Welcome to CyberFocus from the McCrary Institute, where we explore the people and ideas shaping and defending our digital world. I'm your host, Frank Cilluffo, and this week, I have the privilege to sit down with John Katko. Johnwas a serious, strong, and major voice on cybersecurity issues on Capitol Hill. Former ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, previously was in leadership positions on both the Cyber Subcommittee and the Aviation Security Subcommittee.
Prior to coming to Capitol Hill, he was an assistant U.S. attorney working organized crime cases and was a big loss for Washington when he moved out of the Hill, but is a big voice still today as a member and as a senior fellow with the McCrary Institute. So, really excited to sit down with John. And, John, great
to. Great to see you today. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. Yeah. So I thought maybe we'd start with a little bit of level setting and sort of when you went into your roles on Capitol Hill and where the cybersecurity landscape was then versus where it is today. Yeah, I mean, when I first got into Congress,
I had just come off being 20 years as an organized crime prosecutor. And in that capacity, we also dealt with the Joint Terrorism task forces all over the country and all over the world, for that matter. And it was clear the threat when I first got to Congress greatest threat was from homegrown acts of terrorism inspired by isis. And ISIS was running strong then, and there was a lot of major incidents in the U.S. and so when I went to Congress, I was on a TTSA
subcommittee for two terms. And I was there because there was a healthy desire by ISIS to take out more planes. And we interrupted a lot of incidents, and there was a lot of legislation around it. But during that four years, things really started gravitating and gravitating very quickly towards cyber and cyber attacks. And by the end of my second term, it was quite clear that cyber was the focus. So I went to the head of the CyberSecurity subcommittee for two years, and then I ended up
taking over the Homeland Security Committee for Republicans. And by the time I left Congress, cyber was the preeminent threat to the United States, bar none. It's not to say that ISIS isn't a threat. It's not to say that. It is coming back a
little. It is coming back a little. But the quintessential and ubiquitous threat to our
country's homeland is absolutely cyber. And that focused a lot of our attention on what to do about it. And we can talk about that if you want. About the Legislation how reform CIS and all. Yeah, actually, I'd love to, because you played an
integral role, a central role in the standing up of CISA morphing from the nppd. And I don't even remember what the acronym stands for, National Prevention and Protection Directed. I don't even remember. But it's in a rearview mirror. Exactly. It is in a rearview mirror and for good reason. But you and another friend of mine, Mike McCall, were very integral into that. And then you also had major roles in terms of
enhancing CISA's capability. So let's look back at this. Sure. Let's give you a little
bit of historical perspective, because I think it's important. John Ratcliffe and McCall and some of those others were really instrumental in the CISA legislation. We all believed that we needed an agency within the Homeland Security umbrella that was like the center field, or quarterback, if you will, of the cybersecurity apparatus in federal government. And we can talk more about where it is now, but let's talk about what we did to stand
it up. So we stood it up and our goal was always to make it a very significant and robust place for cybersecurity. And so we passed legislation to do that. And by the time it was up and running, I had ended up taking more senior role within the committee and then taking over the committee. And I quickly realized that not only was this an extremely important part of legislation to stand up, we had to be properly funded and we had to spend a lot of time
and a lot of effort getting the funding that it needed. And Bennie Thompson was a very good partner on the Democratic side. He was terrific about making sure that we had the funding for CISA. And it's a $2.53 billion agency now, and it needs to be a lot more resource wise. So standing it up and then funding
it and then making sure we attract the right people there. So, as you all well knew, and everybody in the cyber realm knows, manpower is such a critical problem, that attracting talent and keeping that talent is very hard, especially on a government salary. So we try creative things to up the talent, but we've got terrific leaders. We had Chris Krebs, who stood it up and did a great job, who. I spoke
to today, and he said hello, by the way. He's a man, he's always got
better hair than me. He's in the uk, but all good. And then, you know, and then working with Jen Easterly. She's been terrific. And they care about, they care about the mission deeply and care about keeping our country safe. So as CISA got its feet under them and was starting to establish itself within the agency, then we started realizing that information flow was critically important. And that led to the Cercia legislation,
which I really championed, and we got it across the finish line. It was a lot of fits and starts, but we got it done. And the Cersei legislation, to me, is one of the most important pieces of cybersecurity legislation we've ever done. And I say that because it's going to mandate, when it's up and running, that, you know, incidents, once it reaches a certain level, are reported to CISA in a timely manner. You strip out all the identifying information, just give us the malware and. And
the information we need. What CISA has to do is make that information actionable to this public, get it back out in a timely manner, and they're working on that, and I think they're going to do a good job with that. And that was really important for us because I think that understanding the nature and complexity of the threat, we've had LA forget, we've had all these other threats like Solar Winds and so many others, Colonial Pipeline, that they're coming fast and furious. And I'm gonna pull
the thread a little further in a second on Circia and whether congressional intent is being met and harmonization of various regulations that are across the board. But before we go there, how would you grade CISA today? I think CISA is doing a terrific
job. I'd give him an A, given the circumstances under which you're operating, a very woefully inadequate budget and trying to get the talent they need to get. And quite frankly, the other portion of it is the incessant turf battles that go on. Right.
So when we formulated none of those. Right. When we formulated cisa, we envisioned that
to be the quarterback, if you will, in the cybersecurity team. Right. And we envisioned the Department of Defense having the offensive and defensive capabilities. Right. Offensive and defensive teams. And you have NSA being special teams, to use a sports euphemism. And then we realized we were lacking with cyber director, so we encouraged the administration to reinstitute a cyber director. And Inglis was terrific. But I think Inglis would admit, or others will
say, he didn't have the authority he should have had as a head coach. He
said as much on this show. And the problem with that is that you had
people throwing elbows, you know, in a different turf, and that's not good. We should all be on the same team. And it's not like anyone's anti American, but people are loath to give up the turf. Right. And so making that, smoothing that out is an important part of it. And I think one of the things we need to do is to give that ondcp. Oncd, excuse me, Drug days. ONCD Director. More counter drugs. Right, Exactly. More. More authority and a better line of communication to the
President. He should be the center fielder coach who sees all those different things, the special teams, offense and defense, CISA and says and State Department and all the other things. Too many people are getting into president's ear. You need to have someone that can sift it all out and give it to the President and see the entire landscape, not just an individual's personal turf. And that's what I envision. That's what we
need to do. So I would give our overall cybersecurity structure a B maybe, but I would give CISA what they're doing under the circumstances with which you're doing it. I give them. Nay. Awesome. And I love the way you did frame the National
Cyber Director, which was a big priority of ours at the Solarium Commission. Yes, it was. We listened to you. Yeah. Which is great. I just hope Congress continues to listen and we'll get into that in a second. But the way you framed it, I think is really good because you needed someone who can get into the headphones of both the offensive and the defensive coordinator of a team. And one of the things that I think makes CISA unique is that FBI has a critical mission, but
it's a very focused, investigatory law enforcement mission. NSA has a critical mission, but it's primarily an almost exclusive, exclusively focused overseas that there wasn't. And other entities had regulatory roles that weren't necessarily going to be trusted by the. By the private sector, which is essential. They're frontline warriors in this industry. Right. If you look at it this
way, like, to your point, FBI wanted to have the Cercia legislation have the reporting going right to them. All the incidents like they're law enforcement. It's a different. It
would scare, potentially. Yes. And so we had. If you had a stronger ONCD authority,
they could have tamped that down a lot quicker than we did. We were able to tamp it down, but that's kind of the things I'm talking about. That's why you need a strong central person there to oversee everything and properly advise the President.
Awesome. Let's go to your former home, Capitol Hill, and lots of developments right now, obviously in lots of different areas. But before we sort of jump in into CIRC and what its implications are and congressional intent and any impact you think overturning of Chevron deference may have. Overall, how do you feel Congress is doing since you're putting on your professorial hat and giving grades, how would you grade Congress? I think they're
doing pretty well. I don't know what grade I would give them, but I think they understand the promise and the threat that AI is. For example, I mean, when Schumer comes out and says he wants to dedicate like $32 billion to it, it's clear to me that he understands that it's a problem. Now, whether we should donate or designate that much money towards, I don't know. But the bottom line is trying to get a grip on the complexity and the promise and the problem that AI
creates. They understand that, and kudos to Congress for understanding that. They really don't know what the heck it is, and that scares them. That's a good thing. Right? I do think that at times they have a misguided view of cisa, and I think some of it's politically motivated. You know, from back in when the previous head of CISA said that the 2020 election was secure. Well, it was. Whether you like it or not, it was. And I think that's kind of cast a pall over CISA
a little bit in some circles, but I think that's diminishing now. And I think people understand we need a strong cisa and we need a CISA that's going to be very effective going forward. So who are some new. So big
loss when you left, it happened to be the same time that Congressman Jim Langevin left and a friend and Senator Sasse left. Those were some big. That's sort of like hall of Famers going off. Well, I appreciate that. I don't know if I
was at the level of those two, but absolutely, we worked very well together and that was. And we understood now lost Mike Gallagher. So who are the bright lights? You know, I made Andrew Garberino head of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee. I just had the
privilege to testify. Before him recently, and he. He gets it, his staff gets it.
And I'm very hopeful and happy for him because he understands the priority that it is and he's a very good advocate and more importantly, he's a very good listener to the people in the know that go to talk to him. He listens. And I think Congressman or Senator Peters is great on the Senate side, I think. Laura Lee, keep an eye on her coming in, coming up. She's very good on it. Nancy Mace at times seems to show a propensity for it. And somebody that I
would look at that is just took over a position from Congressman Joyce. Joyce was a bad loss leaving the Appropriations Subcommittee for Homeland because he understood the Cyberstar very well. But I think Amaday is going to be a willing partner and he's going to listen and he's going to learn because he wants to get things done. So I think those are some of them. I think there's more, but, you know, there's some there that are very interested in it, and that's encouraging going forward. And, you
know, first time I testified, it was the Senate in the early 90s on cyber. A lot of members didn't have email, and certainly these weren't available back then. They
weren't a blessing and curse of. The R and R. Yeah, I'm not sure it
is a blessing, that's for sure. But the truth is now you do have members coming in that are at least familiar with technology. And I remember briefings in the White House where you'd have all the cyber people sort of treated as a very dark black magic because they didn't want to share. Exactly. And quite honestly, we didn't have the empirical evidence and we weren't as dependent back then. So I do think we're starting to see some change. But it takes a lot of work. It takes
a lot of work. And some of this isn't sexy. It's blocking, tackling, and legislating. And that leads us into sort of Chevron deference, which I think could have significant implications for legislation going forward. Yes. I think the Chevron decision is going to have
a huge impact. And one of the things that always troubled me when I was on in the House was the. I don't want to say the institutional arrogance, but the. You said it. Well, I said it. That's what I'm saying. Go for it. Yeah, that is it. The institutional arrogance of these agencies. I mean, my father in law, I'll give you an example. My father in law was a farmer for Frito Lay for his whole life. Oh, wow. Right. He grew up on his farm and
he made it into a great business. And he was being told, and he's hundreds of miles from huge water sources that mud puddles on his farm were part of the waters of the United States, because that's what EPA said and rulemaking, and it completely blew. You know, it goes outside the realm of the law, in my opinion. So I was always, like, a little nervous about that. And then something happened right after I left. That, to me, really put a fine point on it, and that
was the sec. We just passed the Cercia legislation, and it was very clear that we wanted an apparatus with the federal government that was reporting requirements for major incidents. We worked very much with all the stakeholders, and then the SEC just decides to jump the gun and institute their own rules on that. And that is a great example of, I think, administrative overreach. And that was the genesis of overturning Chevron, that
type of action. And I know it was about some fishermen who overturned a rule, but that SEC action was unnecessary, and it was not team play, and it was just not smart, in my opinion. So now you gotta try and meld what the SEC is doing with what CISA's mandate is by law. So overturning Chevron is gonna have a profound effect on that, and it's gonna make legislators have to be legislators. You know, these knuckleheads up on Capitol Hill who don't ever pass a bill, got
to do some work. And I'm encouraged to hear that they want to increase the staffs and they want to get more specialists and that actually have more prescriptive legislative laws that they create. And that's good thing, because we're the legislative branch. We're supposed to tell the executive branch, here's what to do and here's your parameters. And we haven't done a good job of that. And obviously, the American people's voice is through
Congress, which I think is going to require less. Some pieces of legislation you can ride a Mack truck through. And obviously you need to have some role where the executive agencies and branches can have some interpretation, commander's attempt equivalent in the military. But I think it will require, at a time where arguably the two ends of Pennsylvan Avenue are going in opposite directions, to do this right for the American people is
going to require them to have to come together a little more, isn't it? It
is. And it's going to have to require more thinking on Capitol Hill and more.
Doing and more purple. Let's face it. We don't have. It doesn't seem like we
have a desire much anymore to legislate. It's all about pontificating and fighting. I mean, you can go up on Capitol Hill and find a ton of. Quickest sound bite,
right? Find a couple members, a ton of members who have never passed a law.
I mean, that's unbelievable to me. That's our bread and Butter what we're supposed to do. And we gotta get back to legislate and we gotta get back to controlling the power of the purse, and we gotta get back to being the people that tell the executive branch of the not what to do instead of the other way around. And since you brought up Circia and you brought up Andy Garbarino and talking
about cisa, he seems to think that congressional intent isn't necessarily being met out there. What are your thoughts? I totally agree. I totally agree. And obviously, like Roddy said
with the securities and Exchange Commission, that's for sure, but. So he's right. But let's take a little deeper dive on Circe. You already have an agency that's overwhelmed in ciso, Right. And now they're taking on the gargantuan task of being able to digest and then make actionable intel out of that digestion back to the public in a fast and efficient manner with a staff that's probably already overwhelmed. So we've got to
do something about that, in my opinion. And I think increasing our funding so they can continue to hire and get the staffing that they need in a timely manner is going to be really, really important. No, that's really important. And I think it
is. It's just the ruling by or at least Supreme Court finding happen at the same time that they're doing the ruling of Cercia. So talk about timing. Timing is everything on that. So we'll see how that plays out. One quick thing, Mr. C,
I want to add too, is after 9 11, we stood up to joint terrorism task forces all over the country. Right. And the whole failure of 911 was a failure of information sharing. And we have become extremely good in this country about information sharing since then on a federal, state, local level. And that really was the genesis for sia, is to get the information out there. Who are the bad actors? What
are they using to attack you, what's their malware and where are they? And get back to them and get it back out to everybody so they can patch their systems, fix their systems, harden their systems in a timely manner. And that's basically what we did with the jttfs. And so that's why I'm very hopeful that Cirsia can work once it gets up and running. If you don't have agencies like SEC mucking up the works too much. Absolutely. And recently you've had some big incidents, whether CrowdStrike,
Microsoft. Any thoughts on that? In terms of almost too big to fail, but in the software environment, yeah. Yeah, well, I work at a group now with my three
former chiefs called Hill East Group and we have a lot of cyber clients so we're very familiar with this area. And I think you gotta take a look at what caused it and do a good forensic and honest analysis of take away the company. How did this happen? Okay, why did it happen? Right. And forget about the companies and whether they were huge and the big players. Doesn'T matter because a lot
of healthcare small companies we've never heard of, but they're holding 90% of people's data correct. And so how did it happen and how to make sure it doesn't happen
again? And that's really my goal with doing a forensic analysis a la Circia with.
CrowdStrike and with Microsoft and harmonization. So do you think you mentioned SEC regulations and approaches Circea and you can multiply that by many orders of effect. TSA with pipelines and Department of Energy, everybody doe. Exactly. But harmonizing, that seems to be on top of everyone's mouths. But been hearing it for a long time. I know, but it
was the same thing that they tried to do after 9 11. Right. And you don't harmonize, you fail. And that is a message. And it's not like Circea is some kind of new out of the left field idea, it's harmonization and that's it. So that's why we've got to be on the same page. That's why we've got to have more prescriptive legislation and that's why we've got to really beef up, in my opinion, the cyber director role to kind of force all these agencies to play
nice in the sandbox and to work better together. And you mentioned ONDCP and have
some passback authority in terms of budget, which it does have. Oncdp now I got
you saying ondcpn. No, no, no. I actually was using ONDCP as the example where
they can use some of the budget pass back authorities. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Which I think we need to be moving toward. And I think those are, those are all really, really valid points. But looking, do you think Congress can play a role? Because I think the judicial branch is going to assume an even greater role. And one of the concerns you have is it could be episodic. You're going to
have precedent setting that the courts don't even agree on defining policy going forward. Firstly, I think you mentioned the beefing up of congressional staff to be able to legislate in a more prescriptive way, the judicial branch is going to need the same. They're even leaner staff. Oh, yeah. The law firms are going to benefit because the law
firms are going to test a lot of stuff that goes out of agencies. You
know what they always do. Right. That's probably a good thing because these agencies have
gotten a little bit too out of control. And so there's going to be a deluge of lawsuits, there's going to be a deluge of litigation testing these theories of these agencies. And as usual, I think you're going to have the Supreme Court sort it all out. And they will. It'll take a while, but they will. And do
you think that, do you see congressional staff? I mean, they have to staff up though, don't they? Yes. I mean, I think that there's a small murmur within Congress
who says, well, we just need to pass legislation to reinstitute the Chevron doctrine. I don't think you're going to see that. I just don't see it. So I do think that even when you even have the hardcore conservative hawks up there saying, we're going to need more staff to deal with this, I think you're right. And my,
not to be trite in a sound bite, it shouldn't be a cigarette wrapped in asbestos. We don't want that to be the definition. It should be good policy and good laws. What about AI? That seems to be. It reminds me when you go back to where the cyber discussions really started in earnest and you were on the Hill, whereas Mark Twain said, history may not repeat itself, it tends to rhyme. It's rhyming pretty similarly in my head. What about what are your thoughts? Well, first of
all, getting a handle. On what it is, precisely what it is. Exactly what is
it. And it's also the garbage in, garbage out. Right. What is going into the
AI systems. And that's where I think we can have a regulatory or legal impact, kind of creating standards about what goes into AI, I think is probably a very important thing. And then if you can get AI right and it's right of Schumer to prioritize it so much, if you can get it right, it could be the way for agencies like CISA which are otherwise overwhelmed, able to let them do their job by augmenting the value of digesting information, large amounts of information. But let's not
forget there's a lot of things that AI that are. There's practical concerns. Right. One of the practical concerns is the tremendous amount of energy it's going to take absolutely A tremendous amount of hardening of our systems to make it work. Right. That's going to be a lot. And security of AI itself is going to be integral because
you're basically putting a lot of trust and confidence in that. And there's certain issues I disagree with me that only someone who's sworn to the Constitution should be making. I just don't feel comfortable. And think about all the ways the bad guys can
use it, what that's going to mean for the changing priorities and concerns with law enforcement nationwide, worldwide. Absolutely. That's going to be a huge thing. I mean, how would the. We even. Can't even fathom how much the bad guys can exploit AI to their benefit and bad actors militarily too. So there's a lot of concerns and. They
tend to be first movers in a lot of new technologies. You want a good
example of that? Look at Iran, China, North Korea and Russia with respect to cyber attacks. They got, they got groups in Eastern Europe and in Russia that are unbelievably good at cyber attacks. We're getting better at hardening our systems. We're not anywhere near as good as we should be. They're going to use AI to do the same stuff and we're going to have to be responding and anticipating and getting better at it. And to your point around AI, and it's still early on, I mean, legislating
here, if we get too prescriptive, it could have all sorts of unintended consequences. Right.
You're really going to need to get experts and listen to them and have them help you write good legislation. So we're probably a couple of Congresses off before we
get sweeping legislative type solutions. I've heard this year. This year I can't imagine, I can't. Imagine this year for anything. Exactly. You know, if we have even a. Post office being named, if a continual. Resolution will be miraculous. But you know, hope springs
eternal in a new year. But I think that what could drive it and drive it prioritizing, unfortunately, is going to be cyber attacks and cyber incidents. Absolutely. And that's going to be part of the problem. We're going to have to react to some of it. And, and that is often not the best way because, you know, you're
always looking through rear view mirrors. Not only do you get whacked, but you also are fixing what you saw, which isn't necessarily as comprehensive. We think this through. One
thing I do think about though is, you know, Cyber Command can, can be a game changer in that regard. We can learn A lot from Cyber Command because they're thinking, not like a bad guy, but they're thinking, how can I use this in an offensive manner? So we could probably learn a lot from keeping our finger on the pulse of what they're doing with the offensive capabilities in the military for cyber.
And you're talking to the biggest advocate. We're never firing wall our way out of this alone. We need to look at it through that field that you mentioned, offensive defense. You do need to see the whole field. There's no doubt if all you got are even linebackers or meant to sort of apply pressure on the adversary. But if all you have is safety, you're never scoring. No one's in a blue moon. You're right. And at best you break even. Speaking about change. So we now know
it will be a new administration, however, November breaks out. Exactly, exactly. That's a lot
of history. Last few weeks. True that. And for transparency, you are part of a
task force. We stood up looking at priorities for the new administration. Nonpartisan. Same report shared to both teams. But what are some of your top of mind thoughts right now? My top of mind thoughts are if we do this report right, it can
be invaluable because I think people are starting to understand how complicated this issue is. And I think a lot of members of Congress are looking for a lifeline where they can get some sort of a roadmap of what it is, you know, we need to do. And I keep hearkening back to 9 11, but it's the same thing. The world is littered with blue ribbon commissions that make recommendations. Some of them work and some of them don't. Some of them, a lot of them have great
ideas. I think the 911 Commission's a gold standard for what it was able to accomplish. But that was born out of a necessity and this is being born out of necessity. It's not some pie in the sky thing. It's like we have very serious issues. It's here. Yeah. Like, I mean, what troubles me is there's been so many probing attacks over the last month or two on emergency systems all over our country. We know who's doing it and we know they're doing it in case there's
something, an attack coming up. So we know the concerns that are going on with respect to cyber. So my hope is that this commission will give some roadmap of things. And I'll give an example, Shovel ready, day one. Things that can. I'll give you a small, a relatively small example, but a very serious One I did this foreign fighters task force. There was a big concern, by the. Way, that was an
excellent Americans leaving. Here to go fight over in the caliphate and vice versa. And
we traveled all over the world and talked to everybody and got all kinds of good information. And I never forget it was a Saturday evening, I think it was. And all of a sudden they had horrific attacks in France by isis. A bunch
of people were killed. Awful. And Charlie had no attacks, I think it was. And all of a sudden I get a call from McCarthy, who was a majority leader at the time, or majority leader, and then got a call from Mike McCall and everybody else and they said, oh my God, we have everything we need to do to fix this right now. And we had like 50 recommendations and the vast majority were made law. And so I'm hoping that I report has a similar impact, but
not because of a tragedy, but because we're anticipating. There's a lot of really good meat and potatoes, basic ideas in there that are basically what we call in the legal parlance up on the hill, base hits, small bills, get them in there, keep getting the stuff done because it's going to make us stronger and more secure. You
get a bunch of singles and you still get. You still score, right? That's right.
It was Billy Bob with the Yankees back then. Exactly, exactly. And the truth is
we need more of that. And actually, I like your foreign fight because there were also very specific steps that DOJ and the IC to be able to coordinate beforehand could take. And yeah, that is a great point. The one thing, and I always go back to 9, 11 as well, I had the privilege of working for President
Bush right after that and it changed everything. Of course it did. But what makes cyber, I think a little different, and you're the first to recognize that, is a lot of the information sharing needs were within the government agencies, within the Alphabet soup in Washington, between federal, state, almost all the Boston territorial and tribal, with some of our international partners, five eyes, all the way to bilats. But cyber really is about
the private sector. It is about the private sector. And that is a big twist.
But it's the same basic concept, right? We gotta get the information to the people who need it on the front lines so that they can make it actionable and build the protections into their systems. And the last point I want to go to
just because it is going to be a strong theme in our study, and again, I'm not going to steal any thunder on that, but it's operational collaboration. Absolutely. So it's taking information sharing and translating that into verb. And any thoughts on JCDC there joint cyber defense collaborative with IT cisa. I know it needs there's some warts but it's a good model. It's a great model and it's all about information sharing. And
I think that is something Giada. South you probably when you're working counter drug is
another one, all that stuff. And listen, anytime you can have something where you're collaborating
and you're working together, it's always good. And of course that's not taking place too much on Capitol Hill right now politically, but the country's screaming for it and they scream for it because in every aspect of your life there's give and take and there's exchange, there's business, your personal relationships, everything you do. And the only place that's
not happening right now is on Capitol Hill. And that's why Circe is a very important piece of legislation because it's kind of going to force the private sector and the government to work together for the common good of protecting our systems. And that is what it's all about. John, thank you for spending time with me today and
us today. Thank you for being such a strong leader on these issues and thank you for continuing to be a strong voice. Thanks. I'm glad to be part of
McCrary. It's been fun. Well, John, thank you. I want to say one more thing though, please. Every time I think of Auburn, it kills me. The tie dye football game back at Syracuse. Same colors though, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Which are Islanders colors,
by the way. Syracuse could have been a national champion. John, thank you. Thank you for joining us for this episode of Cyberfocus. If you liked what you heard, please consider subscribing your ratings and reviews. Help us reach more listeners. Drop us a line if you have any ideas in terms of topics, themes or individuals you'd like for us to host. Until next time, stay safe, stay informed and stay curious. It.