the dod concurred with each of the recommendations. my statements focused on some of the findings in that report. let me briefly summarize it. my statement is divided into parts. first addresses the extent the dod has met statutory requirements to collect and report data on the reports of domestic abuse. the dod met a statutory requirement to collect the report data for incidences that met its criteria for domestic abuse. but as noted earlier by the chair, it hasn't collected a report for the number and type of all allegations and as a result it's been unable to assess the scope of the alleged abuse and the right of substantiation to address the challenges, we recommend that the dod clarify its guidance before submitting the data and develop a quality control process to ensure complete and accurate data and allegations of abuse. in addition we found that while there've been statutory crimes since 1999, the dod hasn't collected comprehensive data on allegations of domestic violence and a subset of domestic abuse that constitutes crimina

a dod official told us that as of november, officials were not aware of any initiatives within dod to study risks associated with the current disposition model or the feasibility of alternatives. such an assessment could provide the department and military services of a better understanding of such risks and the better potential impacts. we recommended the dod assess the risks associated with this model pretty mystic violence incidents and the feasibility of potential alternatives. that concludes my statement. i would be pleased to take questions when you or the other members are ready. >> now we are going to ask questions of our panelists. let me start by asking miss logan, it appears in your testimony that [indiscernible] is that an accurate statement? >> i'm sorry, congresswoman. it cut up a little bit, the question. could you repeat that? >> based on your testimony, it appears that resources were misused. i'm wondering if there were any kind of resources that were truly there for you? >> i believe your question is in regards to resources that were shared with me and what resources

we view the dod as a leader and partner. we would like to thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective and i'm happy to answer questions now. >> thank you, sir. members have the opportunity to question via webex. we will keep the seniority order as we do during full committee meetings for armed services. my first question is to mr. joyce, as you know russia and the solar winds hacked and china in the microsoft hack both infiltrated stolen data through servers rendered through u.s. cloud providers. my question is with your background at the nsa, can you tell us a setting where you have noticed cooperation between our adversaries in cyber operations, are they ignoring each other, or are we aware of any operations they conducted against one another? cyberoperations they have conducted against one another? >> you will understand the sensitivity of that question >> i understand you understand they -- i trust you understand the sensitivity of that and we will have to answer that in the closed session. to some of the acti

it's not a given that dod will do the same mistakes. we will build strong oversights into programs using data and knowledge to anchor decisions and empowering managers to make decisions and holding them accountable for decisions and canceling bad programs. adopting these practices could help dod liver faster capabilities of new abilities specially if they streamline new processes what sufficient oversight to help ensure program success. i would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you very much. it's always good to hear from gao. i will -- we will question the witnesses and limit everybody to five minutes so we can distribute the questions is much as possible. let me begin. i think it was in 2016 that there was a report from gal that there was some 60 people within dod who had the power to say no over the air force base program. most members of the armed service committee thought that was too many naysayers. it could be one reason for the delay. you mentioned that the new spaceports is somewhat streamlined. how m

two years ago, dod was unsure how many staff were working on dod space programs. moving people and organizations and establishing new lines of authority may bring growing pains. pain for cost overruns for older systems while recapitalizing or placing some systems could be challenging. dod is developing 10 space programs in every mission area, including medications, command-and-control, launch. finally, balancing efforts to ensure opportunities for effective oversight will be important. the record on space acquisition has cost overruns. people often point to paperwork as the cause for the process. i urge the subcommittee to consider what i call the behind the paperwork. we need agreement on a few things. these are the first principles to build a strong program and the ability to oversee them. it's not a given dod will prevent -- repeat his past mistakes. we have leading practices, including: strong oversight into the program. empowering program managers to make decisions, holding them account for their choices and canceling unsuccessful programs. adopting these pra

in cyberspace and in dod. and china is most capable of those. you know, as the russians have proven their not so bad either, and i am not trying to incite them to try harder here, but the chinese having credible long-term capability. how do we think about that and of course we think about on the defense side making sure that our dod networks are defended and that has to be with all kinds of upgrading approaches and routine cultural shifts often called cyber hygiene that we should be undertaking and we monitor that very carefully and we have benchmarks that we are moving against to make sure we are improving there. one thing as the deputy secretary and i can do other than setting the standards and holding people accountable is helping to provide the resources for those capabilities and so that is something i very much focused on. also, and i would just add into their upgrading our system's overall. beyond the defensive side we obviously also need to demonstrate that there are costs for cyber attacks and president biden has most recently demonstra

we will provide a dod technical expert to support him. of course, the department of defense operates the global positioning system. we will provide that technical expert to support talks related to spectrum and deconfliction in that respect. other example will be last summer, the united states and russia met in vienna in the context of space security exchange there. this was related to some other talks that were going on. state department organized it. department of defense was there from the operational side. i participated from the policy side. we were able to present defense perspective's and diplomatic perspectives relative to the position russia was taking and some of the russian behavior that i find problematic. the united kingdom resolution that are carrying forward was something that was good for the national security, from our perspective here as well as good for the broader perspective so they represent a cross reference of the government. >> i'm running out of time, but just curious, russia and china announcing a research stati

dod was nonetheless on this effort. right away we volunteered to lean into this effort because anything that takes away almost 600,000 megan lives, dod once a part of the solution and be a part of that solution. led by another agency, but we did everything we could to support the effort. i think this interagency approach, this whole of government approach you mentioned is absolutely the right route. you will see that in our efforts to compete with china and everything else we do. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you very much for the questions. mr. kilner, followed by mr. womack. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for appearing before the committee and for your service to the country. our public -- is key to maintaining readiness of carriers and subs and supporting the national defense posture. as you mentioned in your written testimony, if were fighting ships are not ready or forward engaged posture is at risk. despite their critical role, they have been chronically underfunded. often times they are relying an

as you described dod is a key partner. i want to give you a chance to elaborate on this, and again not just in terms of equipment but also as a key partner. >> yes, absolutely, congresswoman. research, universities who have a focus on cyber do provide tremendous benefit to the nation. universities as part of our research and engineering efforts in the department are a key source of ideas and innovation for us and we have prioritized funding to those institutions. we will have to reengage with you when the president's budget is submitted about specifics related to that. gen. nakasone: congressman, if i might just add to those comments. as you well know if the national security agency sponsors over 300 centers of academic excellence in the united states, of which i believe utep as you indicated is one event that will -- one of them that will continue to do that as an agency. it's critical not only in the sense as you noted with regards to the development of our young people but also in the department of curriculum that chang

there's a directive for dod, agencies to migrate to 2.0 h adoption has been slow. for both of the witnesses but specifically the secretary eoyang, could you provide you with your perspective on the migration and the degree to which the migration can help address dod's current cyber vulnerabilities? >> selection of the department takes a number of steps to defend its networks and its data, and but as to the specifics of the migration of how to take that for the record. i want to make sure i am coordinated with my cio colic. >> what i would add to that is what we learned over the past six to 12 months is that we have to think about defensive differently in terms of as we move to cloud-based capabilities to secure our data, many people think that we will just put it into the. it doesn't work quite that way and so ensuring with the right contracts written, ensuring we have our defensive forces trained to hire degree in terms of their ability, ensuring where the data can those necessary, that's what i would add to it. >> follow-up question specific to that topic. do you

and they're struggling, trying to figure out who to talk to in the dod. so if confirmed, i would like to help these type of companies to advance their technology maturity so we can deliver unprecedented capability, and it will absolutely help the issue of climate change, because you're reducing the logistics burden. >> it's a matter of not only cost save, but obviously national security. >> absolutely. >> the secretary of defense has told this committee very persuasively. and i would hope that you'll work with us not only in receiving but proactively reaching out to companies like the ones that you mentioned that are in this area. i found all too often there are connecticut companies, for example, i suspect my colleagues share this experience that have tried to find the entry point in this system which seen from the outside is like the pentagon ithout a welcoming entry point. so i would hope that you would do proactively what you've suggested. >> yes, sir, absolutely. i plan to talk to a number of small companies to meet with them to understand the impedi

let's go with the dod. what is your interest to the commercial and then to the other two witnesses, ending up with the state department. >> congressman garamendi, very, very much interested in that. i think a good example of dod and the commercial community working with respect to norms have been the sponsorship that the defense advance research projects agency did with the group, the acronym, i forget the name of the acronym, but described a body bringing together commercial people with government and talking how to do orbit surfacing and rendezvous proximity operations and figuring out what are the property ways to do that and when do you need to have permission? it's a user community interest group and if you think back a long time in history, the international telecommunications started out in that same way, community of interest coming together on it. i think it's sort of pulling off on its even and the commercial community is probably taking more of a lead in that, but that's the kind of example where

i think we can do better but we are just trying to nudge dod in the direction. maiya: representative gallagher, it's interesting you suggest taking a legacy program and doing a pilot, because that's actually a recommendation in my paper. i'm all about that. rep. gallagher: i don't even know. that's -- maiya: great ideas. absolutely, there is so much new technology that allows us to do amazing things with data and process amazing amounts of data that, to me, the size and complexity of the dod supply chains at this point, and the confidentiality of proprietary data should not be obstacles because there is technology that allows us to overcome those barriers. so i have a lot of hope that going forward, there will be new ways we can map our supply chains that we can know these vulnerabilities, so we can see these problems before they really become problems. i'm excited to see what the future holds as far as supply chain visibility goes. col. venable: it's easy to talk about these issues it peace time, but if we went to war tomorrow, would that shipbuilding industry

and the inability of dod users to project life cycle usage. so we, the small contractors can make decisions on how to best support those, forts. how are these issues being addressed? and i don't know if you have any thoughts, representative gallagher on that, but it would be great to hear from you. >> i wonder if it's -- if maybe this is my bias as an authorizer. whether it's ndaa that's causing the chaos or whether that's the appropriations process. i'm about to throw the appropriators under the bus, but we tend to consistently pass ndaa, any it does come with new regulations and you reference cmac and it gets to the issue where it's easier for the big primes to comply with a new regulatory requirement than it is for the small and medium sized contractor. part of the reason request we don't see a more diversified industrial, because if addition to the way that dod awards mono. this istar regulation. we establish this thing called the national technological industrial base. we incorporated australia into it and canada and really hasn't produce

>> mister chairman, i indicated there was a dod contract which may not necessarily involve dod contractors on the groundin afghanistan . so we are looking at ways we can provide the type of oversight for our security forces assistance from an over the rising posture and we're looking at options that we can continue doing internally. the key things that were focused on our things like a afghan salaries. a vast majority of the servicemembers that are paid have electronic bank accounts for example and so there are ways we can provide to the afghan ministry of finance without necessarily having somebody there but wedo , we are looking at provide the right type of oversight mechanisms so that we had confidence that the resources that we are providing are going to its intended recipient we want to make sure working closely congress to ensurethat congress is comfortablewith those mechanisms . >> general , one of my impressions is that they came contractors arethose mechanics that serve as their aircraft , those specialty trained individuals in the afghan after 20 years to our chagrin, we have not

yet dod did not authorize the deployment of d.c. national guard troops to the capitol until nearly four hours, four hours after local officials first pled for help. even though we were under full-scale assault, dod hesitated until vice president pence -- not president trump -- gave the order to, quote, clear the capitol, end quote. dod's explanations of its own actions have failed to address critical questions. why did military leaders place unusual restrictions on commanders on the ground? mr. miller says he first learned that the mob had entered the capitol between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. so why did the defense department wait until after 5:00 p.m. before sending the national guard to the capitol? today's hearing will not be the end of our investigation. this committee, along with other committees in the house, will continue to seek a full accounting of this attack. even today our colleagues in the house administration committee are asking tough questions of the inspector general for the architect of the capitol. this oversight is

every operational plan in the apartment of defense and every other capability we have in dod rests on an assumption that is strategic deterrence and in particular nuclear deterrence and are not synonymous but rest on the assumption that that is holding and if that assumption is not met particularly with nuclear deterrence nothing else in the department of defense is going to work the way it was designed. i see in some circles this thought that somehow we can take nuclear in particular and put it off in its own little box to the side and has its own command and its own threat we can decide how credible that that is and there's this independent over here and how much risk we are willing to take, not and that's completely separate from everything else dod does. to think about deterrence one of the things i submit is you can't think about it in pieces. nuclear is not separate from conventional and not separate from space and not separate from cyber but they are all linked and particular ipod secretary austen's leadership and having this work much better and think much harder on cross doma

. >> according to a dod-created timeline at 1:34 timeline mayor bowser called army secretary mccarthy to request additional forces to respond to the capitol. according to page 8, one and a half hours you authorized mobilizing the d.c. nard guard in providing these national forces. that constituted a gap of 1.5 hours. during that 1.5-hour gap, why did you and the secretary disobey the president's order to give the mayor the support she requested? >> she already had the support she requested. what's your question? >> she requested additional support. you say this mayhem and pictures of insurrection on january 6th? she requested additional support from you. during that 1.5 hours either you disobeyed an order given by the president to help mayor bowser or the president changed his order and asked you to delay support or you just plane froze and were indecisive while people were being injured, killed, while hundreds of rioters breached the capitol and a nation was traumatized. sir, because of your actions -- >> there were 8,000 badged and credentials police officers on duty. >> and you wer

, and good judgment were essential to essential to fulfilling the serious responsibilities that the dod during that time and continues to have. ms. wormuth led the 2014 quadrennial defense review working closely with the chairman and vice-chairman of joint chiefs of staff and military services. her leadership was especially important during the ebola crisis in 2014-15, where she worked closely with the army, african command, the white house and all the governmental agents involved with the ebola effort. her leadership was critical in helping the armies further develop, strengthen its capabilities, its vision and also understand and lead its role. what the army's role was during these developing times. during a period of great power competition. particularly its war fighting concepts, strategies, capabilities, and needs for the future. while serving as the senior director for defense policy at the national security council before joining dod. she worked closely with secretaries gates and panetta's team on the 2012 strategic guidance which revised dod's strategy and signaled the rebalance

quigley: i am talking about the dod.ow would you answer this, if this is a victory, a success, how would you have classified a failure? mr. miller: i want to highlight, it is not the correct role for the department of defense or the armed forces to be involved in civilian law enforcement matters except at an absolute last resort and when all civilian forces have been expended. that did not occur until about 2:30 in my estimation. rep. quigley: the last resort. you came in after the fact. i was in the room. i remember the colleagues saying when is the f-ing cavalry getting here? you never showed up on time. we were exposed because of this. i would respect you a lot more if you said, "we could have done this and this better." had i thought that, ok, you were at least trying -- you don't win every battle, but to lose the battle and say it was everybody else's fault -- mr. miller: that is not what i said. if we had a valid and necessary request from your body, i guarantee you the department of defense would have been there i

i think we are seeing investment on the dod side. an investment is definitely being made to address the problems i a v.a. -- iava and others are trying to address. you cannot allocate money to send warriors to fight and then not to carve them when they get home -- and then not take care of them when they get home. we have major bills in the house and senate being discussed right now. the only pushback coming from congress is that some are too expensive. we consider that to be shameful. if you sent these people to work, you need to pay for their health care when they come home. host: this is a map that gives you a sense of how much is being spent by the u.s. compared to other countries. the u.s. spending $770 billion. china is second. russia is just over six to $1 billion. japan nearly $50 billion. south korea is 35 billion dollars and the u.k. is $60 billion. william is joining us from alabama, another veteran. what branch did you serve in, larry? caller: the army. i have been calling c-span since 1980 46 was -- since 1984 when i was

of work on the u.s., looking at a number of different public programs -- medicaid, medicare, v.a., dod -- big payers for prescription drugs also looking in the private sector. gao had not done for more than a decade, comparing how the u.s. prices look when looking at other -- reflecting other company -- other countries that have a high per capita income. host: give us a sense of the brand name pharmaceuticals you have compared to other countries. guest: we look at two brand-name drugs that were a large part of spending and use in the medicare script drug program, and so in the end, we had 41 drugs that represent significant spending on prescriptions and medicare and that were also available in at least one of three other countries -- australia, france, canada. 20 of those were available in all three countries as well as the u.s., and one example that we traced through with different prices was so nor elect, a commonly prescribed drug for pulmonary obstructive disease. there were 21 drugs that we compared in at least in those countries. host: viewers can read that at gao.com. some of th

as a consultant with the dod, i provided advice, market intelligence and analysis for the supply of ppe and labor the pharmaceutical. i also interviewed german officers in every state in the country to understand their challenges. our team presented as ms 2.0 for deputy assistant secretary of defense for logistics in may 2020. my testimony today, strategic national stockpile prior to covid the events that occurred early 2020 as well as adjusted reforms that i believe are necessary for future public health emergencies. i would like to state my testimony is in no way intended to be acrimonious when it comes to the hard-working men and women during covered. my critiques are limited to the sms government agencies as opposed to the people working in. they didn't publicize what they did, they were largely a response to bioterrorism and never intended to respond to the pandemic which is covered. most of the people who worked there worked with inventory analyst. the decision as to what inventory stockpile for potential threats was determined by scientists, they don't often understand how supply

we have also been moving out quickly to vaccinate the force and our broader dod family. we have administered more than 3 million shots, to dod personnel, and that is more than 550,000 fully vaccinated service members and more than 644,000 fully vaccinated citizens, contractors , and beneficiaries at home and overseas. we are also working on the global challenge of controlling this pandemic once and for all in that regard, i should say just a world -- word facing our friends in india. we are moving urgently to support their health care workers. three air force ships and a c-17 globe master three have already delivered many tons of critical supplies. for a sense of some of the wider strategic changes in the works, let me point you to the remarks i made in hawaii last week at the change of command for endo pacific command. the department is working on what i call integrated deterrence, what is a new vision of how we defend the nation in all domains of conflict. in a time when technology is changing nature of warfare. that is especially important for our priority theater of

i also wrote one to dod. dod still has not gotten back to me.e. >>> just ahead former acting i.c.e. director tom homan on the warnings we've been reporting four our five years now. looks like "new york times" and media is checking up on it. the border crisis is bigger than ever. the border patrol catching illegal border-crossers from more countries and nations than ever before, from around the world. think after number. you got that number? think higher. the story next in business, it's never just another day. it's the big sale, or the big presentation. the day where everything goes right. or the one where nothing does. with comcast business you get the network that can deliver gig speeds to the most businesses and advanced cybersecurity to protect every device on it— all backed by a dedicated team, 24/7. every day in business is a big day. we'll keep you ready for what's next. comcast business powering possibilities. ♪ ♪ ♪ common love isn't for us ♪ ♪ we created something phenomenal ♪ ♪ don't you agree? ♪ ♪ don't you agree? ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ow! ♪ ♪ ♪ lo

i would put that down as a criticism but with a whole government approach i thought of course dod did a very good job. how do we employ all the other departments of the united states appropriately to do so? but i think we probably could have done more on a whole government approach so we finished a lot stronger than we started. i think if we kept the pace at the front we had at the end we could've move the ball even further. but i am very encouraged where the biden administration's right now. they are saying the right things and time will tell. i think china is testing them right now. i will pause right there. >> that's what would like to take the conversation next we had a few months to watch the biden administration but many of said we've seen continuity but at the same time is between competing interest with the biden administration that has yet to play out so another words they haven't made the tough decision. what do each of you think how the biden administration is handling the china challenge? and make each of you to give a grade of how you think they are handling this so far?

while serving as a senior director for defense policy at the national security council before joining dod, she worked closely with secretary gates and panetta's team on the 2012 defense strategic guidance which revise dod's strategy and signaled the rebalance to the asia pacific. efforts working on suicide prevention sexual assault and harassment and support to military families and veterans in all quality of life issues for our military and their families were particularly impressive. when i told her that i tended to recommend her for president obama to be undersecretary of defense for policy i also told her that i intended to recommend to the president that bob deputy secretary of defense and mike mccord be undersecretary controller. the point was i wanted a team that would work closely together and she never wavered from that commitment and was an effective and respected leader as a strong member of a very impressive team. in february 2015 i awarded christine wormuth for distinguished public service award which, as you all no, is the highest award that can be given to political appoint

experience, leadership, and good judgment were essential to fulfilling the series responsibilities at dod during that time and continues to have. ms. warmuth lead the 2014 defense review, working closely with the chairman and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and military services. her leadership was especially important during the a bola crisis in 2014 and 2015 where she worked with the army, african command, and the white house. her leadership and long experience was critical to help the army further develop and strengthen capabilities, vision, and understand and lead -- what the army's role was during these developing times during a time of great power competition. particularly the war fighting concepts, strategies, capabilities and needs for the future. while serving as the senior director for defense policy at the national security council before joining dod she worked closely with secretary gates on the 2012 defense strategic guidance which revise dod strategy and signaled the rebalance to the age of pacific. her extensive efforts working on suicide prevention, sexual assau

current dod website.he afghan national security forces and the afghan people.illed finally we can never forget the 2,997 who were killed in 9/11.vt my question is this, is there a middle ground where we continueu or could continue to support the government of afghanistan that would recognize the lives our sacrificing thehe hundreds of dollars our citizensistan to prevent a return to being a haven for terrorists or the one that provides the resources to afghanistan to prevent a return to being a haven for t cn terrorists or thea, creation of power vacuum which would benefit china, russia and iran?lops the while the afghan government develops the unique capabilities we cur provide. gentlemen? >> if i may that is the path we're seeking to embark upon.t m while we'reak retrograding the forcesñr out of afghanistan, th president is clear he wants to continue providing support andw assistance to our afghan in ter partners. toms the extent we canxd we're looking at ways in terms of ppo continue paying theirñr sal

reservists are critical members of our military who supply the dod with valuable technical expertise, including those who work in this field of cyber security. i have consistently advocated for provisions that will diversify dod's cyber professionals and servicemembers. so, i'll ask the entire panel and if we could start with lieutenant general daniels -- what efforts are conducted to recruit those of diverse backgrounds to fulfill these cyber missions? >> thank you. we go out to a number of different universities to make sure that we're getting across the population. we're looking at rotc and other special scholarships similar to rotc scholarships. these have visually underrepresented populations to start the rotc pipelines and to bring them into the reserves. >> vice admiral? >> similarly, our liaison with our recruiting command leads us to find new and creative ways to tap into this vein of expertise. so in some cases, the direct commission opportunities are exposing us to folks without any military experience we can bring in at relatively senior levels so they don't have to start