defending it going forward. the way we do with lincoln, the way we do with roosevelt. and i think obama while not on that scale is the closest thing we've gotten in american history to that kind of successful president and should be defended by americans from the center to the left. >> on sunday at 7:15 p.m. eastern from town hall seattle, radio host michael medved on the role religion has played throughout american history. in his latest book "the american miracle: divine providence in the rise of the republic." go to booktv.org for the complete weekend schedule. next, a look at national security policies and global threats facing the incoming trump administration. foreign policy leaders including former secretary of state madeleine albright took part in an event hosted by the u.s. institute of peace. this is just over an hour.

it's great to be here. thanks to the institute of peace. i think everybody here probably knows these panelists so i'm going to be very brief and you have them in your program as well. we'll start with secretary madeleine albright who served under president bill clinton as secretary of state from 1997 to 2001 following four years as u.s. ambassador to the united nations. these the founder and chair of albright stonebridge group, a global strategy firm, and a professor of diplomacy at georgetown university. admiral james staveredes, daep of the school of law and diplomacy at tufts university. he served as commander of southern and european commands and nato supreme commander europe. admiral staverede cyst is the chair of the board of directors of u.s. naval institute. frederick kemp, my fellow ute. frederick kemp has served since

2007 as president and chief executive of the atlantic council overseeing the expansion of its scope of work. he was an award-winning journalist at the "wall street journal," covered the collapse of communism in europe and served as editor of the "wall street journal" europe based in brussels. and senator tom cotton. he has served as a republican senator from arkansas since 2015. his committee assignments include the select committee on intelligence and the armed services committee. after graduating from harvard law school senator cotton left a legal career following the september 11th, 2001 attacks to serve as an army infantry officer including service in afghanistan and iraq. welcome to you all. our topic this morning is very simple. i have a very easy job because i have four very smart people here. and they have a lot to say. i have a feeling. and this is quite simple, and i'm going to start with you, admiral staveredes and go down

the line. tell me through your national security priorities for the next administration. >> i'm going to start with one that may or may not surprise you. i think cyber is extremely important. and the reason i put it at the top of my list is because i think in sticyber we have the greatest mismatch between the level of threat which is quite high and our level of preparation which frankly is quite low. in other words, we worry about north korea, but we have options. we're kind of prepared. we worry about russia's doing. we're kind of prepared. we worry about violent extremism. we have programs. in sieber we're really not there. so cyber. number 2, i'd say broadly would be the return of great power politics. and this is often categorized as -- fascinating. and above all in this century the rise of india. how we move those pieces around.

will be challenging. this gets into south china sea and crimea. great power politics underlying disorder. and the third for me would be the continuing stresses and strains from violent extremism which we tend to identify as radical islam and that certainly is a significant part but we also have racial challenges. dylann roof is a violent extremist. we have political challenges as in brefic who killed many people in norway. under the surface of the great power politics and looming out there like a tower i think is cyber. >> secretary albright. >> well, i would certainly agree. i have my own kind of list and a little bit different organization. i do think we have living in a completely changed world in

terms of the international system and how we operate in governance questions. and the discussion as to whether it's all state actors, i would argue that the presence of non-state actors has added an awful lot of challenges especially since our national security toolbox is set up to deal with states and not with non-state actors. so the governance. the second i think is the challenge of how the great power rivalries go on. there i really do think that we have to be concerned about what china and russia are doing and then also as secretary kerry said what is going on in europe. those aspects and looking at regional problems that come up and bite you that you've not really been ready for. and then the third aspect has also to do with more process. there is no faith in institutions. and this goes a little bit not

just to cyber but to information. i stole this line from silicon valley, but it works so well to explain it, is that people are talking to their governments on 21st century technology. the government hears them on 20th century technologies and are providing 19th century responses. and therefore there is no faith in institutions in trying to figure out how to deal with all of this. i have a very elegant term for this. the world is a mess. and that will let ordinary people understand what we're saying. and i think that there has to be some way that we look at the institutional structure, and i think we need to be able to understand the following thing and i hope we have a chance to talk about this more, is foreign policy, national security policy does not come in four-year or eight-year segments. and no president comes in with a clean slate, and so there has to be a look at what is out there that has to be dealt with. and then the things that will bite you that you don't know are

coming. >> which leads us to senator college cotton. senator cotton and i have been talking. very interesting the way you look at this. that we talk about three national security priorities. we're not talking about necessarily stress. and you view those quite differently. >> thanks. and thanks to the institute of peace. i can't disagree with the admiral or the secretary. but as martha said as i was thinking about the title of this panel, three priorities, not threats, threats are in some degree already expressed here. the great powers, russia and china, rogue nations like north korea and iran, transnational actors like islamic terrorist groups. there's no telling what any of those are going to do over the next ten days, what they're going to do in the first ten days of the trump administration. all those who've been in government know you often have to react to contact. but where could the new administration go out and make contact, take the initiative, set priorities that would fundamentally advantage the united states and strategic competition. i would say there's three areas

in that and this is a good time to pursue them because a new administration is a time when people expect a new path and it's a time when you have the most domestic political capital in working with congress. so first would be substantial increases in our defense budget. maybe going back to the national defense panel from 2014 which itself is based on bob gates's budget 2012, the last time the department of defense budgeted for the budget control act went into effect and the sequester spending cuts took effect. second would be a throwgoing review of our strategic pasture. both the bush and obama administrations in their first year in office undertook a nuclear posture review. the world has changed radically since then. both russia and china are accelerating their nuclear efforts. china's developing hypersonic glide vehicles. russia is flagrantly violating the imf treaty. if russian media reports are to be believed, they're developing an underwater drone that can deliver nuclear weapons into our coastal cities. so i think we need to

fundamentally reconsider our nuclear and our missile defense posture. and then third, a domestic issue that has far-reaching international consequences is to accelerate the shale revolution in american energy production. we are blessed to have a country of great innovators, of risk takers, of investors, of fantastic scientists, geology that permits shale production in a way that really almost no other country in the world has that combination. that's helped us become a global energy superpower. that's something that will give us more freedom of action throughout the world. in particular, though, it will put more strategic pressure on russia. so when you think about priorities, those three priorities i think if the administration would pursue them, whatever happens in the world, whatever our adversaries do, will give us greater strategic flexibility to pursue specific policies about particular countries and regions. >> thank you. and fred.

>> for decades already i've been stealing secretary albright's ideas. so let me first say i want to grab on to the world is a mess as a fact. and then the other fact, and it won't become more order ly unles the u.s. gets more deeply engaged. there is no one to substitute for us. i want you all to remember where you were on this day because we're at a defining moment in history. you can pick your date, 1919, 1945, you can go back to 1815 or 1789, but that's where we are. couple that with one of the most fraught moments of history, which is a transition to a new president, new party with an untested president. we had that in 1961 with the youngest president of all time, john f. kennedy, and we ended up with the bay of pigs disaster in

april, with the failed vienna summit where the soviets decided the president was weak, with the berlin wall. and then a year later you had the cuban missile crisis. so that set the parameters for the rest of the cold war, but we almost had a nuclear war. i'm not saying anything like that will happen this time. the cold war was at stake then. i think the global system is at stake now. so my big overarching roof is can we save, readjust, reinvigorate the global system of practices, values that we've always had. and then there are three pillars and these are my three issues. europe and russia. i think it was terrific that secretary kerry pointed to the european union because if the european union becomes unraveled or becomes more dysfunctional you cannot have a strong america in the world with a weak europe. it just doesn't happen. they're a cornerstone of engagement. and russia is pushing on that. both of those things. we need reassurance for europe

and we need russia to know there are certain lines that can't be crossed, redrawing borders, testing nato allies at the very top of the list. the second is then the middle east. here i want to embrace a report to the atlantic council, hariri center has done, secretary albright and steve hadley, where they outline it's not a crisis of the middle east but a crisis from the middle east where you have extremism and migrants being exported, again undermining europe. we can't deal with that in the short term. that's to be dealt with in the long term with our allies. so redoubling and deepening our relationships with allies in the region. that means our traditional sunni allies. and then working over the long term to tap what secretary albright and steve hadley rightly saw as some very promising tendencies in the middle east as well. entrepreneurshi

entrepreneurship, something that can point to prosperity. and finally china. if russia is the biggest threat short term to the global system, china could be a threat over time to the global system. but it's also a stakeholder now, and it has a huge amount at stake right now. we can't put ourselves into conflict with china if we want the global system to be reinvigorated, to be readjusted and survive. we have to do it together with china. along those lines i really think we then have to double down our relationships with our allies in the far east because if we're strong with our allies, with japan, with south korea, with others, we will be able to have a much more positive relationship with china. so those would be my three. u.s., europe, middle east, china, asia. >> thanks very much. and senator cotton, i want to go to you on this. what do you sense donald trump's priorities will be? we've all seen tweets, we've all seen things he said during the campaign. and since he has become president-elect. but what's your sense of what his priorities might be in terms

of foreign policy? >> again, make america great again. >> and how will he do that? >> well, some of the issues that i touched on are things in which the president-elect campaigned as well. substantial increases in military spending. fundamental reconsideration of our nuclear and strategic posture. oil and gas production. these are things, whatever the president-elect says on twitter, whatever he says in media interviews, are not good things for countries like russia. they're not good things for iran or some of our other adversaries in the middle east. if you look at some of his appointees to the cabinet, whether it's jim mattis or mike pompeo or mike flynn, these are not shy and retiring violets who have a constrained role of america's view in the world. i suspect that president-elect trump as he said on the campaign trail and based on mf shiz nominations will take a firmer line around the world with a lot of our adversaries and try to project greater strength and demand more respect for the united states. he'll be less willing to make concessions without receiving

concessions in return. and i think those are all good things. i think those are a good change after eight years of the obama administration in which the president said famously early on that he wanted to extend an open hand rather than a clenched fist. but sometimes the clenched fist has to precede the open hand. >> you know, i want to talk about the tweets for a second. it's obviously something we've never seen before, this number of tweets like this. it's usually a statement and very formal. but those tweets have moved markets. they've moved ford. they've moved carrier. how will that work in foreign policy? can it move foreign leaders, secretary albright? >> i'm going to try to be polite. let me just say that i am very concerned about the tweets and generally about the messages that are going out. and if i could say, secretary kerry said i'd invented the term indispensable nation. actually president clinton did.

i just said it so often it became identified with me. but there is nothing about that term that says alone. it means that the united states needs to be engaged and i think that that is a message we need to get out there. not as america first but as america as a partner. there is nothing wrong with partnerships. i know americans don't like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables and ends in an ism. but the bottom line is all it means is partnership and understanding that the world as we see it in terms of the -- what you call the global issues that are out there, whether it's terrorism or a disease or nuclear proliferation, those issues require partnerships. and so i do think there has been a system in place in the world for a very long time of how governments communication with each other. how presidents communicate with each other. how those documents are

developed. are they a part of some kind of decision-making process that does in fact reflect what the government thinks and that the congress thinks and what the american people think, and the tweets don't deal with that. in fact -- >> but if you want to shake things up, if you want a reset, if you really want to get someone's attention, get taiwan's attention, waunt to get china's attention, why not? >> let me just say, i think it's fine. disruption is a very interesting theory, actually. and i think it doesn't hurt. destroying is not a good thing. and i think that part of the issue is i think it is absolutely essential -- i said this. that foreign policy doesn't come in four or eight-year segments. every administration, especially if it's of a different party, tries to do things differently. but it has created great concerns. and let me just say one example

is the transfer from clinton to bush. i was in the middle of negotiations with the north koreans. bill perry just wrote about this. the decision was made by the bush administration not to continue those talks. i know would put north korea into one of the more dangerous aspects of what is going on out there. so i only use it as an example of the fact you may disagree with what president obama did. i may disagree with what president bush did. actually, steven and i took a pledge not to talk about the past. but i think that it is what it is and it is essential that there be some understanding of what the track is, what the role of the united states is, how we became as a responsible power in cooperation with others. and tweets doesn't do it for me. >> anybody else want to jump in on that? >> i will. i agree with secretary albright that if -- think of it as a diet. if your diet is exclusively shots of espresso, that's

probably not a good thing. but as part of a fulsome diet where you are conducting normal diplomacy, you are executing agreements, you are negotiating treaties, you are moving military forces, i think an occasional shot of espresso can jazz you and actually energize things. where i worry about it is i think of young officers, i'll do a military kind of context to it. which let's say a tweet appears that says hey, the next iranian gun boat that crosses the bow of a u.s. navy ship is going to get blown out of the water. >> which -- i don't think it was a tweet. i think it was at a rally. but you're very close. because i did the story yesterday. >> right. so what we need to recognize is that particular shot of espresso has an effect all the way down to that young commanding officer where he is or she is dealing with these rule of engagement moments. so you potentially kind of create this short circuit that

goes from the ultimate commander in chief down to operators on the ground. i think it can be the same in diplomacy. it can work the same in economics. so i guess where i come out is an occasional shot of espresso okay, let's think about it, but it can't be xluftly your diet. >> i think you have a mattis there and others doing those kinds of things. >> let me actually embrace the tweets. as you know, i'm a little schizophrenic here, a journalist and foreign policy analyst. and as a journalist good heavens, he's really just captured the news story every day and it's pretty brilliant what he's doing. but let me then complement because i agree with admiral stavridis that the tweets have to be accompanied and what they have to be accompanied with is strategy. but you can't expect the strategy to be there yet. but it's going to have to come relatively soon. there's an unpredictability that the president-elect has embraced. and on many issues that can be useful politically. on the global stage the u.s. has

to be predictable. its allies have to know where it stands. its adversaries have to know where it stands. accompanied by tweets that's fine and could be highly effective. i don't expect the president-elect to put on a bumper sticker, you know, save the international liberal order. but if he wants to be successful, here's the tweet i would have, which is i want president trump to make global america great again. and to do that he has to lay out a strategy that really embraces this order we created after 1945, when we had 50% of global gdp. now we have 18% or 20%. that means we have to lead more collaboratively, we have to lead in a way that inspires people around the world so that they want to follow. and if he can do that and tweet every day how he's doing that, that would be a wonderful way because it can reach the entire world in that fashion.

so i don't think you can expect a populist president, the most populist president we've elected since andrew johnson, to not be populist in office. but he can be populist and sustain the global system that has benefited also much at the same time. >> senator cotton, do you think other countries need to know where we stand as he described it? and if so, where do you think russia thinks they stand at this point in time? >> i think like most countries around the world their view of the future of u.s. policy has been somewhat frozen for six to eight months in the election and since the election as well. again, donald trump has said that it would be a good thing if we had a better relationship with russia and we cooperated more on common interests. that would be a good thing. the last three presidents at one time or another have tried to take that tactic and they've been wrong-footed every single time. i'm sure that vladimir putin thinks that he can wrong-foot donald trump again and advance

his project as opposed to advancing america's interest in the world. again, when you get back to the fundamental matters, though, in terms of our defense budget, the size of our navy, the nuclear modernization, some of the nominees that donald trump has chosen i don't think there's a clear signal being sent to moscow now from the trump transition team. >> we are going to open it up to questions very soon and wander around but i just want to get a little bit on i know the threats, the priorities going forward, but how you view donald trump's foreign policy agenda or his strategic thinking in terms of foreign policy and whether you really have to dine that. throughout my career everybody's defined this is the clinton doctrine, this is the obama doctrine, this is the bush dock doctrine. do you need that in every case or can it be a case tocase basis? admiral stavridis. >> i think it's premature to try to scope all that out simply

because the nominees that president-elect trump put forward were not anticipated to say the least. i think if you go back 630 da0 ago and said we're going to pick a four-star general to head up the department of defense, another four-star general at -- the ceo of exxon. all good picks, by the way. you've got to see that team come together interact with mike flynn and k.t. mcfarland, let them do the traditional nsc role and we've got to give them some space to shape the view. knowing very well the two military officers as well as mike flynn, i think i can sense the kind of outline of where things are going to go. but we need to wait. we've got to really get rex tillerson into the mix in a significant way as well. just give him some space, let's see where it goes. but i do want to agree with both the senator and with fred that

we've got to have a consistency in a view and so we should give them time to develop it but not allow ourselves to remain on the diet of espresso. >> secretary albright, you brought this up. mike flynn, general mattis, general kelly. a lot of retired military in there. do you think that's an issue? i mean, obviously they're leaders. they know how to get things done. but they go to the same schools. they have been in the military their whole lives. is there a different perspective there for solving problems? >> well, i do actually think that there's a different perspective. and some of it very useful if i might say. this might surprise people. but whenever i flew on a military plane, i would hit behind the pilot and i would see that even though they had taken off many, many times they would go through the steps every single time. civilians don't do that.

there is something very disciplined about it. it's very interesting, frankly. so i do think that there are some things that the military can input into the system. i think also -- and we talked about this. the whole issue of civilian-military relations i find fascinating in terms of teaching and in terms of how things are carried out. in your example about what happens to the people as they hear something from the top. so i am not -- i'm not opposed to the military people there. i think that it's going to be interesting. what is the thing, though, that needs to be looked at is the process. i have been involved in the transition now a number of times. and obviously i was very interested in what secretary kerry said, how little is going on. it means it has to go on because this is turning over the crown jewels. and i think that the process that ultimately produces a national security strategy or

these documents in terms of a nuclear doctrine has to take place and it is the nsc that makes this happen that brings the process together since 1947. and so i'm hoping that the time immediately, or already now and as the hearings go forward, that that process takes place because unpredictability occasionally is interesting. constant unpredictability is dangerous. and so i think that process has to take place and the military and the civilians have to figure out how to operate together. it will be crucial. and i think we need to support that civilian-military relationship. >> at the atlantic council we deal with a lot of military brass, and i think that one of the things that's really impressed me is how the military invests in the education of its officers. if you want to have the most fascinating conversation you could ever have on military history and what the lessons are for today, then talk to general

mattis or admiral stavridis. these are the people i have these intellectual conversations with. these are some of our best thinkers and some of our best strategists. i wish other parts of the u.s. government would address more in military education as the military does. that doesn't concern me at all. one thing that will be interesting is who the president turns to for military advice at those crucial moments when he's going to have general mattis and general dempsey, both marines, sitting there, one of whom it's his job and the other has done that until fairly recently. so there may be some complicated moments of that sort but nothing that i don't think that these people can sort through. >> senator cotton, i have to say that covering all these wars for all these decades, the military wasn't just doing military duty they were diplomats as well and thrown into situations where they had no idea what was going to happen in a war that was going south early on in iraq and tried to turn that around and be skilled diplomats as well.

i want to go back -- yeah. >> i certainly admire the military but i do think that we also have to respect the people that have been serving the united states as diplomats or as civil servants, people who have dedicated their life to government service and should not be viewed as traitors or people that can't do the job. and i was very proud to be secretary of state and see how hard the diplomats really worked. and the wall in the state department that had all the people that had died in service needs -- this is a very dangerous job, especially these days. and the combination of the military and civilians protecting each other and working on things together is very important. and secretary of state mentioned that the budget for the state department is $51 billion. the budget for the pentagon is somewhere between 600 and $700 billion dollars. and that is something -- 050 and

150 needs to be looked at together. >> thanks very much. [ applause ] we certainly have good words for career diplomats. i want to go back to the nuclear issue because you brought that up as one of your three priorities. certainly you want to modernize what's already there. but what does this look like? what does the nuclear deterrent in your mind look like going forward? it's not the '60s anymore. we were talking also about walk over those missile silos out in wyoming and colorado and how '60s it feels, it's scary. but talk a little about what needs to be modernized. i want to bring you in on this also admiral stavridis. >> it's not the '60s anymore in part because large nuclear arsenals are no longer restricted to the united states and russia. one issue i had is it treated the united states as if russia was our only strategic competitor in the nuclear domain as opposed to china being a rising competitor and having the advantage of being free of all

constraints. that's something that we have to account for, that china continues to expand its nuclear arsenal and russia's modernizing it and changing its doctrine and rhetoric around the nuclear doctrine as well as countries like north korea and india and pakistan and one day i hope not iran. domestically in terms of our nuclear capabilities, what that means is reinvestment in all legs of the triad. we need to develop a new missile system, ground-based strategic deterrent. we need to have a higher class replacement submarine and the new b-21 bomber. congress is committed to this. this is part of the commitment president obama made to pass the new start treaty. this is something that's going to depend very heavily first on donald trump but especially jim mattis as secretary of defense. to drive those programs forward, to make sure we're getting best value on time delivery requires very capable management. this is something bob gates wrote about in his book in his

time as secretary of defense that it's only the secretary of defense who can drive a program that fundamentally important. you don't want the b-21 to end up like either the b-2 or the f-35 has. you know, those are decisions that were made 25, 35 years ago when i was in grade school. b-21 decisions are being made now. and we want to make sure these programs are effective. >> what we've heard from donald trump in terms of the -- i'll be right to you, admiral. in terms of military budgets. adding ships, adding people, adding that. tell me just briefly, if you will, whether you think the budget -- what does budget align to in terms of threat? >> well, sought the reason people go back to the gates budget is it was the first -- the last budget done before the budget control act put arbitrary caps on the department of defense. that was the last time the department of defense engaged in full-on strategic-based budgeting as opposed to budget-based strategizing. it also was a time when the world was not nearly as

dangerous as it has become over the last five years. in my opinion we have to take into account the security threats that our country faces. and it's not just the military, as secretary albright said. it's our diplomats. it's our intelligence officers and so forth. but whatever the threats that our country faces, we have to find the money to counteract those threats. there's many important functions of government that we need to fund, but we have to take into account their budgetary constraints in my opinion -- >> we need more ships because of china? >> we need more ships because of china but we need more ships because of russia as well. we need more ships because we're a global superpower that is largely a maritime power since we're in the new world and most of these threats we're talking about is in the old world. and getting back to 350 ships, to which donald trump is committed, to which our navy has said they want to pursue, is fundamental to our ability to project power into the old world, to deter a great power war as our they've has done for

75 years. >> i certainly agree with that, and i'm happy to see an army captain speaking so well about the navy. that's well done, sir. i can see why you're in the senate. i want to quickly give a shout out. we talked a lot about military. we've talked a lot about diplomats. i want to draw a line under those who do development. u.s. a.i.d., our ngos, the peace corps. many of them stand in risk every single day. and that is also part of our security and also an underfunded part of our security. break break. to your question. i agree completely with senator cotton's analysis, both of the overall nuclear peace and the larger d.o.d. budget. i will draw a particular line, and you know, i stipulate, i'm a navy admiral, so here it comes. but the ohio class replacement. because it is the invulnerable leg of the triad. at least invulnerable at this point. i think is of particular value. i do support the triad, not the

ziad. but i can tell you from experience those ohios need replacement. and that's the ultimate bank. last thought. bill perry, who's going to be with us today, has a book out, relatively new, called "my journey at the brink of nuclear war." and it is a terrific book about his feeling that we are edging back toward a world in which the use of nuclear weapons is far more imaginable than it was over the previous decades. i think that's deeply worrisome and needs to be part of the conversation. and it's also sadly a fundamental reason that we need to continue to have that deterrent. >> if i could just add, this is exactly the point i'm making about a new posture review. it's not just kim jong un who rattles the nuclear saber regularly. it's russian defense ministry officials and flag officers. they talk expressly about using nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons to offset their

conventional disadvantages. this is something that regularly happens in the russian language press, often not reported in the western press, but it's this kind of change that we have not seen for the last 25 years that is reminiscent of some of the most tense periods of the cold war that demand us to conduct this kind of thorough-going review. >> fred, and then we're going to go to questions. >> very short comment on admiral stavridis's comment on development, which also is partially aligned with secretary albright's reconfiguring of budgets. part of the problem is that we -- development has become a part of geopolitical competition. and is strategic but we don't think of it as strategic. and in the '60s, interestingly enough, kennedy did look at it that way. and we saw it that way during the soviet period. it's that way again. so these are strategic expenditures in development. and they have to be aligned with national strategy. and somehow over the years this has become separated. so i think there has to be a

double down on development and it has to be seen again in geopolitical strategic terms. >> here's the good news. it's incredibly inexpensive compared to the necessity of buying the high-end military systems. these are really penny on the dollar investments. and i will tell you, i spent seven years as a combatant commander in two theaters. i deployed many, many ships, aircraft carriers, destroyers, cruisers, submarines forward. perhaps the most impactful deployments i ordered were of hospital ships, comfort, mercy. that's part of our security. you said that very well. >> thanks very much. let's open it to questions. if you'd please introduce yourself when you stand. you have the advantage of being in the front row here. >> good morning. mark mabry, vice president of thing -- i wanted to ask a question of admiral stavridis.

you raised the issue of cyber. also the other panelists. we have a lot of initiatives in the government and private sector to enhance cyber resilience. we have a few international activities focused on improving, if you will, relations, expectations, norms of behavior. given the audience and the focus i'd be interested in what the next administration needs to do to raise the game in this important mission area. >> thanks. i'll give you four or five things. it's a list of 20. i strongly support dividing the national security agency from u.s. cyber command. so you have two senior individuals who can focus on two very different missions, very big span of control. i think that's happening. i hope the new administration follows through on that. secondly, we need more international cooperation and work on this. we're quite good. many of our allies are very good. within the bounds of propriety and confidentiality we need to

think of how we can learn more from, for example, the israelis, from the french who are pretty good, et cetera. thirdly, we need better interagency integration. i would argue that includes eventually a cabinet-level voice to focus on cyber. it's such a fundamental backbone to our society. our vulnerabilities are great. we have a secretary of agriculture, a secretary of interior. where's that cabinet voice on cyber security? could it be part of the director of national intelligence's role, of national intelligence's role, for example? captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac