the senses -- census this year was to return it cost about 42 cents, to call in your household costs us about $57. that is the ratio that is so important in addressing. >> it is more effective to do it by mail. >> it male word when under%, it would be a very cheap census -- worked 100%, it would

be a very cheap census. when the returns do not come in, then we go out and knock on doors. >> so that chart above year your head, it is the reduction of 63%, the male response rate and the money is $98 million projected. that is the fallout of the phone calls, the door knocking, that is the whole shebang afterward. >> absolutely, and we knocked on 47 million household doors and that cost a lot of money. how do you stop that trend? we are focusing on that follow procedure. what is driving those costs, and how do we reduce the number of households that require that expensive personal visit? >> i know we had this

conversation -- so that everyone is clear. this is just people in household, nothing to do with people here legally or illegally. is just people, period. >> our mandate under the constitution and the census act of 1790 that has been renewed that we cannot all residents, here legally or not. >> do we have an accurate count of how many u.s. citizens are here? >> the decennial census does not have a question about citizenship. >> do we tried a plan that he was here, are we giving money to states to try to make a determination about who is representing 2 in congress, and we do not know how many u.s. citizens are in a state? >> for purposes of the decennial census and under the law, we count everyone. >> does this seem unusual that

we would not do it that way as well? we need to find out how many people are here in the united states illegally to divvy up the funds properly? am i missing something? >> there is a wonderful phrase in the constitution, article i, section 2 that knows that congress shall by law direct how the census has done. congress has the power to change that. >> we talked about that. i appreciate you being consistent and making a recommendation. i am not sure there is an effort to make that determination and give congressional guidance or change to do that. what further measures could congress enact to control costs in the 2010 and 20 sentence -- 2020 in the future? >> the a look under the rubric of -- they all go under the

rubric of watching. that will be key to it. at 10 to our progress. we have constructed an integrated research steps that antar -- answer key questions. and every one of the questions are related both to cost and quality of the senses census. we will be producing those answers over the year if we are funded to do that. you should hear those answers and be satisfied with them that we are moving in the right direction to keep that focus. it is critical. >> could you do the job with half the money? >> i do not know the answer to that. i think it is unlikely. >> can you do it with 98% -- $98 million for the next go around? >> for $98 million. or $98 per household?

our goal is to reduce that red box. >> what is the goal? >> let me tell you how we are addressing the cost estimation. it is relevant to roberts' comment. we are doing modeling of different cost outcomes, based on different scenarios, different assumptions. our research is going to tell us as the months go by which of those assumptions are correct. we will narrow in on the cost. but every question we are addressing as a condit -- cost index. we want to share those answers with you to keep us honest on cost-reduction. >> i want to apologize. we've been over and over the numbers yesterday. it is actually $12 billion to do what you did this, $98 per household. i apologize.

on the 2000 census, it included an internet response option, the 2010 census did not. meanwhile the cost has escalated. why in the decade of the internet revolution did the census not contain that action? >> this decision was made in the middle of the decade, and the reasons i have been told that led to that decision were concerns about security. at this point, those are not valid. we are doing large numbers of sample surveys. we have conquered the it challenges on the prices successfully. we can do this. we are doing it, we can do it. i am sorry, sorry. >> i'm reading about in the order of the questions they gave me here. on that note, i am all done.

>> why don't you jump in here? recalling a time. >> i want to say publicly how enthuse the hand that we have very super competent leadership here. i have great faith in dr. groves. i am one of your big backers. i told you that in your office and i like the top to have done in the people that help to accomplish that. how much do we spend on the american community survey every year? >> roughly $200 million. >> do you have plans to put the americans community survey on- line? >> we are actually in the matter

of our internet tests on the acs. it is a bigger challenge than the short-term senses. >> i understand. >> we are testing a right now. >> just for history, the reason it was not on the internet is that there was a contract between lockheed martin and the census to do an online test. they came up with a garbage excuse that they could not manage the security, when 72% of income tax paid in this country is online. from england, i saw this in the paper this week and i thought i should show this to dr. groves, they are advertising if they can get it done -- lockheed did it. the very contract they did it, they did it for great britain and is doing wonderfully over there. we know it is possible. i just want to encourage -- i will not go through the rest of the questions on the internet,

but it is important and i know you are committed to bringing us up to speed. we will save hundreds of million dollars annually if in fact we accomplish that task. what are the main management and operational challenges that you really faced during the 2010? do not take a long time, but what are your to biggest challenges? >> we had a fantastic team, i want you to know. the folks that followed up on the planning efforts produced a lot of great operations. the chief challenges or software challenges. we had a system that monitored the work flow that was not working properly for a. three weeks.

-- for about three weeks. that was very scary. it per along at the end of the first few weeks were scary. but missed out at that. that was the chief management threat that we had. >> ok, for gao and ig witnesses, how are their view done in the estimates on what you think the cost savings could be if we utilize the internet in the census? >> we have not done an estimate like that. we have not. >> we have not, either. there are some large upfront costs getting the system up and running. that would need to be offset by the response rate, but we have not done any estimates as of yet. >> it is important that we go to the irs and say what are the problems you have had in getting this going? we learn from our experience rather than trying to do it again. i hope that we are going to do

that with correlation with their experiences and how they got the security going. we do not have to reinvented every time we do it in government in terms of i.t. senator brown asked you, do you have the power to change the questions on the senses? >> on the decennial census? the process by which the decennial census questions are arrived at is a laborious one that brings in a whole lot of stakeholders. we then submit the questionnaire to congress. in the year that ends in six, and again in seven, for your review. so it is truly a collaborative process. >> we actually act on that? >> i think that has buried over decades. on how congress has reacted to that. >> on following up on senator

brown, we could had in the decennial census the question, are u.s. citizen, are you a little resident? that is possible for that is nothing that precludes us from asking that. >> nothing that i know of. >> that is what i want to know. we had testimony about why it isn't born to have a decennial census director that spans administrations? >> his stewardship. the life cycle of the senses census to implement change can take years. what has happened when we run up to the 2010 census, there was a lot of turnover with the directors. if you look back in 1969, the average tenure is three years for the census director. along this was five years. >> my question to dr. groves -- are we going to get to keep you? >> i do not believe i can answer that question.

>> if you were invited, will we keep you? i am saying it in humor but it is not a humorous. continuity in agencies like this is really important. when we pick great leadership, we should do everything to keep that leadership and make sure that continuity is carried on out. my which would be that you -- i will work on my side, you work on your side to make sure you can. [laughter] >> to follow on the comment, we hosted people from the department of defense, the gao, a couple of other weaknesses, and we focused on major weapon systems cost overruns. they've grown to $402 billion last year. an increase of almost tenfold over 10 years. one of the things that we of

learned -- have learned, are we seeing acquisition, development and acquisition of the weapons systems, a huge turnovers, the assistant secretary level, nobody there. a lot of direct reports, and no wonder we're chasing our tail. it is not just the census, but it is not uncommon to have weathered george w. bush are barack obama, to have administrative swiss cheese. we have too many vacancies. one of the things that we're working on, senator schumer and alexander were providing leadership, the number of positions that would cause confirmation. we would not only like to do that but say whoever is going to serve as our census director will serve for a five-year term and have the opportunity to go

beyond that if there is interest in doing that. i want to go back to the questions i was asking the mr. -- mr. zinser. what did you hear that you're very pleased with it and i think you are saying that the three of you, the entities that you represent, appear to be on the same page. nice to hear. what are some of the things that you did not hear that you would have liked to avert? mr. goldenkoff, what did you like and may be mentioned something that you would like to have heard. >> it is important that the census bureau say that there are two components, operational problems, refine and improve existing operations, in some cases develop new and innovative techniques like the internet, and the other component is the internal management piece,

capital management, the organizational structure, and some what dr. groves said he is addressed as well. it is important to come back to the issue of cost-effective census from these perspectives. what i like to hear more of is a better governance structure. census bureau has a lot of things in play, a lot of pieces of the puzzle. the big challenge going forward is how was it going to come together into a path for more cost-effective senses census senses in 2020. >> anything you did not hear that you would like to have? >> the things that we ever pointed out in some of our reports until those nuts and bolts that robert talked about. better budgeting, but our project management -- with a number of activities and operations that make up a census, they need integration in their budgeting and project

management documentation. i think risk-management is an area where greater effort is called for. and i think that they can focus on those kinds of fishes, eventually they will result in a more effective operation. >> on page 3 of your written testimony, mr. zinser, you mentioned top management challenges for the 2020 census, maybe seven of them. of those seven, pick up 1/3 to that you think are the most critical challenges, and then i will ask dr. groves to comment on that. >> the most critical challenge that we identified is addressing the issue of the use of administrative records to help supplement the enumeration process. it is an area -- there numerous federal and agencies that collect information about u.s. households, but of the veterans

administration of the social security administration. there is a lot of data out there that other agencies have collected that the census bureau actually does use for some of its mission. i think that their plans under way in and exercises underway to try to figure out how to use that type of informations, those administrative records come up with this is settled. -- those administrative records, for the decennial. >> would you comment on those points, dr. rhodes? >> on the administrative records, on the issue, when we examine our non response follow- up outcomes, one negative sign in the 2010 census is that 22% of the people where we not on

their doors in a follow-up, we never reached. we did not have data from them. under our rules, we seek information from a building manager, a neighbor to determine the count the people inside those houses. >> could suffer such a? it is a 22% of the people you try to follow up with because you had not heard from initially, 22% never provided information? >> yes, sir. to do with that the overall? >> 22% of roughly 24%. it ends up being a single digit number. >> 4% or 5%. >> it should be compared in 2000 to 70%. that is a move in the wrong direction. -- to 17%. that is a move in the wrong direction. i've received e-mails of people

saying, why are you asking these questions? i have given you the answer is already. >> and other formats? >> they did not give it to us but to another government agency, and they are right. and under current procedures, under the old procedures, we would not use those that in a funny way. -- in any way. that is a missed opportunity. we have people they would prefer is to use those data and not bother them again. but for a variety of reasons, we're not doing that. some of them have to do with agreements with other agencies. as a statistician, our first obligation is to answer the question, could we could could data? what kinds of people are covered the way, what kinds of people are not? and we know the records are in adequate for sums of populations. that could harm the quality of the census. we need to check how the

attributes of people are reported there. you may recall when i first testified in front of this committee after my confirmation, i noted that we added a test into the 2010 effort to see whether administrative records could cover the population. we're in the middle of that test now. that would be the first technical answer. but congress, i would hope, will talk about this. because this is a change and we have to make sure everyone is comfortable with the change. >> we are pretty good about talking about things. [laughter] we will certainly talk about that. >> mr. groves, you hired more than 140,000 people. it cost to the bureau in excess

of $80 million. what can be done and to -- in 2020 to avoid this was to test their money? >> we went back and diagnose some of that. this occurred -- first of all, the ig's figures i do not doubt. a lot of that occurred in the early operations. let me tell you what happened. we actually underestimated the ability to recruit, hire, and train people that did a good job and stayed with us. we use productivity models from the 2000 cycle, where the unemployment rate was much lower than it was in the 2010 cycle. we will able to hire people who really wanted to work, they put in a lot of hours, they were very good, they finish the work faster than we thought. one of the problems is getting -- looking forward, getting good estimates of productivity next

time, that takes into account what the labor market conditions are at the time. we undershot with the productivity actually was. the second is risk-management on that. it is a very common tendency in production processes to make sure you produce on time, on schedule. and one way to reduce the risk of the manager is to over higher and then you know that you can complete your task. we need to manage that process better. we're talking about how to do that. >> you also had some inquiries come up those they were not doing it the right way, and another that you and i talked about that a little bid. you seem to be on friday night, you get someone calling, and did you know that this census worker did a, b, c, and d? broadest of the work with them when he was told not to. >> we actually have centers that

do that. >> yes, they do. nice try. could you explain about those situations and how you handle them? >> there were a lot of situations. when you have 600,000 people out on the street knocking on 47 million household doors, a lot of things happen. some of the more wonderful things. some of our enumerators actually save the lives because they knocked on the door where someone was in the middle of a heart attack. >> probably because you guys are coming. >> other were bad things. there were 700 incidents, about 35% of them against our enumerators were people drawing weapons on them. it is a very complicated process. you have to watch it every day. we have wonderful people who jump on these incidents very quickly and manage them.

we have pretty straight termination rules, so these are tipper employees. >> how many digits terminate? >> i do not know, i can get to that, but they were a lot of terminations. there is not a lot of working with folks. >> allied to know how many lost their job because of failure to do it. i do not want to reinvent the wheel. to explore what dr. coburn said. if you're going to use the internet like that, what a fraud prevention mechanisms in place in something like that? >> a lot has to do with i.t. security, encryption procedures. >> just on the individual. forget the illegal-legal issue, but is this someone living

outside the country? in the key quality control procedures are similar on the internet. the same thing can happen on paper. we have read-interviewing procedures to check things. we have a lot of statistical techniques to look at how lyres and data that does not look right. we follow up on that. >> mapping and that -- address databases, it seems like this group, the census bureau reinvents the wheel every 10 years. is there any way to incorporate everything that other people have been doing for generations now? >> on the mapping side, all of these things were pretty actively partnering and reaching out to private industry. on the mapping in geographical systems, we're doing a lot of work with a variety of

companies. we are planning -- our great hope is to save the country money and about 2019 by continuously updating the address file. we think that can be done with a lot of new partnerships. if we can do that, you will see even more of that. >> i appreciate you, mr. chairman. >> before you head for the next hearing, dr. coburn and i were here when the presentation was not as good and the mood was not as good. not in the 1960's, but six years ago. but given that, cluster years ago. -- four years ago. room for improvement, there we go. that is what they say about me, in every aisle force near there is a pony.

-- pile of horsemen here there is a money. >> maybe you can run for the center. then we will turn it over to the next panel. dr. groves, what is the census doing to ensure its plans for internet response options will succeed in 2020, given our experience from 2010? >> we're doing a variety of things. it is the watchword on this is integration. i believe that the internet operations we are using another sample surveys are relevant to internet usage in the 2020 decennial census. we want to learn lessons from those. secondly, the tricky thing for

us this decade will be to do in the testing of the internet that will stay nimble on devices. the devices that will access the internet in 2020 will be multi fold. some of them have not been conceived of yet. we want to go have a modern set of alternative tools and devices to access the internet because we think that is the way to achieve this higher convenience. we need a lot of tests of the internet, small tests in order to learn incrementally and to stay fresh. we cannot walk into a device- specific solutions. the way the we do that, we spend time getting the base architecture straight. these early years of to get the infrastructure both technically and procedurally articulate it, but allow the device specific solution to be unspecified.

if the architecture right then go forward and at the last moment fix the devices. >> or follow question, what are the risk that the census anticipated for an internet response option? what actions are planned to mitigate these risks? >> have already talked about the i.t. security side. the medication on that is the things we're going -- committee -- the sample surveys, i am sure and confident that our i.t. and security group is staying current with all of the threats that we have on i.t. systems. they need to stay current and pay attention to our internet tests. i think the other unknowns will be the reaction of the american public, especially groups that

are traditionally hard to enumerate, as the decade goes by. as broadband access disperses throughout the different income groups, we need to watch in order to project carefully how they are adapting to internet news. our studies have to be wise on that so that we can estimate the cost which will be related to what proportion to the internet for the 2020. >> mr. goldenkoff, we will talk more in this question with you about the internet. this is some -- dr. coburn's poster here, is this england? in england, they have been using the internet. it turns out, i think they're not the only country. some have done so without some success. others have done so with failure.

first of all, i heard you mention a couple of countries that ended up being role models for us to look at and see what they're doing right. how do we engage the systems with other countries that have success? how the wind gauge -- how do we engage other countries to see whether they succeed and fail? there is a center for best practices, an opportunity for governments from states across the country to share what is working, and to help others who like to learn from them. i do not know that we have a center for best practices for nations like ours to want to learn how to do it. who wanted to more accurately and cost-effective, it would be nice to do something. how do we engage the assistance

of other countries that have done well and those who have not done well? >> on the internet along? canada has been using the internet and some other countries as well, brazil is using the internet. census bureau they have liaison's with other countries? >> robert is right. we have an ongoing interchange with statistics canada that has been quite aggressive. we may have people up there right now that are preparing for theirs. we have gone back and forth. brazil census was an brazil this last year because they used -- brazil was an interesting census last year. they used hand-held. we're watching the uk. there is a small family of census people around the world.

they are nice people. [laughter] >> that is good here. maybe one firm mr. zinser. there is a variety of ongoing of valuations in place to measure the overall effectiveness of the 2010 design. but set -- what steps it said it take to make sure that its results drive decisions for future decennial census operations? >> i think the evaluation that they have underway right now, they are the best opportunity we have to know whether the census was of quality. if you ask the question right now, was the census a success, i do not think you can answer it and do you get the results of their evaluation. -- until you get the results of their operation.

at the operations were a success and that that counts were delivered on time. but in terms of the overall quality of the census data, we need to wait for that's a valuation, and i will inform you in terms of how good it actually was. >> dr. groves, back to you for another one. there's been some mention that the census has been looking at six different design options for the 2020 census. when we decide on a final design and what criteria would be used to make the final decision? >> we anticipate that late 2015, into the 2016 period, we would have enough of findings that they all lines of the design could be articulated.

looking at six different alternatives and i will not go through all of them. they vary on how we keep up, how the address list words, how we keep it up, how we enumerate people, different modes, different sequences, and then how we organize and management -- the management of the senses. -- management of the census. that will determine the infrastructure costs. we're looking at all three of those dimensions. we are narrowing things as each month goes by. as we get research findings, we will be able to draw up options. we will love to keep you up-to- date with our progress on that. we will tell your decision process and our recommendations. >> thank you. the last question is a question

i not infrequently as panelists. what should we be doing in this branch of government to help make sure that we get a more accurate census and we get it in a more cost-effective way? better results, less money. we're going to introduce legislation very similar to what senator coburn and i introduced last year that passed unanimously in the senate. when would you say, tomorrow morning? maybe not that sen. -- that sen. we like to have your advice on what ought to be in there. how what as you to give is that for the record -- out like to ask you to give us that for the record. we have two weeks to submit answers your questions. if you would respond promptly,

we would be grateful. one of the questions we would be writing but that the legislation that we offer last time, what is good about it, what should be changed, what should be dropped? we appreciate your constructive criticism. my sense is that you are warming to your job. it sounds like you have a good team around you. a friend of mine is a basketball coach. he had been coaching high school basketball for about 25 years. i ran into him a couple of months ago at the special olympics basketball tournament. a great weekend. how was there the bob carpenter center, walking and with my friend, we were talking about lessons that we learned for life. in athletic competition, all sorts of lessons. he taught to me right at the end

of march madness, in basketball, the best players and not just the ones who shoot the best. and not necessarily the ones to rebound the best or dribble best or pass best. the best basketball players are the ones that make everyone else on their team better. think about that. the best basketball players are those who make everyone else on the team better. part of what gao does and the it does is making sure that everyone on the team is better. i think we have seen improvement. clearly we need to see more. but i am encouraged by the direction we're taking. i want to thank you for your leadership in your persistence in this goal to get better results for less money. thank you. with that, we will dismiss this panel and by the sec panel for. -- and invite the second panel forward.

>> should i call your doctor castro? ok, too misters and a doctor.

i'd better give a short interview -- introduction. we appreciate your presence. daniel castro, a senior analyst with the information technology and innovation foundation, specializing in information technology possibility. his research interests include health it, an electronic voting, information security, and a sensibility. he has experience in private, nonprofit, and government sectors. before joining this foundation, mr. castro worked as an i.t. analyst at gao. we audited i.t. security and various government agencies. he has a bachelor's degree from

georgetown university, and a master's degree in information security technology and management from carnegie-mellon university to find universities. dr. cook, co-chair of the nasa research of review of the 2010 census. he was elected from the national command to me -- the national academy of sciences. he has served as president of the institute of management sciences and the institute of operations research and the management sciences, and that is an acronym, in form. he holds a master's degree from southern methodist university. does that make you a mustang? and that phd in operations research from the university of texas. longhorn. mr. vargas, the executive

director of the latino elected officials. prior to joining the national association of latino affect original elected in imported officials. he was the vice president for community education and public policy at the mexican-american legal defense and education fund, where he supervised and directed the organization's community education and leadership development programs. mr. vargas is nationally recognized expert in latina demographic trends, of electoral participation, from voting rights, the census, and redistricting. we're glad that you're here. we appreciate your preparation for today's hearing. your entire statements will be made part of the record. if you like to summarize, i will be fine. if you go over 5 minutes, that is fine. if you go way over five minutes,

that is not all right. mr. castro, welcome. >> mr. chairman, i commend you for exploring ways to use information technology to improve the census. it cost approximately $13 billion, more than any senses before it, and did not use i.t. effectively. this afternoon i would like to discuss a few recommendations on how the census bureau can better use i.t. in 2020. congress should require the census bureau to allow individuals to submit on-line. more than 30 countries are providing or experimenting with the internet response option for their census including canada and australia. allowing individuals to submit their form on line would increase convenience and usability for citizens, and improved accuracy, reduce costs, an increase security for the census bureau. for citizen, they could be more user-friendly than a paper form

by providing contextual help and multilingual support. it would help people disabilities with large text. it can also improve data accuracy over paper-based methods by better handling it typical responses, using automated check-in, and eliminating errors during the decoding and transcribing process. and most important, using the internet to collect census data can reduce the cost of collecting. in addition to allowing individuals to submit their census form on line, it should incorporate current technology trends and to is planning an operation. i want to briefly discuss three. cloud computing, a term that refers to the practice of

selling information technology as a service. it allows organizations to rent computer power. they can scale up and down according to demand. organizations benefit from the flexibility that cloud competing offers them as they do not have to make long-term commitments or have high fixed costs. government agencies can align cost with output by only pain for actual use of i.t., rather than for building capacity based on potential demand. it makes it ideal for applications such as the senses, very little demand for resources. the computing resources needed by the census bureau could sharply when they're submitting responses, but go and used at other times. this means that if the census bureau or its contractor uses clout computing, it would not have to invest in a large amount

of i.t. infrastructure but only paid for the amount of resources used. this could help eliminate government waste. the second thing that they should take into account is the proliferation of low-cost, high profile devices. a mobile device for data collection catalog census worker to enter data more accurately and efficiency car rather than developing proprietary devices as the bureau chose to do in 2010, in the future it should use low-cost, office of equipment. by developing platform-neutral applications that run in a cloud, they can build tools on tomorrow's mobile devices. if the census bureau uses off- the-shelf products in 2010, like a tablet pc, it could then donated computers to low-income schools after the census is complete.

social networks and mobile devices, a large share of the u.s. population. this could help achieve higher response rates and reduce the rate for non-response follow- up, one of the most costly aspect of the censuses. the census bureau should incorporate tools to make it easier for individuals to complete a census using these devices. marcos could point a camera at a form and be directed to their personal form online. in short, census bureau should use the 2010 census to improve and by an innovative ways to use technology to deliver more value to citizens. census bureau or even congress may decide that collecting data and every decade no longer makes

sense. given the rising costs of conducting the census, the census bureau should use i.t. to reduce costs. technology is not a panacea, but it that help census bureau achieve their mission more effectively. thank you. >> that is the best explanation of clout computing that i have heard. even i could understand it. >> mr. chairman, thank you for asking me to testify before you today. i am tom cook, co-chair of the national panel to review the 2010 census. as such, i am pleased to summarize that the panel has recently released an interim report, a change in the 2020 census. not whether, but how all. i also speak in the capacity in

which i accepted the chairmanship in 2009, as an experienced systems engineer, ewing challenges. i speak on the penalty have come to the international academies house, when commenting on the report. but when answering any questions, my opinions are strictly my own and should not be construed as formal guidance from the panel or the academies. the panel was charged to provide an independent evaluation of the 2010 census with an eye toward suggesting research and development for more cost- effective 2020 census. in support of the work, the panel held five public meetings during the first year of operation. many of our panel's impressions were formed to the extensive series of 58 site visits to

scott -- conducted for 2010 to local offices, regional senses centers, data capture sides, and other census support facilities. the panel is not yet in a position to provide a thorough evaluation on the 2010 census. much remains to be learned come on the measurement system and the procedural evaluation. it is safe to say there are some brought aisle lines as a prelude to 2020 planning. there are sites visit, we were uniformly impressed by the dedication of the local and regional staff, a workforce of exceptionally high quality. if the great paradox of the 2010 census is that this high-quality work force was made to execute plans and procedures that all of the scripps of the 1970 census. moreover, in several key

respects, including a failed attempt to fully develop hand- held computers, and the 2006 decision not to permit internet response, the 2010 census was arguably more hindered and enabled by technology. from our 18 months of work, the panel is convinced that it is possible to make the 2020 census much more efficient and cost-effective than its predecessors. however the central premise of the report is that the significant efficiencies are possible if and only a there is a major transformation from the paper-driven processes, to processes facilitated using today's technologies. it will require a senior management committed to change and be continuously communicated to of that

transformation process. the continued infrequent involvement and oversight in the planning process from senior management, including key departments and the field organizations, not just headquarters. 3, adequate early investment in research and planning phases of the transformation process. and finally, external held for all changes of the transformation process, from development through implementation. and is less. bank is really important. -- and this last point is really important. it suggests that the census pyrenees to put some states in the ground that should not be subject to debate once agreed upon. as our subtitle suggests, we think the census bureau should explore possible changes as

real, viable options but not necessarily hypothetical ideas. as has been observed in the past, increased use of administrative records data has been thought of as the next big thing for the next he census, or lease the past three disenables. until the question changes from whether a change can be made to precisely how and to what degree, promising innovation will remain hypothetical. and our board, we explicitly recommend that the census bureau said clear publicly announced goals. we argued that the borough -- the bureau should commit to significantly reducing, not just containing, the housing unit cost while eliminating the

extent. our experience of successful re- engineering projects in both the public and private sector is that setting bold goals is essential to underscore the need and importance of every engineer. to avoid being purely hypothetical. they are four areas for research and development for 2020 planning. first, the application of operations engineering, a field collection operations. second, emphasizing multiple modes of response for the senses including responses to the internet, and third the use of administrative records to supplement a variety of operations. and fourth, the continuous improvement and updating of the geographic resources.

the census bureau should not reinvent the wheel. it should build on the work from external experiences. it should learn from other countries like we discussed earlier. we spent a lot of time in canada and. it's been a couple of days, not a lot of time, -- >> did it seem like a lot of time? >> did, but it was good time spent because they made good progress with the internet, and also with the field automation as well. >> those canadians are clever. >> we can learn a lot from them. the use of administrative records is an area where not whether but how is particularly salient. has our report states, the idea of records as a wholesale substitution for the census is along the the most interesting question.

if it ever was. what is interesting or important study is the extent to which records might be used throughout the census process, for updating address list. as a substitute to asking neighbors and landlords has a last resort, or more critically, for possible cost reduction as a possible supplement to non-response follow-up. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

of us have had an experience that something about a situation where a person is wrong. we have those instinctive feelings all the time. however, it is an open question whether instincts are reliable. we also do not know whether a person can be trained to sort through their instinctive reactions, choosing to

intervene and to resist reaction based on racial profiling. what the transportation security administration has tried to do is develop training for officers they climbed quickly assess and screen -- they can quickly assess and screen potential threats to air safety. that is the key question that -- that underlies the hearing. felt shoeard reeves' bombing, some concluded we were spending too much time on trying to stop the bomb and not enough to stop the bomber. screenings of passengers was viewed by tsa as a way to get is on tocers' onto -- the passengers. those credited with developing the spot program intended it to train behavior detection

officers. an ongoing concern with the bdo's is that they not engage in racial profiling. if they are focused on a racial or ethnic quality, they are violating the law. terrorist come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. if security personnel were fixated on profiling race, they would misidentified the next john walker glenn, timothy bed -- timothy mcveigh. it tries to get a menu of behavior is that will emerge and under anxiety your stress. paris would display those cues when attempting to get into a secure facility. behavior scientists do not agree on these nonverbal cues or what -- if a terrorist would exhibit

them. it is impossible for terrorists to get involved in a double blind experiment. it is hard to validate the theory. they point to the success of people who have violated the law and are caught but no one can be certain that terrorist behavior similarly. tsa relies on nonverbal cues to help them sort through the passenger's the flight each day. they provide a filtering method to allow officers to determine who they should engage in discussion, looking for verbal signs. there is more agreement among social scientists the verbal interactions can help detect problems. we hope someone would be available today. its shows that spot trained officers are much more likely to identify what they deem as "high risk passengers" instead of

stable passengers. we look forward to the final report but with that we are missing an important assessment of the report. since the 9/11 terrorist attack, congress allocated billions of dollars for the development of tools and technologies to keep our air travel secure. too often that investment has been wasted. too often we have relied on technology that does not adequately tested. it is not based on adequate evidence of effectiveness. it has proven costly to the play in service. i look forward to today's hearing and to asking questions about the two entered million dollars a year we are spending -- $200 a year we are spending. >> if there are members who wish to submit additional opening

statements, those statements will be added to the record at this point. at this time i would like to introduce our panel of witnesses. iraq's aviation -- he directs aviation and transportation issues. before his appointment in 2007, he had -- did work on trade issues. he has received numerous awards for service, achievement, and teamwork. congratulation. mr. larry willis of the program director for suspicious behavior. science and technology directorate home much security. your business card must be a big one with all of that. detective lieutenant -- how do

you pretend turning? -pronounced brown. -- line is part of brown. i am, bridget cottbus and the pronunciation. he is employed by the boston university police where he heads the detective division. before he was a police officer and director of security policy at boston logan international airport where he developed anti-terrorism programs. doctor paula is a professor emeritus of psychology at the cfs. he has authored 15 books. you have been busy. he has consulted with federal and local law enforcement organizations, american psychological association's. he is identified as one of the

most influential psychologists of the 20 the centuries. -- twentieth century. he is also the scientific advisor to the dramatic television series which was inspired by his research. i hope you are getting rich with all that. [laughter] i love the market system. doctor maria is an associate professor at john jay college of criminal justice. she has published research on the editorial board of the law and human behavior. in 2008, she received an early career award by the year. -- european association of law for her contributions to psychological research. congratulation. doctor philip rubin is the chief

executive officer at haskins laboratories, a private research institute affiliated with yale university. he received apa's meritorious commendations. he is on the board of the behavioral the aid -- and was on a field evaluation of combat the sciences and counterintelligence. for the department of home and security and research. noticeably absent from the witness table is the transportation security administration. tsa was invited to the initial hearing on march 13. it was postponed. they were invited to this

hearing several weeks ago. in response to these invitations, tsa has refused to send a representative. on another hearing yesterday, the department of plant security refused -- homeland security refused to have members on this panel with other witnesses. they have staked out a claim that is intolerable. it is unconscionable that tsa will not send a representative here to this important hearing on this program, this $1.2 billion use of taxpayer money. i find that reprehensible. in a letter to this committee, presumably quoting from rule

10, in this letter they state, "given the subcommittee's interest in scientific research ," larry willis at the science and technology director will represent dhs at the aforementioned hearing." i find it highly presumptuous that dhs thinks it's an -- it knows our jurisdiction. it shows their arrogance. i found it appalling. considering this committee played an active role in creating the department of all let security. while it privately sites are black letter jurisdiction correctly, they must have stopped reading there. under rule 11, it is tasked with

the responsibility to "review and study laws and programs and government activities relating to nonmilitary research and development." and dhs are arguing that science and research played no role in the development of the spot program. i see a compelling reason for their attendance here today. the nexus between science and operations is vitally important to understanding how programs are developed. and how they can improve. making thedhs are kind that science played no role in the program, then this program should be shut down immediately for lacking

scientific basis and being little more than snake oil. if they do not value this committee's role, and if tsa does not value scientific device, there are a number of legislative options that this committee could employ to change that. i would also note that dhs sent officials to testify from customs and border protection and the coast guard. i found it odd that tsa would not want to talk about this program. it makes me wonder what they are trying to hide. when they're asking for 9.5% increase in the budget request, you would think they could justify that increase to us here in congress. let me be clear.

the administration does not tell congress how to run its hearings. we will likely return to this issue once again after the validation report is delivered. at that point, we may seek tsa's input once again. if that is decided, this committee may seek more aggressive measures to compel tsa's attendance, including the issuance of the subpoena -- subpoena. we have not had to issue a subpoena and almost two decades. we have reached accommodations with republicans and democrat administrations. i hope tsa will determine if they have a contribution to make, so that we do not find it necessary to go down that road. as i with this issue know,

spoken testimony is limited to 5 minutes. please try to hold it to be five minutes. a few seconds is ok. but if you go on and on, i would have to tap the gavel. wrap up quickly. the written testimony will be included in the hearing. it is a practice of the subcommittee to receive testimony under oath. do any of you have any objections to taking an oath? any of you? let the record reflect that all witnesses were willing to take an oath. they all a note -- not a bare head from side to side indicating a "no." de -- to any of you have counsel here today? no. none of the witnesses have council. please stand and raise your

right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? but the record reflect that all participating have taken the oath. thank you. you may all sit down. i recognize our first witness, director of hall and security issues, government accountability office. you have five minutes. >> members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss tsa's behavior detection program, a.k.a. the spot. i would like to discuss two issues. the ongoing efforts to validate the program and efforts to make better use of the information collected through the program. this is an important issue. we are seeking $254 million in

funds including additional behavior officers. as we reported in may, tsa deployed spot to 161 airports across the nation before completing ongoing validation efforts. it is unclear whether behavior and appearance can be used to reliably identify individuals who may pose a threat. according to tsa, the program was deployed to help address potential security threats. to help ensure the program is based on science, we recommend that tsa review of the methodology and results of the ongoing validation effort you mentioned in your opening comment. dhs agreed with the

recommendation. as other panel members will note in their statement, the scientific consensus does not yet exist on whether principles can be reliably used for counter-terrorism purposes in an airport environment. it is important to note that the current validation effort will not answer several important questions. for example, how long can behavior detection officers observe passengers without becoming fatigued? what is the optimal number of officers needed? to what extent our behavior and appearance the right mix? should the list be larger or smaller? while mr. willis will report it is nine times more effective than random screening, the results of this analysis have yet to be shared or

independently reviewed. a report highlighted some difficulties that tsa faced in capturing and analyzing the information that was collected at airports. we recommended that tsa better collect information to help connect the dots on passengers who may pose a threat to the aviation system. for example, we recommended that tsa clarify its guidance for information into the database used to track activities. we also recommended they expand access to the database across all airports. the good news is the tsa agreed with a recommendation and has revised its procedures. they also expanded access to the database to all spot airports as of march. our 2010 report recommended that they make better use of the information collected through

airport video systems. we noted that 16 individuals who were later charged with or pleaded guilty to terrorism related offensive transmitted through 8 spot airports on 23 occasions. we recommended that tsa examine the feasibility of using the airport video systems to refine the current number of behavior's currently assessed and to use this information to refine the program. we believe such recordings could help identify behavior's that may be common among terrorists or to demonstrate that we do not display a identify behaviors. again, tsa agreed with our recommendation and is exploring ways to better use these recordings. behavior and appearances monitoring might be able to play useful role in terrorism efforts. it is an open question whether

these techniques can be successfully applied on a large scale in the airport environment. while i am encouraged that dhs has taken steps to validate the program, i am surprised the department is seeking additional funding for the program. hopefully, the hearing will help clarify the future plans for validating the program. chairman brown, other members of the committee, this concludes my statement. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. we now recognize our next witness, a professor emeritus. i skipped over one. mr. willis is our next witness. program manager, homeland's security, science and technology director.

you have five minutes. >> that afternoon, chairman brown. distinguished members of the subcommittee. i am honored to appear before you today on behalf of the science of ecology center discuss our screening observation techniques. it is a checklist of preachified behavior indicators used by tsa to identify high-risk travelers. high-risk travelers are defined as those passengers and possession of serious illegal items or individuals engaging in conduct leading to an arrest. the spot validation effort began in 2007 as a result of the people screaming integrated product team process that identified and prioritized capability caps at the -- of the

customers. as a participant, tsa identified the spot referral board and its associated indicators as a candidate for the validation study. the report contained a discrete list of observable indicators that have been distant -- designated. trained toers are identify these indicators and use them to make screening decision such as referral for additional screenings. the screening is not limited to aviation security. it is conducted by dhs agencies, the department of defense, the intelligence community, and law enforcement. the research is a rigorous evaluation. the reports give better understanding of a threat. the screening accuracy, and advancing -- advances in science.

the cooperation with the american institute of research was to compare the report process with a random screening process. air is one of the largest research organizations in north america. it has performed numerous studies. two databases were used for the study. the first was designed to include information from randomly selected travelers who were subjected to the spot referral process conducted from december 2009 to october. it included many referrals from 43 airports. to make direct comparisons from the databases, the second data set was created for the operational spot referrals. there were collected from the same time and same locations. together these datasets allow us

to find out the extent which observable indicators the to correct screening decisions. a key number findings emerge from the analysis. that includes the following. one, operational spot identifies high risk travelers at a higher rate than random screening. a high-risk traveler is nine times more likely to be identified using operational spot vs. random screening. to achieve this outcome, there were able to engage 50,000 fewer travelers using operational spot than with random selection methods. the second result is a population base great spot in decatur. among those selected, the most recent -- frequently observed in decatur was into 0.8% of the travelers. all of the indicators were

observed in fewer than 2% of the travelers during the study. these results indicate that the spot program is more accurate than random screenings. it identifies high risk travelers by using metrics. our validation process, which included an independent review, is a key example of the effectiveness of the operational activities. i thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the screening of observation by technique. i am happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. willis. you kept your remark under five minutes. most times it is not done here. is thet witnesse

lieutenant from the boston police. >> good morning. i thank you for this opportunity to address you today that was erisa developed. i have trained over 3000 police security officials and over 100 state and federal agencies. i have also been an adviser for the fbi, cia, secret service, u.s. army, defense department, and the national science foundation. i appear representing myself. none of the organizations i have been employed by. on december 22, while assigned to logan international airport, i was part of a team of public safety officials responded to the air filled to meet flight 63 diverted to boston from a flight

from paris to miami. on board was a passenger who attempted to detonate and exploit -- a device in his fall where that would have killed all passengers and crew members. as i stood a few feet away from him, it hit me that this man was the real thing. another terrorist attack would not stop. we needed to do much more to properly screen passengers than merely focusing on weapons detection. thus began the behavior assessment screening. i began to explore the scientific literature to quantify the human capacity to detect dangerous people. it included neurosciences well as research into suicide bombers and programs into behaviors that were supported in scientific literature and consistent with law enforcement experience. it was delivered to numerous

agencies including the transit police, amtrak police, and the atlanta police officers at the busiest airport. trainers and i spent time in london setting up a british version of the program for the british transport police as a response to the 2005 terrorist attacks on the london underground. the state police instructors discovered four individuals with this -- suspected terrorist ties. what conducting training at new -- while conducting training and work, i saw females giving suspicious behavior. one was being escorted to an amtrak train for a acclaimed week-long trip of no luggage. it was later confirmed she was on a watch list. i intercepted an inspector at logan airport with a concealed

weapon. although i believe it is affected that identify high-risk passengers, its effectiveness is limited. proper resolution of highly suspicious people requires a response by police officers trained in the same and detection interview skills. i design the programs of the the most dangerous people would be removed from the upper structure or rested by police officers. i do not believe the training program is enough. the airport police need to be trained with the same techniques and skills that's what would -- which would engender confidence in the program and prevent additional attacks. another issue is that the tsa has created too high expectation for what it is able to achieve. the original spot program was not the apprehension of suspects but to deny access to happen -- the infrastructure to

high risk people. it was to be the last and best chance to prevent a tragedy when other methods such as intelligence and physical screenings have failed. it is extremely difficult. by way of example, if we use the known number of terrorist suspects at airports, and the approximately four billion passengers from 2004 to 2009, the base rate of terrorist passengers is about one and 173 million. the idea that it could arrest all terrorists is unrealistic. if it is seen as part of a multilayer approach with the primary goal of preventing terrorist acts in conjunction with properly trained law enforcement, the program sets reasonable and attainable goal. it should have the support of the congress.

credit for this opportunity. i am prepared to answer question. >> thank you, the tenant. you did not exceed your five minutes. aggressive for being here. -- thank you for being here. my next witness is the president and found it -- founder of the paul group. you have five minutes. >> thank you, chairman brown. i appreciate this opportunity to testify on this important issue. i have been working with the tsa on spot for eight years. based on 40 years of research on how to look at speech, i posture, and how can help identify harmful intent. my research has examined four

kinds of laws. lies claiming to hold a political opinion and the exact opposite of your strongly held opinions. lies denying the to have taken money that is not yours. lies in which members of extremist political groups attempt to block an opposing political group from receiving money. our research focuses on the real world life that matter to society in which each person besides for him or herself whether to lie or tell the truth. just as we do in the real world. no scientist comes out of the clouds and tells us, you are supposed to like, you are supposed to tell the truth, except in experiments. the person who tells the truth

knows that if you're a she is mistakenly judge to be lying, they will receive the same punishment of the liar who was caught. this makes the truthful person apprehensive and harder to distinguish from the liar just as it is in the real world. the punishment threat is as severe and highly credible to those who participate in research as we could make it. i should mention i worked in a medical school, i would never get past a berkeley, but i consider it trivial. unlike any other research team, we have the most precise, comprehensive measurements of face, gesture, and speech. those measurements have yielded between 80 and 90% of

identification of who is lying and who is telling the truth. the clues we have found are not specific to what the light is about. as long as the stakes are very high, especially the threat of punishment, the clues to line are the same. it is this finding that suggests there would be no clues specific to the terrorists hiding harmful intent that the money smuggler, the drug smuggler, or the wanted felon. in my testimony, i raised three questions. what is the basis for the checklist? i explain why i think our findings provided a solid basis for reviewing what is on the spot checklist. what is the evidence for the effectiveness of spot? doctor willis has covered that. a will not have to repeat it. i am eager to see that report.

can spot to be improved? that is a dangerous question to ask. we can always think more research is necessary. is it a wise investment compared to other things that the government can invest in regarding airport security? that is your decision, not mine. i have outlined a couple of types of research that i think could be useful. but we do not need to do more research now to fill confident in of this layer of security provided to the american people. in a written testimony, i attempted to answer questions that have been raised of critics by spot. would be better to base it on how terrorists be saved? based on terrorists?

why is attaching felons and smugglers? our people with middle eastern names or appearance more likely to be identified by spot? i would be glad to respond to questions to provide answers to each of these that are in my written testimony. my thanks to the committee and the staff of the committee for the opportunity to talk to you add to the men and women in the tsa who make flying a safer path that it would be without their dedicated efforts. thank you. >> i appreciate your testimony. a recognize our next witness, assistant professor of psychology. >> good morning. it is an honor to be here. the spot program is based on the idea that judgment and credibility can be made on the

basis of observing facial cues and nonverbal cues that indicate stress, fear, and deception. i have been asked to drop -- address this report. more than 30 years of research show that people are quite poor at detecting behavior. in a recent analysis, a statistical overview of the research, people have a trade of 54%. he should keep in mind that 50% is by chance alone. why are people so poor at detecting deception? one answer is that there are very few nonverbal cues to deception. they tend to be weak. there may not be much to observe. contrary to what lay people and

presumed to lie experts believe, liars do not display more signs of stress and arousal. critics of the research very often say that these findings are due to the nature of the laboratory experiments that most research relies on. the claim is that when the flyers, -- when the stakes are high, it will appear. research has address this concern by studying high stake baez such as those told by people suspected of serious crimes like murder and rape. these studies do not show any evidence that accused of stress and anxiety appear. but me turn to the issue of detecting facial cues. this is based on the idea that

blighters experience the emotion of fear of detection. and that observing these cues can help detect lies. i do not have time to go into detail about the theoretical problems of that assumption, but it invites false alarms. it may miss travelers with foul and tensions that cannot experience these emotions. it may generate false alarms for travelers who do not have hot style intentions but experience these feelings for other reasons. most people are surprised to hear that there is very little evidence on the issue of these expressions. brief displays of an underlying emotion that a rebuild automatically. i am aware of only one study published in a peer review literature conducted by steve

porter. they examined the prevalence of micro expressions of emotion. they found no complete my for expression and any of the 697 facial expressions the allies. they found that 14 my her expressions are in the lower or upper half of the face. they occurred with equal frequency. this study shows that micro expressions occur rarely. they occur in genuine displays as well. the occurrence of my her expressions and a true expression make the use of the airline settings questionable. they state current training may be misleading. i would like to address a point of view expressed by a recent

article on the spot program. he stated that he no longer publishes all of the details of his work in peer reviewed literature because those papers are closely followed by scientists in syria and iran. i object to a strategy not to publish research for three reasons. first, the enemy may be aware of results for research. if we took this argument seriously, we should not publish any lie detection research. it may ultimately help the enemy. second, it is my understanding that the theory of my her expression that these are automatic displays. if that is the case, i felt to see how knowledge about these behaviors could help a person.

third, these claims of my her expressions or the accused included in the spot program, they should be addressed with data subjected to peer review. given the amount of resources that have already been spent on the program, i think such a delegation is necessary. v --alidation is necessary. it relies on an outdated view of deception. there is very little support in the peer review literature. if i had more time i would say a few words about what i think maybe a more productive approach to assessing credibility. but i am out of time. >> thank you. if you want to add some

suggestions, we would be glad to enter those in the record and entertain those. now i would like to recognize our final witness. doctor philip rubin. you have five minutes. >> distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. i am here is a private citizen. but i currently served in a number of roles that might be relevant to the hearing. in addition to the activities previously mentioned, i am on the advisory committee formed to provide analysis and methodologies used in the spot program. i was invited here to describe the current state of research related to studies of the various tools, techniques, and

technologies used in the detection of deception. my written testimony provides historical background on the behavior of sciences. it mentions a variety of documents and reports, some of which i have, including many by the national academy of research council such as consensus reports and other documents. the written testimony focuses on two that i am a bald with. the intelligence contest and papers on threatening communications and behavior. because of time limitations, i cannot describe these in detail. a retreat to my testimony. a number of participants spoke about obstacles to fill the valuation. obstacles they believe must be overcome.

perhaps the most basic obstacle is a lack of appreciation among many for the value of objective filled evaluations that have inaccurate lessons learned approaches. a number of people throughout the process spoke about the pressure is used to use new devices with the become available because our lives are at stake. the sense of urgency can lead to pressure to use available tools before they are evaluated. it can even be to ignore the results of the evaluations if the disagree with the conviction that they are useful. as indicated earlier, i am a member of the 8 -- an advisory committee for spot. the committee's role is extremely limited. it focuses on determining whether not a research program

accomplishes the goal of evaluating whether spot and identify high-risk travelers. individuals knowingly intending to defeat to the security process. the committee has not been asked to evaluate the overall spot program. nor the validity of indicators, the consistency, a field conditions, a train -- training, and or behavioral technologies. in order to evaluate program, all of these and more would be needed. to summarize, i would like to mention a few points as highlights. these are some recommendations on how to move to forward. create a reliable research basis by examining the issues related to security and deception. peer review is important.

shining a light on the process is necessary for determining if these technologies are performing in a reliable manner. incorporate knowledge on the irregularities and idiosyncrasies of human behavior. understand the interplay between stress and other factors. make sure we are not distracted or misled by the tools employed at the fascinate us. take serious attention to the ethical issues and regulations related to human research including b common rule and privacy concerns. reduce conflicts of interest including financial interests.

develop an understanding of how organizations can shape the assessment. support the importance of the need for independent evaluation of new and controversial issues with appropriate scientific, statistical, and methodological expertise. >> thank you. i want to express my appreciation for your being here. i know you have had some recent challenges. thank you very much. i want to thank all of the panel for your testimony. the chair will open the route of question. i recognize myself. mr. willis, when can we expect spot validation report? >> the report was delivered to

me last night. it is being submitted bydhs -- by dhs. i am not exactly sure when that will be ultimately disseminated. i can get that information for you. >> we would appreciate getting it as soon as possible. what additional steps have to be taken before we get the report? >> i do not know what the distribution process entails. i know i will submit this morning following my participation here. >> do you have any problems in releasing the results? >> i do not know what the policy is on that. i am happy to provide whatever is consistent with the policy on release. >> i understand the results are still preliminary. there appears to be a

discrepancy in the success rate. in your testimony you said a higher risk traveler is nine times more likely to be identified using operational spot verses random screening. but when you met with staff on march 3, you said that the spot program was 50 times more effective than random screening. one of our other witnesses makes a similar claim. he said, "malfeasance identified at more than 50 times." can you explain the discrepancy? >> there should not be a discrepancy. we use four metrics to revaluate spot. the first was the possession of illegal items. the sec was possession of

fraudulent documents. the third was -- a combination thereof. the arrest has the higher number you referred to. >> 50 times? >> yes. the possession of the prohibited items is approximately four 0.5 times. if one combines all of those, it is nine times. >> of those that were identified, how many of those were convicted? >> i would have no idea. our effort stops at whether a decision is recorded as being arrested or not. that is the information that is available through the spot database. >> to you have any data about faults the negatives? i mean false positives?

>> are you talking about arrests? >> no, with -- yes, with arrests and with prosecution. >> we have information available on that. for example, if one looks at the faults of positive the index, for every person you classify as a high-risk traveler, what is the number of travelers to miss classified. we have that information on any of the four metrics we discussed. combined outcome, for every person you correctly identify,

86 were misidentified. for the base rate or read and study, for every person you correctly identified, 794 were misidentified. >> spot was initially developed as a way to stop terrorism. that is the whole point. now i see the program has expanded to include criminal activity. >> your asking a question about the mission. i am science and technology. i am unable to talk to that. i would refer you to tsa. >> that is a reason tsa should be here as a witness. i am extremely disappointed they are not here. >> i could talk to about why we use methods that do with criminals. if that would be helpful. >> go ahead. >> the reason we use those

metrics was because they were available to us through the state that in sufficient numbers to analyze. data with terrorism is unavailable and cannot be used as a matter. >> my time is up. ms. edwards. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i mentioned, i am disappointed tsa is not here. there are a number of questions that could to things like training protocols and other aspects of the spot program that they would have a useful information to share. i look forward to working with the chairman and the committee on this question about who needs to appear or not. it is not a decision for the administration. congress determines who appears

before the committee and what the jurisdiction is. i share that concern. i want to go to the question of profiling. >> i appreciate your comment. you took up almost a minute with that. i would like to give you an extra minute on top of that. i do not want to charge you. >> i appreciate that. >> start the clock again, please. >> i have a question that goes to the issue of profiling. as an african-american woman who, because i wear a scarf on my head, i have had the experience of being pulled over. it has not happened once or twice. it has happened multiple times. i do not want to make any speculation but it does raise the question of who is identifying me and what i am

sending off. i reminded in the testimony that, i remember when i broke a lamp and i tried to glue together. my mother said, what did you do? part of the reason she could say that and i told a her alie, but part of the reason was because she knew me. she had experience with me. she read my verbal and nonverbal cues many times over. that gave her a better indication of when i was telling the truth and when i was not. we do not have that experience in our airports. i have a question for the lieutenant, whether it is possible to train them not to engage in profiling. i think it is tough to train out culture. culture in the sense of the

police culture and the law enforcement culture where you have to train and get tight when it comes to these issues. if you can share with us whether if it is possible to train officers not to engage in profiling. >> i believe it is so. i have been trained -- trading for over a decade now. i designed statewide programs for the massachusetts community on racial proscribing. it is possible to make people aware of their own bias and tendency to make snap decisions based on superficial things. we all have this hardware to survive. when we look at somebody, we are making an opinion about them. it has to do with our background and cultural influences. a lot of those are negative. but it is about survival. it wants to understand what is

going on. it gets a jump on your conscious awareness. when i walked in here and i saw you, we made a decision about each other. that is going on all the time. this is the source of bias. knowing that, i cannot stop my feelings about someone based on how the book. that initial reaction about what the person might be dangerous. but i can take a few seconds to think about what is going on, what do i know objectively. then i can make a decision. it takes self awareness. it takes training. it takes the ability to want to change and monitor cell. but it can be done. you have to address baez and racial profiling.

to me, it was an antidote to racial profiling. >> i just have a minute and a half. i appreciate your answer. i wanted to get to the doctor because you have been unnerving me. i wonder if you had something to share on this issue on whether you have been trained against those-instincts in one context, the trend and to be positive? >> thank you for the opportunity to respond. i wanted to say we did research years ago that shows the better you knew someone, the worse you were in identifying if they liked you. you are biased. if they were a friend, you did not want to discover that. strangers do better than close people. the issue is monitoring. building into the spot