. >> well, thank you, sean, for the moderation here, and captain moak for the opportunity to speak and for the opportunity to be on this panel. it seems like a lot of the issues that i would discuss have already been touched upon and so i appreciate that. and thank you for your support and chris thank you for being here for acina and i have three points i would make today. the threats are real and evolving. second that risk-based security makes sense. and third, that partnerships are critical. so on the first point the threats are real and evolving. we know that al-qaeda in particularly has focused on aviation going back years and years. and that they continue to have an interest as we've seen going from 9/11 using the aircraft as a weapon to the ied attempts with the shoe bomber, richard reid and then, of course, abdulmutallab with the christmas day and then the attempts involving the liquids from the u.k. in august of '06 and then, of course, the cargo plot from yemen that was previously mentioned. aviation both passenger and cargo remain a target and that's why the threats are real

i think captain moak said this, more of an operational perspective put in at an earlier time. overall, we think the intelligence sharing is going very well. >> on a realtime event that going on, we want to continue to do the things that we've been doing to this point. we want to enhance that as we go forward. with all of the air crew that is are airborne during an event. planning, going through flight planning with an event is ongoing or post flying. so more constant coordination. >> i would just add two points, first is the whole risk-based security initiative that we are working with our partners design to focus on those unknowns, recognizing that the more we know the better informed judgments that we can make. as i said, the second point is right now there are probably 20 to 22, 23 heads of security for passenger and cargo carriers at tsa head quarters receiving the classifying briefing. i met with them this morning for a brief time to outline where we are. that gets back to the issue of we can be informed by industry, we can inform them of what the u.s. government is colle

i refer to them as moaks at one point. they go to training, and it's like they wouldn't now how to close one eye so they couldn't aim, and you had these american trainers going like -- like this and shooting, you know, the best shot we had in one class had three fingers, you know, and you know, they did things like leaning on their gun and shoot themselveses in the foot, you know, and you just watch these guys at training, and you just find yourself trying not to laugh because it actually is a serious problem, and it still is. it's still have not figured out how to get long term training, how to get money to these guys so they are not tempted into corruption. the police is key there. >> they must have been the only afghan men who didn't know how to handle weapons; right? >> i know, i know. it's not like they didn't know how to fight over there; right? >> sir? >> yes, in writing the book, researching and everything, did you fine that there's a direct correlation between the problems we're facing now and our failed policy in

lee moak. john pistole, administrator, transportation security administration. to my left, nick and to his left, chris bidwell. on a sidenote, chris bidwell is filling in for mr. principato who was not able to join us due to a family emergency. he joined in october, 2008, and is responsible for leading the association's effort on airport security, facilitation and activities. he monitors domestic and international aviation, regulatory actions and programs impacting security and facilitation at north american airports. we're very pleased to have chris here with us today. that concludes my opening comments as far as as what the rules of engagement are for today. we're going to give each of the panelists a few minutes to offer some opening comments and observations. then i have some prepared questions that we have been working on in collaboration with many of our security professionals and then probably about the last 15 minute or so, we're going to have audience participation in which questions were submitted ahead of time to some of our staff members in the back

it's the moaks notary monopoly's commission. kodak is cleaning the market of film, and the government is in there saying you can't monopolize, but when the governments monopolize, who sends in the monopolize commission to sort that one out? that is one of the most brilliant observations on government that has ever been made. there was an old joke in britain at the time, why is there only one monopolize commission? [laughter] it is, in fact, an incisive observation on the nature of government. we wouldn't like it if there was only one automobile company or breakfast cereal, but there can only be one government which is why in george's words when the government monopolizes, it should do so only in very limited areas. that's true of national go.es when they govern more 300 million people dispersed over a continue -- continent. it's worse than that. it's not just a monopoly of power. right now we have rule by monopoly of ideas, the most dangerous of all, in fact, the one of gray matter as it were. take, for example, our so-called --

and and ck to a comment that captain moak made, the way to eot there is thro w h these paruierships ands i thiua what we'll do is weawl, just to keep the flow going. the int% ylieothe done a key role in risk-based security. Ãon te thiua they have done a g job of including the intelligence in the fraw enforc6 c13 pent comty anity in the risk-based process. so i'm kind of curioce a whate' think a feron this and what additional next steps are necepthrary for this ce ila feration. >> clearly we have come a long way with intellusence sharing and freverorling boots on the ground. there is really a tnh-wivi infohaeation flow. t.s.a. provides intelligence information to airports and aialaort laa senfoe ah6 c13 pent officers and that information is used at aialaorts. ort officers collect information a feron events, site dtions, an pre nide it to t.s.a. that can be incredibly useful a in the site dtion udine ipor. >> airplanes airlines are currently providing clapthr andied t on emerging and existing threats. we think the paruierwe is good Ãon tith our cleave tement paru we would like to see it e

and thank you captain moak for the opportunity to speak and be on their panel. seems like a lot of issues that i would secure have been touched upon. thank you for your leadership and support. i have three points. one the threats are real and evolving. second that risk-based security makes sense, third that partnerships are critical. they have focused on aviation, and they cannot to have an interest as we've seen going from 9/11, using the aircraft as a weapon to the ied with a shoe bomber and christmas day and then the attempts involving the liquids. that's why the threats are real and evolving. we face an emergency that is determined and focused on the design, construction, and concealment of ieds that will defeat our security apparatus. because it's a global supply chain, we know we are only as strong as our weakest length. that's why the partnership is critical. security, the risk-based security makes sense. the whole approach that we are taking is to try to work in partnership to provide the most effective security in the most efficient way. and risk-based

as we get started i would want to take a second here and i want to thank alpa and general and lee moak in particular for being our allies in so many fronts, especially during the last drawing four to six weeks. as you know, i think most of you are aware, we have been through a very challenging time with our laps and reauthorization. that authorization failed to be continued, and the subsequent effects of that was we had to furlough 4000 faa employees. we had issued stop work orders. these are, all these work orders came from funds that come out of our airport trust fund and lead issue more than 250 of those across the country. we also had to ask people working on contracts can we simply had no ability, while the money was in the trust fund we have no ability to issue the checks. that affected 70,000 jobs in the construction industry. all this was over a political fight. so these jobs certainly affected what we do. it certainly affected people in the construction trades. it affected their broader economy. and all of those people, when you put 75,000 people out of work and stop another 2