Brian Schatz

The loss of these Cruisers without the replacement Destroyers erodes ballistic missile defense (BMD) capability in theatre.

I appreciate the attention that the Navy is giving to our shipyards.

Thank you, General. And on the total number of marines on Guam, the number I think briefed to Congress last year was 5,000, down from 8,000. Can you tell me how you got to the 5,000 and whether that number is now firm, or do you anticipate…

It is going to undermine our ability to commit to our strategy in the Asia Pacific, and it will hurt our sailors, marines, and their families.

Moving the Marines from Futenma is consistent with the wishes of the people of Okinawa.

I think the agency has done really good work in improving safety.

Last year, the Administration created the largest marine-protected area in the world.

I am uncomfortable with taking 16 months before rules are issued.

I believe this program is extremely important to coastal states.

I am concerned about the Air Force's commitment to the Asia-Pacific rebalance.

The Air Force can do more to capitalize on the talents of the National Guard and Reserve, particularly when it comes to cybersecurity.

I am particularly concerned about the Pacific Command's vulnerability to cyber attack because, unlike perhaps some other places, PACOM and the Department of Defense's installations and bases throughout the State of Hawaii are basically on…

Without assured access to fuel, you cannot fly your aircraft or power generators at forward-operating bases.

If we are going to develop a national Internet of Things plan that is in the context of a free market and the context of a democracy, how do we strike the right balance in terms of it being private sector-driven, which I think we all agree…

In order to develop a plan in an American-style democracy, it may be a couple of years before we are able to render one. And I feel like we do not have enough time for that.

Are they only ahead in terms of having developed a plan on paper, or are they actually ahead of us in terms of developing and taking advantage of the Internet of Things?

I do not want to create a scenario where I am getting e-mails two or three times a week and I do not know what to panic about and what to ignore.

What would suffice as a strong enough standard that we would all feel comfortable preempting the 50 odd state laws that we would be looking at?

I respect the California law and some other statutes are pretty good marks to make.

I think we all recognize we do not want to be inundating consumers and others with notification of breaches if they are not significant enough, and it would become meaningless.

But right now there is no lead Federal Government agency in terms of getting our arms around the problem.

It seems all of the panelists emphasize--or at least most of the panelists emphasize that the voluntary nature of the Framework was key to its initial success.

We must aim to accomplish and balance three objectives: provide maximum protection to consumers, provide maximum flexibility to promote innovation and the Internet economy while also enabling continued investment in a state of the art…

We have got to aim and accomplish and balance three objectives, in my opinion: to provide maximum protection to consumers, to provide maximum flexibility to promote innovation and the Internet economy.

I have deep reservations about intervening in the FCC's ongoing rulemaking.