c-span 2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern. c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by american television companies and brought the you by your cable or satellite provider. up next on c-span3, a ersation from e u.s. institute of peace on national security challenges facing the trump administration. we will hear from former secretary of state madeleine albright, and republican senator tom cotton. it is great to be here. thanks to the institute of peace. i think that everybody here probably knows these panelists, so i am going to be brief and you have them in the program as well. we will 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. am bbassador to the united nations.

she is the founder and chair of albright stonebridge group, a global strategy firm and prof professor of diplomacy at georgetown university. admiral james stavridis is dean at the diplomacy school at tufts university. he served as admiral supreme in europe, and he is currently the chairman of the board of directors of the naval institute. and overseeing the expansion of the work, an award wing journalist in europe, and served as editor of the wall street europe based in brussels. and senator tom cotton has served as a republican senator from arkansas and he has served

on the select committees of intelligence and after a law school at harvard he left his career to serve as an army infantry officer including service in afghanistan and iraq after 9/11. good morning. our topic this morning is simple, because i have four smart people here and they have a lot to say i have a feeling. this is quite simple, and i want totart with youdmiral stavris and tell me your three national security priorities for the next administration. >> i want to start with one that may or may not surprise you. i think that cyber is extremely important. the reason i put it at the top of my list is because i think that in cyber, we have the et greatest mismatch between the level of threat which is quite high and our level of preparation which is frankly quite low.

in other words, we worry about north korea, but we have options that we are prepared. we worry about russia, and we are kind of prepared and we worry about spry lent extremism, but sigher, we are not there. so cyber. and two is the broad return of brief politics such as broadly characterized russia and china, but i add to it the bubbling mix that i believe is going to be the reton of the world stage of germany and japan which is going to be fascinating, and above all in this sentry, the rise of india and how the move the pieces around is going the bel challenging, and this is going to get into the south china sea and crimea and everything else that we face. second is the great power politics underline disorder. and the third for me would be the continuing stresses and strains from the violent extremism which we tend to identify as radical islam which

is a significant part, but we have also racial challenges. dylan roof is a extremist, and others, and so that strain of violent extremism under the surface of the great power politics and looming out there like a tower is cyber. >> secretary albright? >> i would certainly agree with all of those and then have my own kind of list. in a little bit different organization. i do think that we are living in a completely changed world in terms of the international system and how we operate and govern those questions. the discussion as to whether it is all sta actors i would argue that the presence of nonstate actors has added an awful lot of challenges, especially since our tool, our national security tool box is set up to deal with states and not non-state actors, and so the

governance, and the second, i think, it is the challenge of how the great power rivalries go on, and 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. so those aspects, and looking at the regional problems that come up and bite you that you have not been ready for. and the third aspect has to do with the more process, and there is no faith in the institution, and this is going to go a little bit not just to the cyber fwoux information. i stole this line from sill conn valley, but it worked so well to explain it. it is that people are talking to the governments on the 21st century technologies. the government hears them on 20th century technologies and providing 19th century responses. and therefore there is no faith in the institution, and trying

to figure out how to deal with all of this, and i have a el elegant term for this, and the world is a mess [ laughter ] that is going to let ordinary people understand what we are saying. you think that there has to be some way that we look at the institutional structure, and i think that we need to understand the following thing and i am hoping that 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. it is no president coming 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 the things that will bite you that you don't know are coming. >> and which leads us to senator cotton, and we have been talking and found it very interesting the way that you are looking at this, that we talk about three national security priorities, and we are not talking about the necessarily threats, and you view those quite differently. >> sure. and thank you, martha and the institute for peace. i can't disagree with the admiral or the secretary, but as

mar ththa said, the title of th panel is priorities and not threats. the threats of china, and russia, and rogue nations, and islamic actors and transatlantic groups and no telling what they will do in ten days or the first ten days of the trump administration, and all of us in government know that you have to react the to contact, but are where can the new administration go out the make the contact and take the initiative to set the priorities to fundamentally advantage the united states in strategic competition. so three areas, and this is a good time to pursue them. this is a new administration when the people expect a new path, and it is a time when you have the most e domestic politic political capital and working with congress, and so the first stt substantial increases in the defense budget, and maybe going back to the national defense panel in 2014 based on bob

gates' budget in 2012 and the the last time that the department of defense budgeted before the budget control act went into effect, and the sequester spending cuts took effect. second is a thorough ongoing review of the strategic posture. both the bush and the obama administrations first year in office took a are review. a and the world has changed drastically, and russia and china are developing different things, and china is violating the inf treattreaty, and if the to be believed they can deliver drones into our coastal cities, so we have to fundamentally reconsider the nuclear and the missile defense posture, and third, the domestic issue that has far reaching international consequences is to accelerate the shale revolution in energy revolution. we are blessed to have a country of great innovators of risk t e

takers and investors of fantastic scientists and geology that permits shale production in a way that no other country in the world has that combination help us to become a global energy super power and that is going to give us a freedom acti action, and put more strategic pressure on rush sharsia, and t three a areas to pursue them, and whatever happens in the world, and it will give us greater strategic flexibility to pursue policies in particular countries and regions. >> thank you. fred? >>er for decades already, i have been stealinging secretary albright's ideas, so let me first say that 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 orderly unless the u.s. gets more deep l deepl

engaged. there is no one else to substitute for us, and if they don't, less benevolent actors will fill the void. i want you to remember on this day, because we are at a defining moment in history. you can pick your date, 1919, 1945, and you can go back to or 1789,ut that is where we are. couplehat one of the most fraught moments of history which is the transition to a new president, new party with the untested president, and 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, and with the failed vienna summit with where the soviets decided that the president was weak with the berlin wall, and then a year later, you had the cuban missile crisis. so that is what set the parameters for the rest of the cold war, but we almost had nuclear war. i am not saying anything like that will happen this time, because the cold war was at stake then, but i believe that global system is at stake now. and so my big overarching roof

is to adjust and reinvigorate the practices and the values that we have always had. and then three pillars and these are the three issues. europe and russia. i think that it was terrific that the secretary pointed to the european union, because the european union comes unraveled or more dysfunctional, you cannot have a strong america in the world with a cornerstone of engagement. and the advances of russia are pushing on that. and both of those things we need reassurances for europe, and we need russia to know that there are certain lines that cannot be cross and redrawing the borders that can be be tested at the allies of the top of the list. the second is in the middle east. here i want to embrace the atlantic council and the work that the center has done with madeleine albright, and steve hadley, and not a crisis in 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, and it is to be dealt with in the long term with the allies and doubling and deepening the are relationships with the allies in the region, and that is our traditional allies and then working in the long run to tap what steve hadley and madam albright saw. youth to point to prosperity. and also, a point to russia, and if china is the threat over time, it is a stakeholder now, and it has a huge amount at stake right now. we can't put ourselves into the conflict with china if we want the global system to be reinvigorate and readjust and

survive and we have to do it together with china. along those line, i really think that we then have to double down the relationships with the allies in the far east, because if we are strong with our al allies with japan, with south korea and others, we will be able to have a much more positive relationship with china, and so those are the three u.s./europe/middle east/china/asia. >> thank you. senator cotton, i want to go with you on this, what do you sense that the donald trump's priorities will be? we have seen the tweets and the things that he has said in the campaign and since he is president-elect, and what is your sense of the priorities in terms of the foreign policy? >> well, he is going to the make america great again. >> and how is he going to do that? >> well, some of the issues that i touched on are the ones that the president-elect campaigned in substantial increases of military spending and u fundamental reconsideration of the nuclear and strategic posture and the oil and gas production and these things whatever he says on the

twitterer or media interviews are not good things for countries like russia or iran or some of ther adversaries in the middle east. if you are look atle some of the appointees to the cabinet whether it is jim mattis or mike pompeo, these are not shrinking violets. i suspect that president trump what he said on the campaign trail and based on the nominations will take a firmer line around the world with our adversaries and try to project greater strength and demand more respect for the united states. and less willing to make concessions without receiving concessions in return. i think that those are all good things and a good change after eight years of the obama administration in which the president said famously early on that he wanted to extend a open hand rather than the clinched fist, but sometimes the clinched fist has to precede the open hand. >> and this is something that we

have never seen before with thet tweets, to this number of tweets like this. it is usually a statement, and, you know, vy formal, but those tweets have moved markets and moved ford and carrier, and how will that work in foreign policy? can it move foreign leaders, secretary albright? >> i will try and be polite. let me just say that i amor v - am very concerned about the tweets and the general messages going out, and the if i could say that secretary kerry said that i invented the term indispensable nation and i didn't, it was president clinton but i said so it often it identified with me, but nothing about that term that says alone. it means that the united states has to be engaged and that is the message that i think that we need to get out there and not as america first, but as america as a partner there. is nothing wrong with partnerships. i know that americans don't like the word multi lateralism, and

it is too many syllables and ends innism. but it means partnership, and the world as we see it in terms of the what you call the glowle ball issues throughout, whether it is terer errorism or disease or nuclear proliferation, those issues require partnerships. and is so, i do think that there has been a system in place in the world for a very long time of how governments communicate with each other, and how presidents communicate with each other, and how those documents are developed, are they a part of some kind of a decision-makin process that does in fact reflect what the government thinks and what the congress thinks and what the american people think. and the tweets don't deal with that. in fact, they are -- >> but if you want to shake it u up, and if you want a re-set,

and you want to get someone's attention and taiwan's attention and china's attention, why not? >> because i -- let me just say it is fine, and disruption is an interesting theory actually and i think that it does not hurt. destroying is not a good thing. i think that part of the issue is that i think that it is absolutely essential, i said this, that foreign policy does not come in four or eight-year segments. every administration, especially of a different party, tries to do it differently, but it has created great concerns, and let me just take one example from the transfer from clinton to bush. i was in the middle of negotiation,s with the north koreans, and p bill pbill perry wrote about it. the decision made by the bush administration not to continue the talks so i would put north e korea into one of the more dangerous are aspects of what is going on out there, and i use atz an example that you may disagree with what president

obama did, and i might disagree with what president bush did, and actually steve and i took a pledge not the to talk about the past, but it is it what itis, and it is essential that there is some understanding with what the track is, and what the role of the united states is, and how we behave as a responsible power in cooperation with others, and tweets doesn't do it for me. >> and anybody else want to jump in on that? >> i will. i agree with the secretary albright, that think of it as a diet f. your d-- of it as a die f. your diet is exclusively shots of expresso, but parts off a fulsome diet where you are conducting diplomacy, you are executing disagreements and executing treaties and moving forces and a extra shot of expresso can jazz you and energize it, but where i worry

about it is where i think of the young officers a and military context to it. say a tweet appears that says, hey the next iranian gun boat that crosses the bow of the navy ship is going to be blown out of the water. >> which he said. i don't believe it is a tweet, but a -- you are very close, because i did this story yesterday. >> and what we need to recognize is that particular shot of expresso has an effect all of the way down to the young commanding officer where he or she is dealing with the kind of the rules of the engagement moments, and so you are potentially kind of create a short circuit from the ultimate commander in chief town to the operators on the ground, and it can be the same in diplomacy and the same in economics, so where i come out is that in occasional shot of expresso, okay, but it cannot be, collusively u your diet. >> and the senator said that it wouldn't be and you have a madison there, and others doing those things.

>> and so let me just embrace the tweets. as you know, i'm a little schizophrenic here as a journalist and foreign policy analyst. and as a journalist, he has good heavens captured the news story everyday and pretty brilliant what he is doing, but let me compliment the admi because the tweets need to be accompa accompanied, and they have to be accompanied by a strategy. but you can't expect the strategy to be there yet, but it has to come relatively soon. there is an unpredictability that the president-elect has embraced, and on many issues, that can be useful politically, and on the global stage, the u.s. has to be predictable, and the allies have to know where it stands, and the allies have to know where it stands and accompanied by the tweets, it is fine and can be highly effective, but i don't expect the president-elect to put on a bumper sticker save the national order. but this is a tweet that i would

like to see that i want president trump to make global america great again, and for that, he has to lay out a strategy that embraces this order that we created after 1945 when we had 50% of the global gdp and now we have 18 or 20%, and that means that we have to lead more collaborately and lead in a way that inspires the people around the world so they want to follow. and if he can to that and tweet ev every day how he is doing that, that would be a wonderful way, because kit reach the entire world in that fashion. and so i don't think that you can expect a populist president, and maybe the most populist president that we have elected since andrew jackson to not be populist in office, but he can be populist and sustain the global system that has benefited us all so much at the same time. >> and senator cotton, do you believe that other countries need to know where we stand as he described it, and if so,

where do you think that russia thinks that they stand at this point in time? >> i think that 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, you have donald trump who has said that it would be a good thing if we had a better relationship with russia and cooperated more on the common interest, a hand is a good thing, and the last couple of presidents have tried to take the tactic, but they have been wrong footed every time. i am shure that vladimir putin believes he can wrong foot donald trump again and advance his project rather than advancing america's interest in the world. when you are back to the fundamental matters such as the defense budget and the size of the navy and the nuclear modernizati modernization, and some of the nominees that donald trump has chosen, there is not a clear signal being sent to moscow right now from the trump transition team. >> and we are going to open it

up for questions very soon, and wander around, but i want to get a little bit on the threats, and the priorities are going forward, but how you view donald trump's foreign policy agenda or his strategic thinking in terms of the foreign policy, and what you have to really define it. i mean, throughout the career, everybody has defined, this is the clinton doctrine, and the obama doctrine and the bush doctrine and do you need it in every case or can it be a case-to-case basis, admiral? >> well, it is premature to try to scope it out, simply because the nominees that president-elect trump have put forward were not anticipated to say the least . if you go back 60 days ago and you said that we will pick a fo four-star general to head up the department of defense, and another four-star general at dhs and the ceo of exxonmobil all of which i think that are good picks by the way, we never would

have anticipated it. so you have to wait and see to see that team come together and interact with mike flynn and k.t. mcfarland and do the traditional nsc role and give them some space to shape the view. knowing very well the two military officers and mike flynn, i think that i can sense the kind of the outline of where things will go, but we need to wait. we have to get rex tillerson in the mix in a significant way as well. give them some space and see where it goes, but i want to agree with the senator and fred that we've got to have a consistency and a view. so we should give them time to develop it, but we should not allow ourselves to remain on the diet of expresso.

>> 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 sit 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. >> that is frightening. >> well, it is very interesting is, 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 thin are carried out. in your example about at 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 ass, 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 invest as much 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 partnt is $51 billion. the budget for the pentagon is somewhere between $600 and $700 billion. 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

walking 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. then we will open it up for questions. >> it's not the '60s anymore in part because large nuclear arsenals are no longer restricted to the united states and the soviet union, russia w now. 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 about 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, so, 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 navy 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 vy 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 dyad. 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' 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. but 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 theatres.

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. >> thankvery much. let's open it to questions. if you'd pase introduce yourself when you stand. you have the advantage of being in the front row here. >> good morning. mark mabry, 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, for example? and lastly, better private cooperation. the al brain that operation arout t west coast. we need to bring them together, better private/public cooperation. i could go on a long time on this, but there are some ideas on that. >> and admiral, are we late on the cyber security game here? >> the way to think of it is, go back 100 years and think about aviation. we were just at the beginning, we had used planes a little bit, commercial flights were just starting. we're kind of at that stage in cyber. i don't particularly fault or blame us. we're still kind of on the beach at kitty hawk, i think. but we have to go faster, because the cyber threat, the internet of things will go to 25

billion devices within five years. the acceleration demands us to go faster than aviation. we are at that stage, i would say. >> i think we are behind on it. the question is, what is the organizational structure for it? i'm not sure that a cabinet role is the right one, but it does need to be within the national security decision making system. and especially since it's divided a lot of different parts of the government, and needs an intelligence part of it. so the dni part of it is important. the part of it that i say fairly frequently these days is that reorganization of the government becomes its own kind of monkey works in many ways. it takes an awful lot of time, and takes an awful lot of attention. and we need to focus on the

substance of this, as quickly as possible, raer this the than trying the go and decide who is in charge and who does what. >> senator cotton, how can congress help during this transition period? >> do no harm. >> thank you, doctor. >> we passed cyber legislation last year that was a step in the right direction. i'm not sure it's all the way we need to go. but going back to my point about development of new delivery systems in the nuclear triad, this is where the ball is primarily in the executive branch's court. i think with driving forward and i agree with secretary albright and what she said that if you think that you have a problem with the organization and if your organization is a government and the solution is moving around the boxes and the lines, you are ro probably wrong, and the solution is better e leadership and a change culture. and i agree with what the admiral said, we're kind of at the dawn of the cyber age.

the people working on this problem in the government are the best people in the world. america produces the best people in the world, and we have peer competitors who can hold at risk things that we hold very dear and it is a threat that we need to the take seriously. >> one final comment? >> simply to put it in a military context, 100 years ago, we had an army, navy, and marine corps. today, army, navy, marine corps, and of course now we have an air force. and so i think that of course we may need another branch. we may be thinking back and say, gosh, what were we thinking? >> you've each talked about -- sequestration levels of the defense budget, and about high bang for the buck development. coming at a time of incredible

economic stress, huge debt. and i'm curious to hear, where as congress controls the purse strings, where do you believe that the money will come from, senator? where would you see the priorities for reducing budgets to take care of this today? >> i'll defer to the ways and means committees for that. hopefully we'll have economic growth that will generate some more savings. and you can always find some savings in the department of defense. i read there was $125 billion in savings, i don't quite buy that number. but bob gates found $400 million early in the obama administration. he wasn't allowed to reinvest that in the military, as he was promised, but that's an example. one of the things of a top

priority, accelerated oil and gas production. happen fi -- happy fact is that the good lord put oil and gas in a lot of places where the federal government owns places. so, we can generate some revenue for that. and there are ways we can find the revenue we need to meet the threats we face around the world. i'm not saying it's going to be easy, but i think both parties, at least the democrats i work withing reg ularly on the armed service committee and the armed forces committee recognize that. >> next question. right here. >> to go from the heights to something specific, if mr. putin continues his aggression in ukraine, should the new administration renew sanctions in march? if it doesn't, senator cotton, should congress pass legislation asking for sanctions? >> i suspect vladimir putin will

continue his aggression, i don't see him leaving there anytime soon. so, i would support the extension of sanctions. i would support a whole suite of efforts to apply more pressure to russia, so they know, and they know that costs will be imposed when they cross over those boundaries. the report that the director of national intelligence leased lastabou week russians hacking the dnc and john podesta says this is a clear pattern in cyber space, but an escalation of the scope and the scale and the reach, and you have to wonder why vladimir putin thought that he could get away with that escalation. that is one example and the one specific example of the crimes and transgressions that russia has committed against the united

states and allies of the united states, and look for places to gain the upperhand and not in crimea or in a particular domain like cyber or nuclear, but across the board. >> can i just add a point there? >> yes go, ahead, admiral. >> agreeing with the senator, but slightly different. a russian proverb, when you hit steel, withdraw. there hasn't been a lot of steel, we should confront where we must in cyber, syria, and ukraine, for example. and we should find zones of cooperation. and there are potential ones out there. counter terrorism, counter piracy and potentially in

afghanistan where our interests align. perhaps in the arctic, maybe trade control. so, confront where we must, but cooperate where we can. and the fallacy, is the idea that we will create a grand, strategic bargain with russia. that will not happen, i don't think. we'll have a transactional relationship with some steel. but also find some zones of cooperation. >> sek tar albright, i want to hear what you have to say about russia and where you think that we will be going. >> i think we need to be tough, but also, we need to persuade our allies, the sanctions need to be renewed by our allies as well. it requires diplomacy and work to be done and not just america first and saying how we are going to be doing things. i am concerned about the discussions about russia have taken place during the campaign making it seem that they are

some sort of benign operation, and they are not. we have to look at the hacking and what it has been about and what the role of information has been, and the different aspects of the information aspect of this. but we need to be tough while at the same time looking for e areas of where we can operate, but there has to be a diplomatic activity with the europeans to make sure they also renew the sanction >> okay. question over here. >> john alterman, cics. senator cotton, you talked about the need to increase military spending. before you came, secretary kerry talked about putting a couple trillion dollars into iraq and afghanistan. i think most americans would wonder if it's a question of investment. as you say, there are superpower threats, threats like iran, north korea, nonstate actor threats.

like secretary albright was talking about, and there are a number of things that we could use military instruments to address. as you look around the world, what do you think we need to use military instruments to do more of, and what do you think we are currently using military instruments to do that we should be doing less of? >> well, my preference would be to use military force as little as possible. no one who has seen combat would like to send our sons and daughters off to combat again. the trillions of dollars in iraq and afghanistan was money spent on wartime capabilities. and i would like to see it invested in a base budget to deter those kinds of conflicts from happening in the first place. too often, our military is pressed into things that are not core military operations. we were talking earlier about

the roles of our young privates and corporals played on the front lines of afghanistan or iraq and that were diplomatic or corporate or skills that they did not learn in basic training. when i was on afghanistan i was on the joint team. and we didn't just have air force and army, but state and usda, and we had a.i.d. i'd like to see more of that. i would like to see us apply all of the other levers of national power to all of the problem s that we face so that we are not using our military for tasks that they performed however admirally is not in the core skillset and detracts from the skills they are trained and that we have to use them. >> can i just add one thing? >> go ahead. >> i totally agree, and i want to pick up the secretary's theme of allies. nato, despite the fact that we need to get our european allies to step up and spend the 2% of

their goal. it se normous allied capability there. japan, australia, and we have resources in our alliance system that we can tap if we can execute alignment of purpose. not always a given, but it is anher place that you can draw resources and potentially lessen the burden on the u.s.sp troops. >> and martha, if i could add there, and when i am speaking of not having to employ our military like that, i mean in places like afghanistan and iraq a and it is a great benefit to have them in places like south korea and japan and europe in permanent status, and we have alliances like nato or the u.s./japan treaty not because we are charitable organization, but we are a nation state and we have interests, and it is the nation interests that we have because they are in interest prior marly to us, and it is in our interest to have those relationships than the troops

the deployed and have them based here in united states. questions of whether they are deployed in the right places for instance in europe and if we should move them further to the east in poland and the baltics and more son than we have now, . you talk about priorities versus threat. immediately when donald trump takes office on the 20th and none of us can predict an there's lots of signs out there what do you think the first crisis or threat might be, is it -- secretary albright can you start? >> i don't want to jinx anything but i think that -- >> never predict? >> well, you can't predict but i hope that when he is president and gives his inaugural speech

that it's very clear about where america stands and then in fact there is a comprehensive foreign poli policy speech. i think there are going to be threats harder to deal with, as we watch what the terrorism level has been and what is happening in turkey, i am nervous about north korea because we're dealing with a nut case on the other side and so he really is somebody that might take advantage at that particular moment. >> notice that i said we can't predict yet i asked him to. >> it's what we do. >> when your adversaries test an your allies hedge, so if we're not clear on ukraine you might find testing, you fight find the

germans and others hedging so american leadership and predictability is absolutely crucial at this point in time and as much as i would like to have the administration take time to develop a national strategy document on the other hand they have to start developing national strategy ideas really with the inaugural, so i think the greatest dangers come if we don't have a strategy because if you don't you don't know what the idea is, but it is key to work with china to work this out. what an incredible opportunity this would be to work with the chinese the take on this global menace. >> i think that was a tweet that it's not going to happen, they're not going to get a nuclear weapon to reach the u.s. are we talking preemptive strike here? >> the early stages of this

presidency i think a simple fact is most of our adversaries are scared of donald trump to put it very blunty and add verp sayvei like china and russia, i think vladimir putin is more likely to play rope a dope. but north korea because of kim jong-un's history and islamic terrorists i would say are the two most likely president trump would face in the very early days of his administration. >> i like to quote bob gates, he used to say our record is perfect, we have never gotten it

right. >> that's what i'm saying, everything you said won't happen. >> so i'll fearlessly say see something maritime happening it could be iranians going after one of our destroyers, i could see china sort of a south tug in the south china sea, possibly in the east china sea, i think a maritime touch and undoubtedly cyber. you're going to see intrusion in cyb cyber from all directions because they want to know where the limits are. >> saying some are scared of donald trump, we heard secretary terry say the red line thing didn't really matter they paid consequences is that in a sense okay whatever you think about

that red line whether in fact they were allowed to cross or not, that isn't in the adversaries' mind anymore they will have donald trump who made some pretty powerful threats if you will. >> i agree they are frightened of president-elect trump because he's unpredictable but they will seek to remediate that by defining where the red lines are and whether this administration will shift those lines as a matter of tactics i don't know, we'll know more when that national security team comes together. >> one thing has to think about early on is because i think there is a danger of an isis or isis-related attack on our homeland and indeed i think they would like to do that early in a trump stradministration and wha

the reaction of trump to that because with al qaeda with 9/11 isis has weakened an lost territory, it is becoming more dangerous outside of its territory in the u.s. and the west, so it's one has to game out so you don't play into their hands by overresponding and acting as a recruiting tool. >> my name is shelley pitterman, i work with the refugee agency. the united nations has not been mentioned yesterday so i would like to invite the panel to speak to the role of addressing national security and building partnerships supporting development and dealing with mass movements of refugees an others. thank you. >> we'll start with secretary

albright. or ambassador all strebright at time. >> i am a believer in the u.n. but thra secretary general that an expert on these. it does not work without the united states and i think that we cannot have influence on the u u.n. if we do not pay, it's a club, the dues as well as the peacekeeping operation and when i was there we were working on reforming the u.n. and at the time we had not paid up and the british in the general assembly session delivered a line they had waited more than 200 years to say representation without taxation and i think in order to have the kind of influence we need we cannot have resolution

where we say we're not going to take part in the united neiitem united nations say it's a club where people talk a lot. the u.n. needs a real reform. and the security council itself is like the rubix cube when we were there we were suggesting germany and japan become permanent members of the u.n. leading of the security council leaving the italians coming to me saying that's not fair we lost the war too, that's not a great campaign slogan. four out of five were europeans and i would say i need help with the x vote and he said i'm so

sorry the eu does not have a position. and go back two days later and say can you help me now and they say no, because the eu has a common position. it requires support and if we give up on the u.n. we have lost one great tool of governance. >> do you believe everything she said an agree with that? >> not every single word. i can say the u.n. is in the dog house in congress right now as they are in arkansas and i suspect most other states in the country, and the kind of reform needs to be far reaching it is an outrage that the united security council passed that last month and outrage that we continue china and russia to block resolutions giving them cover what they do in seriyria, there's going to be a serious

discussion about the united nation's role and the unite's reel in the united neiationsnat. >> can you tell us what some of the priorities national securities are for this fast growing continent. >> we have a very vibrant center, the head of that center dr. peter pham is concerned we are not paying attention to some very negative evolutions particularly focused on congo right now. you could have a pathway from africa to europe that dwarves what's happened with syria and you can imagine the political consequences of that. a couple years ago we were ta

talking about six out of ten fastest growing continents in the world in africa which is true, for all the priorities we listed you just can't turn away from that because that could turn out to be a black swan in different way that is saps your attention. >> thank you for all the wonderful questions, a final question we have a few minutes left and that's when you go forward an think about national security and think about foreign policy, what is the moral responsibility that we have as a nation? >> if you would like to watch the rest of this event go to c-span.org and type in isp in the space bar. take you now on a discussion on president trump's push for increased federal infrastructure spending. it features experts from three conservative think tanks at the

heritage foundation in washington d.c. all live now on c-span3.

good afternoon welcome to the heritage foundation in our douglas and -- forum. we welcome on all of the occasions we do ask that our cell phones have been silenced or turned off, for watching online, questions and comments

could be sent to speaker heritaheritage speakerheritage.org. leading our discussion today is michael sergeant research associate in thomas a.rowe institute. he over sesees and examines our surface transportation aviation water ways and other policy issues related to infrastructure around the country, a regular contributor to the daily signal, please join me in welcoming michael sergeant. mike. [ applause ] thanks, good afternoon and thanks for joining us at the heritage foundation. in terms of sheer lip service,

infrastructure was one of the most prompt issues in the 2016 campaign. both candidates addressed it as a way to deal with our crumbling roads and bridges and delap p e dilapidated airports. now the new president is poised to offer a $1 trillion infrastructure plan and has the democrats following suit with our own $1 trillion proposal although still very few specifics these issues will come to the forefront as campaign promises run up against reality. the questions we must address is that will haphazardly throwing money at projects help an economy mired in debt with a relatively low unemployment and worth investing in projects in a