There's a lot of sensitivity about federal involvement in elections around the country. I think that it would be appropriate to consider - whether there should be some basic federal minimum standards to the cybersecurity around the election infrastructure. We have federal standards for aviation security, for auto safety, for a lot of things, and elections are pretty important in the country.

I'll never forget what a Catholic priest told me; he said, "If you try to padlock the door, you have to give people an alternative path - an alternative, safer path. You can't padlock, and you shouldn't padlock a burning building."

I think that the potential for homegrown terrorist attacks is something that we have to be very concerned about, because, in many respects, it's harder to detect when you have an independent actor who may be living in our midst, in our own communities.

I hope that the states are taking seriously their obligations to harden the cybersecurity around the election infrastructure that Americans rely upon and need.

In my view, and in the view of a lot of intelligence experts, the terrorist threat that we face now has morphed significantly from the days of 9/11 to homegrown violent extremism. We have to be concerned and focused on homegrown violent extremism, countering violent extremism that exists within our borders.

The Secret Service hates to complain about something. They're secret by nature. They're not boastful; they don't like to be in the limelight. And therefore, they need middle management, i.e., a Cabinet-level person, to be their advocate, to Congress, to the White House, to ensure that they have adequate funding.

With every case from years ago there should be lessons learned.