dr. willis has covered that i and i won't repeat it. i am eager to see the report that you are eager to see. question of 3, can s.p.o.t. be improved? and dangerous question to ask a scientist. we always think more research is necessary. but is it a wise investment compared to other things that the government can invest in regarding airport security? that is your decision, not mine. in my testimony i have outlined a couple types of research that could be useful if you decide you want to do more research but we do not need to do more research now to feel confident in this layer of security provided to the american people. in my written testimony i attempted to answer questions that have been raised by critics of s.p.o.t.. would have not been able to use it on how terrorists actually behave, why it wasn't s.p.o.t. based on -- why isn't s.p.o.t. catching smugglers and not as terrorists? are people with middle eastern names or middle eastern appearance more likely to be identified by s.p.o.t.? i would be glad to respond to questions to provi

dr. willis wood, that if the validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny to everyone who is looked at, if it is as successful as the report is, imagine getting that kind of success. it is of scientific interest to find out. >> thank you, doctor. go ahead. >> i would like to respond to the doctor's point. that was the key recommendation of our may 2010 report, an independent panel reviewing the results of this current a .i.r. validation. it needs to be not a current advocate of the program. it is very interesting that the panel shows a lack of consensus which was the basic point i made in my early statement. >> a subject like this you would expect a broad range of disagreements. is a panel -- has a panel been suggested or is this something -- >> there is an agreement to establish to review the methodology of this validation effort as well as to review the final results. but as mr. willis indicated, the latest results have only recently been submitted. as of last night, i believe. >> i have run out of time so i am going to yield back. >> 5 minutes. >> thank you all for being here. i shar

dr. willis would, that if this validity study holds up to scientific scrutiny, to everyone that's looked at it, to this committee, is it as successful as the report is, you got to be doing something right to get that kind of success. so maybe it's a scientific interest. >> thank you, dr. ekman. mr. lure, he's chomping to the bit here. >> i want to respond to dr. ekman's point. that was the conclusion of the may, 2010, report was to have a study of this a.i.r. validation effort. we think it's very important for a panel to be established that has no ties to the current program, that's not an advocate of the current program, to help weigh in on this very issue. i think that's very issue that the panel today shows a lack of consensus which was the basic point i made to my earlier statement. there is no scientific -- >> well, a subject like this you expect to be a broad range of disagreements. has the panel like what you're recommending been suggested in one of the budgets or lined out somewhere or is this something -- >> agreed to review the methodology of this so-called a.i.r. report but it

summer or you know bruce willis beating up a jet with his bare hands it's it's i would easily and happily give it all up for all the stuff we've got here from the internet sorry dr we're going to end it there cory doctorow of boing boing dot net copyright champion and i got to go to the site really and oregon another key site in this debate thanks again for being on the kaiser report oh well thank you all right and that's going to do it for this edition of the kaiser report with me max kaiser and stacy herbert and i thank my guest cory doctorow of boing boing that then if you want to send me an e-mail please do so at kaiser reported r t t v dot are you and so next time this is maxed out are saying.

dr. paul ekman professor emeritus. i skipped over and i apologize. now i recognize mr. willis. our next witness, mr. very witness program manager homeland security bans research projects agency and technology director of the department of homeland security. you mr. willis you have five minutes. >> good afternoon chairman six six -- broun distinguish members of the subcommittee. i'm honored to appear before you today on behalf of the department of homeland security science and technology to discuss her evaluation of the transportation administration screening passenger observation technique which is a checklist of checklist of predefined behavior, indicators used by tsa to identify potentially high-risk travelers. for the purpose of s&t's studies irish travelers are defined as those passengers in possession of serious prohibited and/or illegal items or individuals engaging in conduct leading to arrest. for background purposes the s.p.o.t. effort began in 2007 as a result of the component lead s&p managed people screening cap down team process that identified and prioritized dhs operational customers.