Im pleased to yield to the chair mr. Wilson. And ladies and gentlemen, it is a unique situation where i have just been recognized and get to preside simultaneously. It really gives me an opportunity to thank the Ranking Member smith for their planning this week, cyber week. It is a recognition for our three witnesses how important what youre doing protecting American Families. Im very grateful. We had a hearing yesterday on Cyber Threats to American Families, our National Defense. We have this hearing later this afternoon. We have a briefing. I want the American People to know we have really good people like coppingman langevin all the way from long island, who is the Ranking Member of the emerging threat subcommittee. This really is a bipartisan issue that we face of great concern of attacks on our government, on private businesses, on american citizens. And what youre doing is so important. We have extraordinary staff people who are here working on these issues. And, again, each one of you in your capacity are making such a difference. And we look forward to working with you in the future. In particular, secretary work, during the cyber hearing yesterday, it was mentioned in the Opening Statement about the concept and proposal of hackback. For example, when a private Company Takes retaliation into their own hands and hacks back at someone who has attacked their network or systems. Can you outline concerns that you have and is hack back inherently a government function that only the government should do, or is there a private role . Well, this is a very, very important issue for us because Cyber Attacks often have second, third, fourth order of consequences that we really have to understand. They may cause escalation that were unintended. So this is an extremely important policy question for us as a nation to grapple with. Admiral rogers deals with this on a daily basis, and i would ask him to provide us specifics. I also try to point out at an operational level we have so many actors in this domain already adding more only complicates things. The second and third order of facts, as the secretary has outlined, are of significant concern. From my perspective, i have to be very careful going down this road. I dont think its one we truly understand. From my perspective, the potential to further complicate an already comp a indicated situation is very significant here. And as complicated as it is, im just so hopeful on the expertise that you have. To me it would be a deterrence with some level of hackback. So i hope this is pursued and the capable people that you are and that you have working with you, i cant wait to hear of their capabilities as to deterrents stopping hacking on American Families. And mr. Halvorsen, the Department Released a new manual for the report on civil authorities which for the first time addresses Cyber Security related incidents. Can you explain how dod gets requests for such a report, especially if coming from a state or local agency . Yes, sir. There are formal processes we would go through with that. But one of the things i want to stress is is the informal processes we have put in place. We have scheduled routine meetings with industry, ciso, my Ciso Richard Hale who you will hear from today in a closed meeting. We are sharing that data. We are moving forward to be able to give them some of our data quicker. Mikes work has been superb in being able to lower the classification levels of data so we can share that much quicker with industry and accept theirs in a similar fashion. All of those things plus whats in the manual are adding to our all of us, industry and the governments collection of data and what ill call Operational Intelligence that we can use to better security. I would also add this is an issue where we collaborate very closely between the department of Homeland Security, the fbi about how can we make sure we are most effective and efficient within the Broader Authority construct. Im trying to make sure can we use that existing framework to the maximum extent possible as opposed to something new and complex in the cyber arena. Thank you for pitching in. I want you to know as a very grateful navy dad with three sons in the army guard. But im very grateful for your service. And nachl service in general. Secretary work, you stated the iranian actors have been was implicated in a 20122013 attacks against u. S. Financial institutions and in february 2014, last year, cyber attack on the Las Vegas Sands casino. What economic sanctions or legal actions resulted from this activity . Are they being maintained . Sir, im going to have to take that for the record. I dont know exactly what sanctions the ddos attack that you refer to against the Financial Services was attributed to iran, as well as the sands casino, as you said. Im going to have to get back to you and say exactly what we did as a result of those two attacks. Mike might know. No specific sanctions tied to each of those individual events. Clearly a broader discussion of whats acceptable and not accept acceptable. Oops oops it has decreased. In part because of the broader, very public discussion where we were acknowledging the activity and we were partnering between the government and Financial Sector what we could do to work the resiliency peace preclude the iranians ability to actually penetrate. Knock on wood we were successful with. And, again, thank each of you. To mr. Larsen of washington state. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If any of you can answer this question, im curious, though, are we still exploring what the outer limits of what constitutes the equivalent of a physical attack against the u. S. When were looking at Cyber Attacks. Do we know what would be an equivalent cyber attack that would warrant the kind of and size of response we might do if it was a physical kinetic attack against the u. S. . Are we exploring the outer limits still . We have defined an event of significant consequence. It has to cause loss of life, serious adverse u. S. Foreign policy implications or consequences or serious economic impact. Thats a broad statement. Each of them have to be addressed as an individual act. Thats why there is no established red line on what we would say this constitutes a physical attack. The question we are often asked is is when does a cyber attack trigger an act of war. Each of those would be discussed in turn depending on the type of attack and what its consequences were. As of this point, we have not assessed any particular attack has constituted an act of war. Can you admiral, you address a little bit. Be more specific about the title 10 versus title 32 responsibilities and working with the National Guard. Or even going beyond that, working with either national; state or local law enforcement. What specific criteria do you use to make that distinction . For me, among the things i look at or scope of the activity were dealing with, capacity that exists in title 10 arena versus in the title 32. Theres specific knowledge or unique insights that a particular guard structure might have that are tailored to this specific issue. Its a case by case basis. I have tried to maintain with my teammates and the states is we need one integrated workforce between the active and the reserve using the same basic scheme of maneuver so we can use these capabilities interchangeably. It gives us a broad range of options in terms of how we employ the capability. And then are you making that largely permanent . At some point in the future you moved on to Something Else and someone comes in behind you. Is this still evolving how you are trying to establish these relationships as they apply to cyber, or are these going to be largely permanent . Will we be changing the story . I think they will be largely permanent. I feel pretty good that we have done the foundational work, broadly. I always remind people. Remember, no plan ever survives contact. In the broad framework, we are likely to see things we havent anticipated. We have to be flexible and be willing to change given the specifics of whatever it is were dealing with. But for the way we are partnered, it hasnt been adversarial at all. It has been a great team. I would like to jump in on that sir. I would like to give a shoutout. We have been dealing with this on how to build up cyber capacity in the guard and reserve. We are building right now towards about 2,000 guard and reserves that are associated with this. And what we are doing right now is trying to work out the policy on what our folks can do in terms of coordination, training, advising and assist under title 32 and title 10 authorities. That is actually policy working well. We are working well with the governors. We believe this is going to be a great new story for the nation. And my last few moments here i have a question. We talked about defense of networks. We talked about resilience, denial, and the whole deterrence issue. This issue of hybrid warfare. Im curious about what steps youre taking to incorporate in a u. S. Response or even natos response in the role cyber com plays in this and incorporating a response of capability within this hybrid warfare concept. So its a concept. Were partnering as the supreme allied commander. I also highlight the work that special Operations Command are doing in this regard. I was just down in tampa about ten days ago. This was part of our broad discussion how to integrate the full range of capabilities in the department as we are trying to respond to an evolving world around us. I think we are starting to have some good conversations and a good broad way ahead. The International Framework gets a little more difficult. I think its fair to say not as far as advanced with us and nato. It is an area we have talked about we have got to work on. My time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Larsen. We now proceed to the congressman from colorado. I appreciate your comments to earlier questions that were directed from congresswoman susan davis. But i would like to follow up and build on that. This concerns recruiting and retaining top talent. What are your efforts to and this is for you, admiral rogers in particular. What are your efforts to develop a unique cyber career track for those in the military . Services have the responsibility for man training within our department, they generate the capacity i employ as joint commander. In the cyber arena, what has been a big strength is how we are going to develop this, what are the standards, what are the skills. How do we create that workforce . Thats what i did in fact, in my last job. Im very comfortable with how each service has tried to create a career path. It enables us to extend over an entire career both this capability as well as generate the insights in the workforce. That is a big change the last 5 to 10 years. I think its a real strength for the future. It is not an area i look at how and say, wow, i have heavy concerns there. They have a good broad vision. The compaapacity and capability that workforce, i have yet to run in, knock on wood, i have not yet run into a scenario where we didnt have the level of knowledge. The challenge has been, i might have had a handful of people with the right level of knowledge. But we had people with the knowledge. I have to build that capacity out more. So we have more, if you will. Thats really encouraging. So thank you. Secretary work, the department has recently floated new civilian and military personnel reforms, compensation, retirement, et cetera. How will some of these reforms affect the Cyber Workforce . I was going to try to jump in here. This is a huge priority for secretary carter. He came into the departments believing that over time we have created these barriers for service in our government. He wants to really, as he talks, burrow tunnels through the barriers or widen the aperture. He uses cyber as an example of new ways in which we might bring people into the government and allow them to serve for a while, then go back out into the civilian workforce and then come back in. So he has challenged us. And the undersecretary of defense, brad carson, on this force of the future to say how can we make sure that in areas like cyberspace, electronic warfare, quef we have more permeability. I dont have any specifics because they are in the process of going through a deliberative, which ideas are good. But we are right with the intent of your question to improve the ways in which people can come in and out of our government service. As mr. Halvorsen said, this is an exciting mission for many people. Maybe they dont want to make a 30year government career. If they had a chance to help admiral rogers for two or three years, they are all in. So we have to improve the way to do that. Thank you. Do you have anything to add to what has already been said . Same comments. You have heard we are moving forward on pilot programs to bring programs into the government. For us to put for the first time, civilians out in industry. Those pilots are moving very well. As we use those to inform brad and his work, you will see great things coming out of this. Well, i think for your answers. Thank you for the great work youre doing. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Langevin. We proceed to congresswoman niki tsongas. Thank you. It has been a topic of great importance. As you said, so much of this is is being able to attract the people who have the skill set to sinking this through. It is not easy stuff, thats for sure, at all. And i gather from the testimony i have heard there is a fair amount of Comfort Level with what dod and the military services have been able to do to put in place appropriate means of training, hiring, and then compensating, even though you have said you may have to come back to us in the future. But you also commented this is an interagency effort. You are working with the department of Homeland Security, law enforcement, the fbi, the intelligence community. How much sharing across those borders is taking place in terms of the skill set that you need in each of those aspects of this effort . And how comfortable are you with the ways in which you are working together and how they are responding to the challenges they face in terms of personnel . I would argue very well. For example, this is when i sat down with the director of the fbi. And talked about are there things we could be doing together. This is a conversation i had with the leadership at Homeland Security. Its a conversation, quite frankly, ive had with the private sector. We are both competing for the same pool. What works for you, what we might be able to do differently, as you said, can we partner. I will make one slight twist, because this is a point i wanted to make today. I would tell you on the opposite side the single greatest thing i have experienced with my workforce in 18 has been even a hint of a shutdown. In the last week, i have had more agitation arguing this would be the second time in two years. And were even having this discussion, hey, even if we dont shut down, the workforce is very open with us about im not so sure i want to be part of an organization where there is this lack of control. And i cant count on stability. That really concerns me. Because i cant overcome that. Secretary work, do you have any well, this is a very competitive field, as the admiral said. We are building up a total of 133 cyber teams in the Cyber Mission force. Some are focused on protection of the networks. They are called Cyber Protection teams. Some are focused on national teams. And our combatant commanders. We want to build to a total of 133 of these teams. It will be 6,200 active military duty, civilians and in some special instances, contractors. And we wont get there until 2018. So we are in the process of building these. This is a very competitive space. Were on track. We are doing well in our recruitment. As admiral rogers says, any hint of shutdown or sequesteration, that will set us back. We think we have a good mission that people will want to participate in. But we are not where we need to be yet, congresswoman. We still have until 2018 to build up the force to where we just think is the minimum necessary to do our missions. You know, i serve on the board of one of the service academies, board of visitors. I know in our discussions it has been difficult to attract young airmen in this instance to the cyber field. They come into the academy with a particular idea in mind where they want to spend their time. So its not always as simple as we would like to think given the extraordinary challenge. But i have another question as well. You know, the department has shown its commitment to leveraging cyber innovation. We have heard about that today. I commend secretary carter with making his way out to Silicon Valley to create presence, a satellite campus to have a way in which to interact more easily with that community. And i just wonder, how will you expand that program and look to other parts of the country where you have a deep bench of cyber activists, cyber innovators, cyber experts. If you are referring to the Defense Innovation experimental. It is an experimental unit. We want to see how we can interact with the private sector in the best way. For example, one of our ideas was to bring people back to the pentagon and show them what were doing. They said, no, we want to go to the field and see what your airmen, soldiers, marines and sailors, what do they do . We want to help them. So once we do the Lessons Learned there, we expect it will be successful and would become a permanent unit. We would go to other innovation centers, perhaps boston. There are different places. Mr. Halvorsen has been helping us, also. As the secretary went out to Silicon Valley, we took a team in december. We are doing a similar thing in boston, in new york. And not just that. We have hosted a group down from boston and new york. Some of the more mature Cyber Companies but also a group of some of the innovative companies. I think what we are trying to do with dix is take what Silicon Valley stands for, not the geographic location, and make sure the secretary is very clear with us, hey, its more about the concept of innovation. Reach to wherever that it. So you will see us spend more attention in the northeast and frankly in the southwest sector. There is really no substitute for physical presence and physical interaction that can take place. Thank you. My time is up. Thank you, miss stsongas. To mo brooks of alabama. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Next to huntsville, alabama, the army is establishing a cyber campus in the aviation and Missile Research development and engineering center, also known as mrdec. This campus consists of cyber personnel to provide world class Cyber Security support to aviation and Missile Systems by out putting cutting edge of Cyber Security solutions to challenges associated with emerging and legacy technologies. The mrdec cyber Campus Coordinates cyber activities with industry, academia, and government partners. Although an army asset is uniquely positioned to integrate the department of home land security, the department of justice, space and Missile Defense command, and the industrial base. Additionally, it can provide deep Technical Expertise and reduce Cyber Threats posed as it relates to hardware, soft ware, firmware, networks, test, modeling, simulations, forensics, industrial control systems, supervisory control, and Data Acquisition systems. With that as a back drop, and these are for each of you. How does it integrate with the department of defenses overall Cyber Strategy . Well, as admiral rogers said, each services are developing cyber skills under their title 10 responsibilities. This is just one reflection of many, many, many such organizations that are being set up. The air force has units down in is san antonio. So i would ask admiral rogers to give you more specifics. But each of these are going to have specific skills. In this case the one that you have talked about, congressman, focusing on the Aviation Systems of the army and making sure they are not vulnerable to cyber attack. But they develop other skills too. So every service is developing a similar kind of capability, similar kinds of relationships. Army chose to harness the capability in red stone, and northern alabama area. The positive thing for me is weve got a good, strong collaboration across the services as to who is doing what and where. The question increasingly for us over time is as we get more experience, do we need to increase investments where we are seeing strong results than other areas where it hasnt played out as well as we would like. We will generate more insights to that over time. Thank you, mr. Halvorsen. Would you like to add anything . Part of what that unit is doing is bringing a solution to the problem. I think they were perfectly in line. Followup question. Is there a consolidated effort to ensure cyber centers, such as red stone, are interconnected with other services and department of defense capabilities to properly leverage knowledge sets and not create stove pipes of information or efforts . I dont know that we have a formal i know theres regular analytic and collaborative venues where they all get together. I participate and my team participate also in some of those. I dont know that there is a formal process, if you will. I try to synchronize that with each of the service components. Hey, we have to maximize effectiveness and efficiency. Because theres more requirements and money and time. Its all about how to we maximize outputs. Mr. Work . Sir, i dont believe there is a formal program right now. We would look at it more in terms of function. Right now i can tell you in terms of defense of networks, everything is on the same playing field. We all have the same score cards. We all grade ourselves exactly the same. To your specific question on whether or not we have a formal program, thats something ill need to go back and research. It sounds like a good idea. I just dont know exactly how we would implement it yet . Mr. Halvorsen . It sounds very interesting. Thank you, gentlemen, for your insight. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Brooks. We will now proceed to congressman orourke of texas. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary work, you were talking about the three tenets of deterren deterrence. The first two, denial and resilience i understand pretty well. There have been a number of questions about the third one, which is cost imposition. Im interested in knowing how we communicate or advertise the consequences of Cyber Attacks to potential adversaries. And to the degree that you can talk about it, how has that changed their behavior and the consequences we have imposed thus far changed their behavior . In other words, how have we done on the third tenet on cost imposition . The first is to have a strong policy statement that we will respond at a time, place, and manner of our choosing. We have to communicate primarily with state actors. I think admiral rogers said yesterday, were pretty good at stopping 99. 5 of the attacks. Getting rid of the basic hacker. It is the state adversaries that pose the biggest challenge. And i would just like to weave in i think the chairman mentioned the cyber agreement. That came about from intensive discussions with the government of china saying this behavior is unacceptable. We have to come to grips with it. So there were four specific aspects of what i would consider this a confidencebuilding measure. The first one is we have to have timely response for information and assistance if we go to china and say, hey, there is an actor inside china conducting these activities. We have agreed to share that information. Both the United States and china have agreed that they will not knowingly conduct cyberrelated theft of intellectual property for commercial gain. We are making common effort in these norms of state, norms of behavior, which we have never done before. Then we agreed to a highlevel joint dialogue. People say, whoa, there is no enforcement mechanism. Its a confidence building measure. It is the first time that the president of china has said i will commit my government to these things. We believe it is very, very significant and could lead to this. It came about from highlevel dialogue where we said we find your behavior is highly unacceptable. We have options but how do we work this out. In sony, we attributed that, we did sanctions. I believe those types of activities will prove the United States is very serious about this and may lead to these better norms of behavior between nation states. I think thats the hope. What are you actually seeing in terms of changed behaviors . I understand the agreement, which is important. And the statements of intent. What are you seeing in terms of number and severity of intrusions or Cyber Attacks following, you know, letting our adversaries know we will choose the place and time of a response and having responded in some of these cases, what has that done . So were in an unclassified forum but in broad terms, you havent seen the North Koreans attempt another act since november 2014 in the aftermath of our economic saingss and very public attribution and discussion. I would argue at least the denial of Service Activity we saw the iranians in the 20122013 time frame. We have not observed that of late. I would argue for other nation states the impact to the date, i have not seen significant changes. It is early with respect to the prc. Trust me, we will be paying great attention to how this plays out over time. I think thats something that i, and perhaps other members of the committee, would be interested in receiving a briefing on Going Forward just to look at how behaviors are changing, whether that third tenet of ensuring the add vversaries understand the consequences and costs of these attac attacks, making sure that is really working. Appreciate your answers, mr. Chairman. I yield back. We now proceed to the congresswoman from indiana. Jackie walorski. Thank you. You said earlier russia is a competitor in terms of Cyber Technology threats that are out there. Im interested to see what your perspective is. Ive been sitting here and watching through the course of this hearing the russian bombers that let loose today in syria with onehour notice to our generals in baghdad. And striking nonisis targets. And i think this is a reprehensible activity that is happening today. And i have many questions as to how we ended up here. But im curious from you. With this Development Today of an overaggressive russia, how do we go forward talking about sharing intel information and trusting anything that comes from putin and russia . Clearly your point is much broader i think its completely related. I didnt say it was unrelated. I said it was broader. One of the points i try to make you have to remember cyber happens in a broader strategic concept. Will there not be an element of trust that would have to prevail here when we just literally saw what happened this morning . For many of us who sat on this committee for a long time, saw a red line violated and not upheld in syria. We have seen these gaps with an administration that seems to not have any strategy or contiguous plan. How would we take a step forward today . I know youre looking at the broad context talking about the broad contest. The broad context. But i dont understand the gap that is going thats already been there. But the gap that will continue to emerge today. How do we breach that and how do we say to the American People looking our constituents that we have their back and we are looking out for the security of the United States of america. And our allies. And we are watching Vladimir Putin next to our cohort and friend to help israel, does that not change the equation or having any semblance of trust with putin and russia . I would only argue that it fits in a broader context with the ukraine and others. This is not a new phenomena with this particular actor. Its why we have been very direct with them. The secretary has had conversations with the russian framework. I have not had specific cyber discussions with him. I will say one of the points i try to make in our internal discussions is im watching russians use cyber in an increasingly aggressive way. Would this not be a major alarm . This is alarming to me that he just talked to the president and said stay out of our airspace. Now we get one hour and they attack syria. Now they are a main state player. We are fighting back and forth over all kinds of things. We just had the pope here. While the americans are distract today over here, he does another major push in syria. The alarm, not only for lawmakers, but for the citizens of our country we are vowing to protect, we have watched him establish himself in syria, in the middle east. Obviously as outlined by president putin, he believes he is following his national interests. We are concerned by what is happening. We agreed our militaries would talk. Have we not seen a failure between our president and president putin if we were going to talk because now he is there one hour of notice with all of our forces over there, allied forces, nato force, the other nations that are fighting as well. Wouldnt we not see this as a failure . I dont believe its a failure. I believe its an aggressive action by russia in advance of our two militaries. Are you confident that those two leaders have a strategy and that were holding up our end of the bargain . Are you confident that the administration is looking at this as, oh, well, we expected this to happen. I look at it as a gigantic breach because i represent threequarters of a Million People that are looking at their tvs and the official responsibilities from the pentagon, were taken aback by the strikes. Were all taken aback. Is there a strategy that was supposed to prevent this, or is our attitude now, well, we know they are going to do their thing. We are going to see at what form we can contain them. We have a disagreement on strategy. They want to do military action first followed by political agreement. Theyre doing military action. Theyve been doing military action. They encroach on the ukraine. Theyre making headway through the whole Eastern European area. Theyve been doing military action. Today we are watching a live bombing. From your perspective and the perspective of the administration, we expected that the American People do . I dont expect that. The russians made clear they would support the assad regime with air strikes. And we made an agreement to have our militaries talk so there would not be any problem between interactions you think one our of notice is legitimate for two organizations and militaries that are talking . Obviously talks broke down. What is our response now . You have me at a disadvantage, congresswoman. I dont know what has happened over the last hour. We heard about the attacks this morning. They asked us to avoid the area where we would be operating. We continue to fly throughout syria. Are we continuing to talk to our russian counter opponents . We have agreed for our militaries to meet. That meeting simply has not occurred. It is an agreement between the two president s couple days ago. We are trying to find out where we will meet, where it will be would you agree this is not a crisis . For the first time they have now entered the middle east. For the first time we now have watched the broadening of putins a powers, who was right here on american soil right next to a mess, a hotbed of war, and right next to our dear ally, israel. Have we not watched something elevate to the point this is now a crisis . Russia has just gone from their position, through the ukraine, looking at eastern europe, and has sufficiently landed themselves with a coalition inside syria . I do not believe its a crisis. I believe it is a disagreement in strategy. That is what we are trying to work out. I respect that. I believe it is a crisis. I think we have a president with no Foreign Policy whatsoever. We have had red lines talked about and crossed. This played out all by itself. Here we are back on tv in front of every single american wondering who in the world is defending our country. With that, i yield back. Thank you very much, congresswoman jackie walorski. We now go to mr. Takai. I would like to rebalance and refocus to Cyber Strategy, if i may. A lot of my colleagues have asked about deterrents. This is also something im concerned about after recent events that have been discussed. With current threats to our cyber network, the need to discuss here today, including creating and maintaining a persistent training environment, development of a unified platform, and building the joint information environment to secure the dod enterprise. The development of these priorities cannot only serve as a deterrent in their own right but will enable our cyber force Mission Readiness to be the best in the world. Admiral rogers, where is dod in these priorities, if you could address each one . Persistent training environment, unified platform, and joint information environment. So persistent training environment is a program we put together. It will take several years to finish. I think were in fiscal 17 represents the third year of funding for it. Were working through the 17 build internally. Again, i sense strong support for this. I havent come to an issue where i say we have problems way ahead. It seems to be working. I will let terry comment because it has been a particular focus for you. Unified flat form, relatively new idea for us. Five years practice experience. We believe it needs to create a somewhat accept rat. We are starting with the 17 build. As we gain more experience, as we do this over time, we have to continually reassess and ask ourselves. Some of the assumptions we made, are they proving to be what we thought they were, or do we need to make changes . Jie, the joint Regional Security tax are on track. They will be funded in 17 and fully operational by the end of 17. Okay. Thank you. And i wanted to go back to the integration of personnel. I know the secretary mentioned it and i think you, admiral as well. I want to focus on defining where the role of the National Guard fits into the Cyber Strategy. Im a member of the guard in hawaii. And all of us here on this committee have constituents in the guard. Can you touch upon some of the points on where the guard can increase their role in the larger Cyber Mission . Let me just start by saying our cyber force as we discussed earlier, congressman, is about 6,200 active civilians, and in some special cases, contractors. Thats what you said, secretary. You didnt mention National Guard. 2,000 National Guard and reserves on top of that. Some of them will be part of the cyber teams that i talked about. Others will be extra capacity that might be able to help the states. The council of governors and we have been working very, very closely together. Our policy is working through all the aspects of what we can do under title 32 and title 10 authorities in support of the states. But the guard and reserves will be absolutely central to the Cyber Mission, about a quarter of the entire force. 6,200 on the active side, and another 2,000 on the reserve and National Guard. So they are absolutely central. The only other comment i would like, i am the son of a guardsman. As a child i watched him every day, every month, every summer. I played in armories with my father. Every service has used a slightly different construct. In the case of the air force, they are using the guard and the reserve to fill out a part, if you will, of the active requirement for their share of the 6,200. In the case of the army, they un have decided that the guard and the reserve represent an opportunity to generate additional capacity over and above the 6,200 people. Clearly navy and marine corps. Dont have a guard construct. Its a little different for them. The discussions today have been very good. As the secretary said, weve got a way ahead in terms of how to work our way through this, this additional capacity, if you will, that the guard is developing and partnering with the states as to how to view this as one great enterprise, as it were. So we are maximizing the department that the states are investing in. You spoke earlier about the cyber teams and the number of teams youre building. I understand there may be in fact, opportunities for these teams to be wholly guard. You didnt mention that today. So can you explain. I said in the case of the air force, for example, their portion of the share of 133 they in fact, are creating a small number of teams that are wholly guard. One more question for the secretary. How resilient are our military networks to Cyber Attacks and how do you measure and qualify resilience . We are getting better, but were not where we need to be. That is why secretary carter has said defense of our network is absolutely job number one. Now, that will come through a whole lot of different things. As i said in my Opening Statement. First, get the network as defendable as possible. So the jie and the joint Regional Security stacks will take 1,000 defendable fire walls down to less than 200. A whole bunch of different the number of enclaves will be dropped. The first thing is to make your network with the surfaces the fewest surfaces as possible and defendable as possible. The second is to build up these teams. So that is another big part. And the other one is to have a cyber score card which is telling us exactly how well we are doing. Mr. Halvorsen was the creator of the scorecard. I would ask him how to be able to track. It is a measure on the score card that we are actively developing. It will look the gentlemans time has expired. Secretary work and admiral mike rogers, good to meet you. Do you use telecommunications and either one of you Telecommunications Equipment manufactured by wow way in your offices . I apologize, i didnt hear the question do you use Telecommunications Equipment manufactured by wow . Way in your offices . Absolutely not. And i know of no other i dont believe we operate in the pentagon, any systems in the pentagon. Admiral rogers . No. Why . Why do you not use it . For us, i think its a broader conscious decision as we look at supply chain and potential vulnerabilities. Its a risk we felt unacceptable. Admirabmiral work . I agree. What about your clear defense contractors . Should they be using wow woeu Telecommunications Equipment. I will have to take that for the record. I know of no defense contractors that are using wow way equipment but i just dont know. Admiral . This is a broader departmental issue. The contracts we have, we specify Security Standards that you have to meet. We specify the requirement to notify us. Again, we have to take it as a question. I dont know the current language. Terry may know that. I dont know if the current language specifies certain vendors. I know we are very specific about making that standard in the nuclear and other areas. We are very explicit. But that is not allowable. Secretary work, i would appreciate if you can get back to me with whether any are spelled to use woway. The next has to do with the enterprise review that recognizes the huey one helicopters are woefully in adequate are woefully antiquated and inadequate. We need new modern helicopters. Because after all we are talk Building Nuclear weapons. Based on a meeting i had with the air force and osd a few weeks ago, im concerned that the air force acquisition approach will take four or more years to get these helicopters. I had a hearing on this security issue and this came up. Its alarming the concern we are being told about the security of these fields. What can you tell me about why we are looking at such a long period of time . Well, first of all, this is an extremely high priority. We are dealing with it right now in pbr17. Last year the air force plan to replace those helicopters was to take their uh60as excuse me. Take them and upgrade to 60ls. They were just too old and tired and it became cost prohibitive. Thats why the timing slid. Now we will have to buy uh60ms. Or whatever we decide, whether we can do sole source or whether it has to be competition. Commander of u. S. Strategic command, admiral cecil haney, said we cannot afford to wait for four years. We are looking at a wide variety of measures to mitigate the problem until we can get the new helicopters built. It is a high priority issue for us in this budget build. And i will be able to give you a little bit more information once we work through all the different options before us. Well, i just want you to understand i really believe we should see an immediate reprogramming request for the fy budget. I would like to talk with you offline about our new engine to replace the rd180. I will yield back my time and go to ms. Spear. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen for your service to our country. We are dealing with very, very savvy actors in these various Foreign Countries hacking into us. You seemed somewhat elated by the agreement. Yet i have reason to be very skeptical about them complying with what they agreed to comply with. What isnt in the agreement that you would have wished was in the agreement . Well, i wouldnt characterize my reaction as elation, congresswoman as i believe it is a very good first step. It is the first time that the president of china has committed himself and his country to address the issues that have been of high concern to our government. I understand that. What wasnt in the agreement . I have very limited time so if you could please answer the question. It is the key thing people have pointed out. Again, i believe this was a confidence building measure. China will prove they are serious about this or not. Then we can take actions if necessary if they prove not to follow through on their commitment. The opm hack was devastating. It is clear that china did it. They denied it. Its also very clear they now have very personal information about many persons with top secret status. And the phishing that just went on with the joint chiefs of staff unclassified email worries me a great deal. Whether its russia or china. Access to that personal information is such that if they know who your Family Members are or next door neighbor is and they can pretend that they are your Family Member or next door neighbor, you are more liking to click on that and they can get in. What is requiring greater accountability by those who hold those positions who end up clicking by either punishing them or coming up with some system so we can anticipate that kind of phishing going on and prevent it . I would just like to make an overall point and then turn it over to mike and terry. Although our adversaries have very sophisticated capabilities, almost every intrusion has occurred because of bad cyber hygiene. They click on a spear phishing attempt. So we are going after that. I would like to say that is the biggest problem we have is getting our cyber hygiene better. Okay. What kind of is there any kind of penalty being imposed on those who on a careless matter click on to them . The simple answer is yes. I wont go into the specifics. Actions have been taken for people who have misbehaved in a cyber way. Secondly, we have increased the training frequency, phishing training. And we have taken certain actions on the networks to eliminate the ability to click on links and at a minimum we have a warning on there now that says you must think about this link. In some cases, you physically can no longer click on links. I have implemented nine specific technical changes where quite frankly i have said now were going to make your user life harder to try to preclude this from happening. My last question and very briefly, whats keeping you up at night . I would say from my perspective three things in cyber that concern me. Will we see anything attack u. S. Infrastructure, theft of intellectual property to manipulation of the data thats in our system so we no longer can trust what we see. The third thing that worries me, are we going to see nonstate actors, terrorists groups at the forefront of my mind, start to use the web as an offensive weapon. Thank you. I would add two things. One, we have a large number of systems, congresswoman, that were built in an era like admiral rodgers was not the systems were not built to withstand the cyber environment that we are in now. What keeps me up at night, can we get through all our systems and make sure we have cyber hardening. Going forward, we are making sure there are key parameters going ahead. We have to go through Risk Mitigation on every system and say, what is the critical cyber vulnerability . Have we taken care of it. I would like to echo, its the manipulation of data since we rely upon our networks that really keeps me up at night. Secretary work, i wanted to begin with getting your perspective on how we address the cyber threat. We have constructed a military that is very adept and capable of addressing kinetic threats. That is top to bottom capability. We have general lists, specialists. When enlistees come in, they learn the training to do. We have officers that learn tactics and strategy within that environment. Yet it seems we have a myopic or piecemeal element with the cyber threat. Give me your perspective. Shouldnt we have the same top to bottom capability for cyber . Shouldnt our enlisted men and women come in . Shouldnt our curriculums include robust and extensive construction and restriction in the cyber realm . How do we construct a system as capable kinetically as it should be in the cyber realm . Were far behind and we need to be catching up. How do we do that . Is it valuable to do . What are you doing to get to that point . It is very valuable. What we call this is improving the entire hygiene. Making every Single Member active duty, civilians, contractors, and reserves, to understand the cyber threat we face each day. And to understand the simple actions they can take to improve our security. I think many of the things that you say in our education and schools, cyber, is now an important part of our curriculum. We have red teams that are going out and helping commanders in how they can improve. We have different types of means by which we hold people accountable for. If you have a negligent discharge with a weapon, that is a bad thing. We want everyone to know a negligent discharge in cyber is almost could be as dangerous. I totally agree with what you are saying. This is a big, big cyber cultural shift that admiral rodgers spoke to earlier. I would echo, thats the approach were taking. We have got to do this foundationally across the spectrum. We dont need the same level of training. But there has got to be a level of basic Cyber Awareness regardless of rank. This is the one environment in which we have given you access to a keyboard you now represent a potential point of vulnerability. Everyone is an operator in this environment. Give me your perspective. Where are we dedicated things for cyber, within personnel, within training, with hardware and software . I think its reflected not only of what you are doing from a doctrine standpoint, philosophy standpoint, training standpoint, but where are you dedicating resources to make sure you are successfully meeting that objective . When secretary carter was the deputy secretary filling the job that i fill now, starting around fy13, i believe, there was an effort to try to increase the investment in cyber forces. I believe that were doing very well in this regard. We could always do more. Its budget dependent. As i said earlier in the in testimony, secretary carter says wherever our budget ends up, cyber is a very, very top priority. The one area where i think we could do better is in tools. I think we are focused we had to build the Human Capital first, which we have been doing very well. But if theres one area where i think we could do better for admiral rogers and the team is to invest more money in tools that he would be able to then create Better Options for the force. And i would echo. I think were doing a very good job with the dedicated Cyber Mission force in terms of the commitment to bring it online. Where i think we need to look at is the things i have raised are tools, situational awareness, training environment, the unified platform. Asking ourselves over time, is the manpower right, is the command and control structure that we have put in place right. This is part of an ongoing process. What i try to remind people is, cyber is an environment in which where where he today is not where we will end up. We have to take this in bite size chunks and keep moving out. If you could, i would love to see a breakdown about what you are proposing in resource allocation now, what your projection is to make sure we are building that capability. You talked about the time element. Time is critical. Getting your perspective on how you will accomplish that both strategically within the planning sense but also in allocation of resources is going to be critical. I will take that for the record, sir. The government shutdown, i have been sitting here since february and i admire everybody on this committee and the witnesses. I have learned a great deal. Ive been here eight months or whatever. Im from nebraska. It is absolutely unfathomable, it is beyond belief, it is incomprehensible that this government, this congress or anybody would even begin to talk about shutting down the government. For whatever political gain they might get. We were in the middle east in february. At the beginning of the not the beginning of the isis effort, but certainly it was in the beginning stages of our effort to combat isis. And we were in baghdad. There was discussion at that point about standing up a force to address social media issues. It was at the very, very beginning of that, at least in baghdad, of getting civilian and military personnel up to speed on what was going on with isis and social media. Were now in october. I know this is a little bit of a speech. I apologize. But it seems to me at that time i came back with a sense of all the things we talk about in congress now and all the discussion about shutting down the government and all these other issues, i understand this is democracy, we can talk about what we want to talk about, but i kept thinking to myself, why dont we debate and discuss and at least give to the military, every branch of the military, some clear plan and understanding of where we want to go with not only isis but in the middle east generally . It seems to me that we are reacting to these various incidents. Were reacting with what the russians did today because for whatever the threats are there, these other threats are there. It seems to me its incumbent upon us in congress to clearly indicate to you what we want you to do. And where we want to you go. I think that is totally lacking. This week with all the things that went on with the in the house, i just kept thinking to myself, what do our military think about we cant get our house in order. We cant operate. Going back to my service in nebraska, they would look at me like were nuts. Were sending our military, were asking them to do almost an Impossible Task around the globe and were bickering about stuff that has nothing to do with giving you the capabilities u. S. Ne you need to go forward. I have said enough. Picking up on your third point about the social media issue, the third thing that keeps you up at night. Whats your analysis of where we are in the next minute and 56 seconds, where we are with the third element and how you see that evolving . I think we need to do a better job of contesting isil in the information dynamic. Their ability in the information arena is every bit as important in many ways as their battlefield successes. We have focused a large piece of our strategy on trying to stop that battlefield activity level. I think were going to need to do the same in the information dynamic. Part of their ability to get out their story, their propaganda, their vision of the world around us, we need to contest that. Its as much an idea as a physical presence on the ground. How is that going . Not where we want it to be. Multiple components across the government ongoing. Dont get me wrong. But i think its fair to say we have not achieved yet the impact that we think we need to have and the impact that we want to have. Congressman, if i could just say that what your Opening Statement certainly resonates with secretary carter and me. Strategy is all about balancing in ways and means. When you have no idea what your mean are, its almost impossible to have a good strategy. As i said earlier today, in the last six years, were in a situation where we think a continuing resolution is a better deal than a government shutdown. And it is. But its certainly not something that i would say i would want to operate under. In the last six years what we have is a ninemonth fiscal year. Because every first quarter, were in a cr. That means that we are limited to do what you told us to do last year rather than doing what the things we need to do this year. It is an incredible situation. Theres no member of congress in any house in any party that would sit in my job as a coo and say, we can make this work without compromising our National Security. Im sorry. Im on the soapbox. This is something that we deal with every day. We hope that we wont have a government shutdown. We hope that the cr will be taken care of in a very quick manner. My time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Chair recognizes ms. Mcsally. I want to make sure im on the record that i after serving 26 years in uniform and seeing government shutdowns and continuing resolution and the impact that has on us, ive strongly advocating against shutting down the government, advocating for us doing our job and passing bills so you can plan, you can strategize, you can execute the mission. I would urge all of my colleagues, if you want to keep the government open, you need to vote to keep the government open. That would be my urge to them today. Those of us who understand what that mreenz going to do that. We would appreciate a large number of my colleagues showing some courage and joining us. Anyway, on to the issues at hand. Prior to running for congress, i was a professor at the george c. Particular sha Marshal Center. One of the last courses that i participated in was a Senior Executive seminar related to Cyber Security, cyber terrorism. In your strategy you talk about building and maintaining robust alliances, partnerships. This is a global domain. So they are starting one of my colleagues retired marine kern colonel is leading that effort. Can you speak to how the Security Centers fit in, how you feel as far as resources in order to use tools like these Security Centers like the Marshal Center to execute that strategy and whether you need new authorities or Additional Resources in that venue. First of all, these Different Centers are very vital. Part of our strategy regardless of what the level of resources are, congresswoman, is partnerships and establishing strong partnerships. As admiral rogers and terry said, this is a collaborative environment that we face the same threats and need to operate together. I dont know if there are any authority that mike would ask to help us work more deeply with our partners. But i know that we are doing so and very aggressively. Resources as well. It hasnt been an authorities issue as much in the case of the Marshal Center. The agageneral has asked us for assistance. I think it will generate good outcome for us. I have committed to general, i will be there to provide expertise. Thats what i can bring, not necessarily money. Were working i dont think either of us know the specifics other than the fact that we have committed to moving forward on it. I know its ongoing. I will tell you having been there and sometimes we have senior officials from 45 different countries. This is not a technical course. Its more of awareness of best practices, policy issues. Especially for some of our less capable partners. Theyre not going to have a Cyber Command like we do. If we can raise their game up a bit and have better collaboration and coordination for strategic understanding, best practices, how to alert and respond and working with each other intelwise, threatwise, i think it goes a long way. I was impressed with the capabilities we have there. I would think its a little bit of an investment for potentially huge strategic outcomes. We agree. Over the next months, we will be in nato working to do exactly that with our partners, raising their cyber basics. We will be in bulgaria doing the same thing. Some of that is a result of some of the arrangements we are working from the Marshal Center. Thats paying back good dividends. Excellent. I look forward to working with you in the future if you have additional questions requests y. But the other defense centers, because this is a global issue. Thank you. I yield back. I thank the gentle lady. The chair recognizes ms. Duckworth. Im interested in looking at cyber vulnerabilities. I would love to go to our bases and installations that support core war fighting functions. I feel they face similar threats. Our installations are tied into local grids. Rely on sue aewage and water fr the surrounding areas. There is potential for impact. Continuity of operations is critical for dod as for our civilian infrastructure. Admiral, i would like for you to address this. I will give you an example i found deeply disturbing. I took a tour of a contractor that a Wonderful Company that works in smart grid technology. And as part of this tour of this facility, small business, they were very proud to show me what they were doing. They won a contract at one of our bases. The base where a major i wont say which base. This is not a secret room. It was a major it was the home for a major Maneuver Division in the army. And from another state where i was, i watched them turning off the lights at that base. When i asked, the person who was operating the computer turning on and off the lights at the base, i said, do you have a secret clearance . No. I said do you have anybody with a secret clearance . Yes the chief engineer. This was an unsecure room. People were coming in and out. Amazing technology thats going to help us save tons of money when it comes to environmental costs and Energy Efficiency and all those good things as a democrat i love. But i was deeply concerned that i was sitting there watching them turn the lights on and off on a major road on a major installation of a major Maneuver Division command in the army. Admiral, if you could speak to perhaps what you are doing to both coordinate with installation command for the different groups and local civilian infrastructure. This base is outside of a major metropolitan city. Its not one of the army batesb in the middle of nowhere. I was deeply concerned. We share your concern. The services and installation and their respective installation commends are working with each individual installation. I have been an installation commender in the course of my career. I have experienced this as a commander when you are so dep d dependent in some ways on infrastructure and capability that is outside of your 3450ed span and control and yet it drives your ability to execute your mission. Its one of the reasons why in it the department we ask ourselves, what are the capabilities we need to bring on the installation, if you will, to put redundancy and backups in so we have a level of control . Were working our way through this. The challenge i think we find is, again, it goes to the scope of the problems out there. Its the infrastructure that we can count on as the department that just the broad swath of it, the size and the age of it as were trying to collectively work our way through this. This is a problem thats going to take us years to work our way through. I dont think theres any doubt about that. Do you have a liaison from Cyber Command that sits at installation command for each of the branchs of service . No. I work through my service components. In my last job where i was the navys cyber individual reporting to u. S. Cyber command, i was working directly with the navys installation commend as to what we were doing in naval installations around the world. We do that now. Is there any policy that looks at one of the great things about this committee is this is a very bipartisan committee. I want to applaud the continuing work. One of my concerns with acquisition reform is the contractors and subcontractors. I have concern that we are talking about service subcontractors that are several layers down and were not inspecting them. There was nobody inspecting this contractor and making sure that they were that they had secured the facilities and the computers and that were turning on and off the lights at a Major Military base. We have take the issue specifically for action. We will provide feedback on that. I share your concern, maam. This is something were going to have to work our way through. What do you specifically do you have plans in place . Are you writing policy . What are you doing to address this issue . Let me take that one. There is policy in place. We are looking at all of the installations. Frankly, grading them and looking for where the priority is. As mike said, this is a priority issue. Theres a vast number of installations. Frankly, the control systems for power, water, when they were built, there was no consideration of cyber. So now we have to go back and fix that. We have a list of the priori priorities. We are prioritizing on those bases that have more strategic assets first, which is smart. We will keep going down that list to fix those issues. But theres a priority list. We have new language required for all contractors to meet certain requirements. That is in place. Can i have a copy of the priority list and the new list for contractors . We will certainly take that for the record. Im sure it is. We will figure out how to get it to sgyou. Thank you. I yield back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona, mr. Franks, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Admiral rogers, i appreciate people like you that put yourself at risk and try to do everything you can to protect the homeland and the future generations. On behalf of my children, thank you. Thank you, sir. Im going to paraphrase here. In press briefings at the Wilson Center you said that what keeps you up at night i know you have been asked that question several times today are threats to Critical Infrastructure and you have been observing nation states spending a lot of time within the power structure of the United States. As you know better than perhaps anyone, the department of defense relies upon the electric grid for 99 of its electricity needs without which even the departments position is that it cannot affect its mission. Of course, there are 320 million americans that also depend upon it significantly for everyday survival. A widespread collapse of the electric grid, of course, would lead to gross societal collapse. So under your cyber wearing your cyber hat, how protected is our electric grid from cyberattacks and lesser discussed attacks that could come from disturbance or electromagnetic pulse . Do you find industry to be a willing partner in helping to secure the grid . What have you been tasked with or coordinated with or asked to do from the department of Homeland Security or frc or the federal Energy Regulatory commission in regard to hardening the electric grid and protecting it and just giving us your best military advice . A lot of questions here. Im sorry. What do you think needs to be accomplish totd robustly harden our electric grid against these stated threats . Let me try to do them backwards to forwards. Remember, dod does not physically act on private sector networks. Im not responsible for hardening. Thats true. Without them, you will certainly maybe revisit that. My only point is, your question specifically is what are you doing. Thats not Cyber Commands role. What we do is we partner with dhs in their role. I try to make sure that because of one of the missions u. S. Heard the secretary talk about in the beginning, there was an expectation that dod needs to be ready to respond if the president decides we have to respond to a significant consequence. A power scenario is one of the things that we talk about. We partner with dhs, with the segment. We do a cyber guard annual exercise. I had two different power sector segments from two different parts of the United States that participated in this exercise. It was one of the scenarios we walked through. In terms of the grid, if you will, vulnerability, i would argue, its pretty broad. If you look in the eastern part of the United States, the grid is operating on the margins just between capacity and demand. The other point i try to make particularly in the eastern part of the United States is we need to think more than just the u. S. Our grid in the east in particular is so tied into our canadian counter parts for Power Generation capacity on their side of the border often is flowing south to meet our basic needs. The other challenge i find in the power sector is they are quick to remind me of this is their business model. Were a regulated industry. The only way for us to generate revenue is through rates. Those are governed. I cant universally say im going to up charge topz generate a 5 billion capital fund i can use to invest in basic infrastructure. Each of the utilities if you will within the sector is trying to work their way through it. I appreciate that. I guess one of the things over the years in dealing with this issue that has occurred to me is that what you just said, you are correct you know this is not your responsibility to tell the private sector what to do with the grid. But then the private sector, when we talk to them about hardening the grid, they say thats the National Defense apparatus job. In the meantime, what could be a profound threat, given the fact that all of our other security our other Critical Infrastructures rely upon the grid, it walks the 13th floor of congressional debate. No one addresses it. Of course, theres always a moment in the life of every problem when its big enough to be seen and small enough to be addressed. I think we live in that window. I certainly dont offer you any advice, just the question i hope lingers in our minds is, are we doing what is relevant to protect the National Security on this particular threat . Certainly, the loss of the grid would be the ultimate Cyber Security issue. If you cant turn the computers on, you cant do much else. Again, theres no arrogance in my comments, admiral. I think you are doing a great job. I hope you will consider this as much as possible. Thank you. Thank the gentleman for yielding back. All of our members have complete third questions. I warnnt to thank the witnesses for their team and preparation for this hearing. It takes a lot to get ready for these. Your time here today has been very beneficial to us. With that, we are adjourned. Were covering several Campaign Events today, including senator marco rubio at a town hall meeting. That will be live at 12 30 eastern on cspan. Then on our companion network cspan2 at 6 30 p. M. , donald trump in virginia. Jeb bush is in New Hampshire for a second day holding a town hall. Thats live at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Tonight, Hillary Clinton will be speaking at a rally in las vegas a day after taking part in the first democratic president ial debate in the 2016 campaign. Live coverage of that starting at 8 30 p. M. Also on cspan. Cspan has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016. You will find the candidates, the speeches, the debates and most importantly, your questions. This year, we are taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest. Giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. Follow cspan student cam contest and road to the white house coverage 2016 on tv, on the radio and online at cspan. Org. Now to a discussion on ways to improve the nations Mental Healthcare system. Congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania and senator chris murphy of connecticut talk about bills they are sponsoring addressing Mental Health issues. Hosted by the National Journal, this is about two hours. Please welcome Senior Vice President of National Journal. Good more th good morning. Improving access to care and reducing incarceration made possible by jansen pharmaceuticals. Keep your cell phones out but silence them. We encourage you using social media. For the audience q and a portion there are microphones around the room. Just state your name and organization if you have a question. You can also submit your question at any time during the program via twitter. Use the asknj. Download our app. It includes our schedule as well as information about speakers and attendees. It includes a survey. We would love for you to fill that out so that we can continue to improve our events. This morning we will have a robust discussion about Mental Health reform. As many suffering from serious Mental Illness face challenges getting access to care, which can result to homelessness and incarceration. At the state and federal levels, theres recognition that lack of effective Mental Healthcare is a Public Health issue and a cost driver. As several Mental Health reforms the reform bills await the fate in congress, our conversation will focus on what policy changes are needed and how we can improve access to Mental Health services. Todays event we will hear from representative tim murphy and senator chris murphy. They will each deliver remarks and then sit down for a moderated discussion with lauren fox, who is National Journal staff correspondent. We will conclude with a moderated panel of experts in the Mental Health arena. Now i would like to invite dr. Elizabeth fowler, Vice President for Global Health policy at johnson and johnson to the podium. [ applause ] thanks. Thank you all for joining us to be part of this important conversation about Mental Health reform and policies that can improve outcomes for patients and society at large. We are proud to underwrite this event bringing together leaders from across the policy advocacy and criminal justice communities. For too long we have set the bar too low on how we support those living with Mental Illness. Globally, Mental Illness costs society more than cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease combined. Were encouraged about all the efforts we see under way to change this at the federal, state and local level. We can and should set the bar higher. Enhanced collaboration between the Mental Health and criminal Justice System is chris critica. Opportunities exist to reform the Mental Health and criminal Justice Systems and innovative support programs can assist in transitions of care. We are really looking forward to todays discussionpromising col including diversion of individuals for whom it appropriate away from the criminal Justice System, care and continuity during incarceration that Better Connect individuals to Community Resources when they come out of institutions. Thank you for joining us. Were pleased that you are here. We are pleased to be part of this important discussion on an important topic that affects us all. [ applause ] please welcome the honorable tim murphy, cochair of the congressional Mental Health caucus. [ applause ] good morning. Great to be with you. Thank you for being here on an issue of such critical importance to our nation. Last night when i was sitting on the balcony of the capitol, i looked at the sunset in the twilight sky and the clouds, they were gold, they were gray against this beautiful pale blue sky darkening. I glanced over to see the House Office Building and the flags lowered to half staff. I was reminded why during this week, which is Mental Illness treatment week, that once again we are mourning the loss of so many citizens who have a death that didnt have to happen. This has been the bloody summer of 2015. When many highprofile events occurred in dallas, in houston, in tennessee, in virginia, in oregon. The list goes on and on. And although these are the incidents that get the headlines, it is a tiny fraction of the tragedies that occur in the area of Mental Illness that is untreated. We actually make it the most difficult for those who have the most difficulty with serious Mental Illness that is untreated, under treated or mistreated. Back in the 1950s when we had half a million hospital beds, now we have 40,000. What we have done is we need to close those asylums s because y were bad places. We were supposed to open up community centers. The last bill president kennedy signed was deeming with changing the Mental Health system in america. Here it is half a century later. I believe things have gotten worse. Despite the knowledge we have in science last summer identifying 10 0108 genetic mar, despite having more effective treatments, despite breakthroughs in medications, we have federal policies that are quite frankly abusive and neglectful towards people with serious Mental Illness. They are antipatient, antifamily, antipsychiatrist. What is worse is that it is made the most harmful for those who are minorities and low income. When we close those asylums we needed to. We ended up reducing the number of Psychiatric Hospital beds. Some got better with treatment. Some had community services. That is good. We want them to have productive lives. For so many, they traded the hospital bed for the prison cell. The homeless shelter. The emergency room. And the morgue. Not only this year will we have somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 homicides by someone with serious Mental Illness untreated, we will have thousands who are mentally ill who are victims of crime and rape and assault. We will have 41,000 deaths by suicide. 1. 2 million suicide attempts that were bad enough to seek medical help. 43,000 Drug Overdose deaths. The list goes on and on. The ones that grab our headlines, the ones that tell us what we need to do. In my bill the helping families with Mental Health crisis act, we address these directly and comprehensively. The first and most comprehensive deal to deal with serious Mental Illness in america. We have to do that because the key federal agencies has been neglecting and harmful. They have taking taxpayer money to do frivolous, silly and abusive grants. They have. They fund such things as over 400,000 website to have singalong songs for children. They recommend drink a fruit smoothie if you are stressed. Yes, they do. They have workshops where they tell people to get off their medication. Last winter, they had a website to tell people in boston how to deal with their snow anxiety. Two days ago, the Washington Post released a story that they have sent money to an agency, a pr agency to tell reporters they will give 175 to the charity of their choice if they write a nice story. When an agency is reduced to that bribery to the media, to say please tell a nice story about us because two reports said that it is not doing its job, theres 112 federal agencies that are supposed to be doing services for the seriously mentally ill. They are supposed to coorder a nature them. They havent met since 2009. The director said, were going to start meeting now. When we asked about this website for children singalongs, its for prevention. We will look into that. We are still waiting to see the results. When we said, why did you spend 22,500 of a painting in your office, it was for Mental Health awareness. Here is what im aware of. Its a waste of money. Its a waste of our approach. Thats the way our country operates. Thats why that agency must change. Thats why we say now were going to elevate this to have an assistant secretary of Mental Health and Substance Abuse. No more frivolous workshops on stopping taking your medication or employees marching in a circle singing songs. 80,000 on that. No more of that. Can you imagine what communities could have done if they would have had this money to treat Mental Health . In their 40,000 word statement of what they do, they dont even mention the word schizophrenia and bipolar. They dont have a psychiatrist on staff. The ones they have quit. They are more concerned about talking about peoples rights to refuse treatment instead of peoples right to be well. When i hear that judges and Police Officers say i cant do anything with these folks because its not illegal to be crazy, i say, what about their rights to be treated . If someone was walking the streets with alzheimers disease, delusional, not aware of who they are, we wouldnt say, you know, grandma has a right to have alzheimers. If someone had a stroke and was not aware they had the problem, we wouldnt say, they have a right to be stroke. If someone was passed out on the street with a heart attack, we wouldnt say they have a right to have a heart attack. Policies are abusive and neglectful, particularly minorities and poor. When medicaid has a rule that says you cant see two doctors in the same day if you have private insurance, you can. If you have medicaid, you cant. Thats neglectful towards the poor. You cant have more than 16 hospital beds, thats neglectful towards the poor. What we need to do is address the needs of persons and get them to see who they need to see. When we have a shortage of psychiatrists we have 9,000. We need 30,000. In a time when serious Mental Illness emerges by age 14 in 50 of the cases. 75 by age 24. We dont have enough. We need to have incentives to get more psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, clinical social workers. We need more counselors, people who have been through this. We need systems like Mental Health america has to say were going work on certifying and getting people the training they need. When you have agency after agency that has to struggle to get dollars to make sure they have the services to see the waste in washington, d. C. Quite frankly, every taxpayer in america should be disgusted. Every family that is burying someone or see someone else go off to jail and they see the silly things our federal government spends money on, people should be outraged. And i am. What were going to do once again is have moments of silence in congress as we mourn the deaths of these people who should not have died because someone should have been in treatment. When i say america wake up, congress wake up, we dont need more moments of silence. We need moments of action. We need moments of shouting out enough is enough. Mental illness is a brain illness. Its not according to some of the agencies that they fund and send minions out, its not a difference in attitude. Hallucinations and delusions are not simple nonconsensus reality. Its a brain disease that must be treated as such. My bill in addition to having assistant secretary of Mental Health and Substance Abuse to organize the 112 agencies to weed out those that arent doing a good job and elevate those doing a great job, to make sure that we allow states to combine the dollars from Mental Health and also Substance Abuse, because a majority of each are abusing drugs and have Mental Health problems. Why would we isolate them from treating together . To say we need more hospital beds. We allow the same day doctor rule to be dropped. We make sure that for people who are in the revolving door of prison systems and yet in Mental Illness that we want states to have wrap around services for them. This is the time in this nation when we have to stop wasting our time on mourning. When we have to put agency and other groups on the sharp microscope to say you will treat Mental Illness or get out of the way. We will employ the best and brightest of people who are consumers, people who are peer support, providers and families and allow them to be part of it. We will stop families from being kicked out of the treatment method. I find it interesting so often we blame families. Why didnt the parents know . Why didnt they do anything . Because hipaa laws dont allow them to participate. When they have a higher risk of chronic illness because of poor nutrition and poor care or because of the medication they take, higher risk for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. But we dont tell Family Members when their next appointment is, what their diagnosis is, treatment plan is. And yet we blame parents for not taking care of it. What do we have from that . We have millions of americans with serious Mental Illness untreated. On that bumpy, slowmotion road to death. Thats tragic. That is third world. Thats embarrassing. As the only person in congress who is a Mental Health provider currently, i am determined to change this system, to wake up congress and wake up america to say, there are answers to this. Not the answer of continuing to do what we do again. I want the time to be that while we have the twilight of one sun setting of the day of the way we treat serious Mental Illness now, i want american, millions of American Families and millions of americans suffering from serious Mental Illness to look forward to the bright new dawn where we will begin to treat Mental Illness as an illness, effectively with evidencebased care and make a difference in their lives. Thats why, i will talk to members of congress. During this week of Mental Illness week, people are speaking out to members of congress. Over 40 newspapers have published he had towaeditorials of this. Its time to have Leadership Call this bill up for a vote. Let congress who represents the people vote on this. Lets provide hope for those people who have been suffering in silence in the shadows for far too long. Thank you very much. [ applause ] please welcome lauren fox, staff correspondent at National Journ journal. Thank you for joining us. I wanted to start out with because you mentioned in the speech you are the only current Mental Health provider in congress, when did you first start to realize that there were gaps in the system, that there were issues with getting your clients the help that they needed . Actually, when first started doing my first internships in graduate school in the 1970s, when Community Health centers were just beginning to emerge, i found that here were things i was trained on that i was not allowed to do. I found that the law doesnt allow you to do that. You cant see people. You cant work on those things. It was a matter of recognizing even then the barriers we had. It got worse, however, as chairman of the oversight investigation subcommittee after the shootings at sandy hook elementary school, when we first started having hearings and we heard family after family and providers and consumers talking about the difficulties with getting care. Thats when it became very clear that much of this was federal policies that got in the way. I want to talk about this in the context of shootings and gun deaths. We often talk about Mental Health after a gun tragedy. I guess i want you to sort of address why the two get interlinked and whether you think that might be a mistake in the way we talk about these issues. They get interlinked because those are the cases that get peoples attention. We have to be paying attention to whats in their mind, not whats in their hands. Because if we miss that, then were once again going to fail to address the comprehensive reforms we need in Mental Health treatment. No other area of medicine is controlled by lawyers and by congress the way that Mental Health is, in a restricted it prevents people from getting the care they need. When we look at the suicide deaths and the tens of thousands of people that die every year from jumping in front of a car, from driving a car off a breath, ju from poisoning, Drug Overdoses, we dont say we need to talk about ropes and bridges and cars. We would understand how thats not what we need to be doing and how thats diminishing our focus we need to have on helping people with serious Mental Illness. We have set those 4 Million People aside and trying to ignore them and treeat them wit denial. Thats not appropriate. As a Mental Health provider, i cannot let that happen. It is critically important we have the right services for them to get better. Do you think that discussions after shootings help give your bill a little bit more momentum as people Start Talking about what are the Real Solutions here . If its not something on guns, maybe its something on Mental Health. I hope so. Most people with Mental Illness are not violent. All of us experience some level of transient concerns and we get better. What happens is if we recognize people with serious Mental Illness not in treatment are 15 times more likely to be violent than someone who is in treatment. A person who is seriously mentally ill is ten types more likely to be in a jail than a hospital. Getting services for them is extremely difficult. That is what i hope that this provokes us to have a discussion on. Not to say if we treat the mentally ill, violence will go away. It wont. We know ignoring them has been a harmful process. I hope that if anything meani meaningful can come out of this for families suffering for the rest of their lives because they lost a loved one, know that this motivated congress to get up and do something. I want to talk about the families of mentally patients and people would are trying to get Family Members help. There has been a shortage of hospital beds for individuals. I guess im curious, how does your bill address that . Do you see a promise for ensuring that families get the help for their loved up withes that they need . What we do is we list the limit on hospital beds from 16 bed cap to say as long as the average length of stay is 30 days or less. It covers 98 of people. When we look at the difference between Psychiatric Hospitals that have this versus having someone in a agageneral hospita bed. They may spend twice as many time with fewer services versus one that is focused Specialty Hospital with that. Actually, in many of the cases, the average length of stay is under a week, because they can target services right away. Additional to that, there must be Wraparound Services afterwards. This is where medicaid pays for some things, which is helpful. Agencies say they will make sure if someone is moving out, they have services secured for them. Housing, supportive education, supportive job placement, making sure they have counseling and other aspects there. But more than having an agency do that, involve the family to whatever extent we can. These are many times, loving and caring parents who someone is emerged with Mental Illness for genetic reasons, for other reasons, and we have to stop telling Family Members, you are cut out of the equation here. Your billous makes changes t hipaa bills. One is permitted. Doctors are allowed to listen to a Family Member talk to them. Many times lawyers told doctors, dont do that. You will get in trouble. They are allowed to listen. That works if a Family Member or a friend or this trusted caregiver says, this is john doe, here is the name of his treating psychologist, psychiatri psychiatrist, here is the medications he is on. It has been harmful before. That information is vital for Mental Health professional. History is vital. Its like an xray is to an orthopedic surgeon. Try and diagnose a broken leg but you are not allowed to look at an xray, tell us if theres a tumor, but you cant look at an mri, we would never do that h. History is vital. In those circumstances where the consumer has diminished capacity can become gravely disabled in absence of treatment, may have other medical complications, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, infectious disease, the doctor has to make a decision, is this a trusted caregiver . Not a stranger but someone who is a trusted caregiver . The doctor can give limited but vital information. Diagnosis, treatment plan, doctors name, time and place of the next appointment and medication list. Its forbidden to give any therapy information. That will remain confidential. If that Family Member or that friend or that trusted caregiver is going to assist that person to go on the next appointment, that will help. It can save lives. You end up with the issue that mentally ill people die 25 years sooner than the rest of the population. I want to discuss the intersection of criminal justice and Mental Health. 20 of individuals in prisons have some kind of Mental Illness. What can we do to ensure that our jails do not become receptacles for the mentally ill . What can we do to expand care so that its not sort of the last resort . Some estimates put that higher, 50 or 60 . More in county and city jails, state penitentiaries are high. Federal under 20 . The point is, if that is a major contributor to the what has happened, several things need to help. If you do prevention early on, you make a world of difference for them. Not frivolous prevention like happy singalong songs. I mean targeting a risk group. This is the highrisk group. You can use programs such as one called response after initial schizophrenic episode, which is authorized in my bill, which is very valuable. You do these things early on. You make sure you have enough provid providers. Make sure theres enough places for treatment. If someone is caught up in the cycle, this revolving door, we want states to have some Wraparound Services for them. In new york, they call it assisted outpatient treatment. 46 states have this on the books. They dont always use it. You have a history of violence, incarceration, and Mental Illness, you are not engaging in treatment, when you are not in treatment, you end up back down into this abyss of troubles, the judge can order you to Outpatient Care to stay order y care. Now, this is very important. Sometimes people say you should never have involuntary commitment of any kind. To those folks i say, you are wrong. Most people are not aware they have a problem. They are not aware that hallucinations, deillusions in existence. Some people who have been harmed by the system dont want to get help. When the state mandates, thats important. You have to help. We want the services to be flexible. Let me tell you the alternative. A gentleman in virginia i think last week, 24yearold was arrested for about 5 worth of theft. So soft drink, candy bar from a 7eleven. He went into jail because there was no room in a hospital bed for him. He remained in jail for 70 days. Filthy, naked, untreated. He died. Starved. He died. There is no way that person ever should have been put in a jail. We should have had services to get him in treatment. Those kind of services which we believe and the more compassionate thing to do. Are there Mental Health services in jails, prisons, in local communities to prevent sort of an individual is put in jail to prevent them from getting more traumatized. Some yes. Many are weak, if anything. We have some states who try to stave money by not saving medications. And the money is not sent to where it needs to be. It is a troubling option. There was an article in the New York Times and they found many people had serious Mental Illness. They had new charges on them. What started off as a minor offense became an elevated offense. They will get tased. You should never do that with people with Mental Illness. For the same crime, tend to serve as a prison sentence four times longer. And it is part of what is the shame of our system. With when we have agencies that dont ant to address serious Mental Illness who want to waste money. This is a shameful story of whats happening here. What we need to do with those folks, instead of saying we have to criminalize Mental Illness before you get help, or say youre going to kill yourself before we get help. We need to be dealing with things at an earlier stage. Saving lives, saving mope, be more compassionate instead of ignoring it until it gets bad. I mentioned the response of schizophrenic episode is very targeted, sciencebased, evidencebased. The National Child and adolescents look at adolescents who have been traumatized in some way. One of the reports that they did said they dont follow through. They dont have scientific standards. Many cases they dont have reports that came out. This is jao. After that we asked the director how would you support yourself . 10 out of 10. Perfect score. This shows you how out of touch federal agencies are. They cant even bev to say we need to change. Were going to change for them. Thats why people elect us to make these changes. There are excellent programs out there. Thats what we want to see elevated. We need better continuity between department of defense and the va. The veterans i work with. Im a navy hospital. We need smooth continuity for them between when they are in the army and theyre in the va. Otherwise, what do we want to see them end up in jail or homeless . Thats not appropriate. You have 133 cosponsors on your bill. Bipartisan. Tell us about working across the aisle on this issue and whether or not you feel confident that the time has come in congress to get this on the floor and get it passed. The time has come. It is really going to be not necessarily from the political insiders. People want to protect the turf of their agencies. This is a grassroots area. Theres real dynamic people on both sides of the aisle. Some of the leaders, marcy campter of the cleveland area, you have a wide range of people, hannah esu. The list goes on and on. On the republican side, we have supporters too. But you know what, its going to take American People to be picking up a pen, picking up a phone, picking up their computer and contacting members of congress. We cant risk again 80, 90,000 people per year dying from untreated Mental Illness. I wanted to give the audience an opportunity. Were going to start questions in about five minutes. Just give you an opportunity to start lining up if you get to that point. I also want to take about the language we use talking about Mental Illness and how this stigmatizes the issue, makes it difficult for people who dont have loved ones with Mental Illness, how they could perceive it. Is there a better way to discuss . Issue, how can Congress Help us understand that . We do it a couple ways. We develop a still ma by not having services available. When you dont have enough places to go, sometimes dropin centers. Sometimes peer support you can call, psychologists, psychiatrists, nurse practitioners. We dont have enough of those. That helps reduce the stigma. It makes it easier the get help. When you see Breast Cancer, heart treatment, they are beautiful buildings. Mental health is usually hidden away. It cant transfer the next fiscal year. Thats part. Part of it is elevating this up. As we are looking at Breast Cancer month you will see nfl teams wearing pink gloves, socks and even the referees pink wrist bands. The fountain in pittsburgh has pink dye. Thats important. I have a sister who died of Breast Cancer who died last year. Its important to me personally. When you see a Football Player wearing green shoe leases to bring awareness of his bipolar. Thats why i wear a green tie when i talk about Mental Health. I want people to think of recovery and growth like the spring. After the long doldrums of winter, things are new again. I want that hope. It will be a matter of Family Members speaking out and people who are in recovery speaking out to say we have to get better but we have to have the help. You made a few changes to your bill since introducing it a few years ago. One was giving incentives to states that give treatment to Mental Health instead of states that do not. How do you make sure people get the help they need and that their Civil Liberties arent infringed on . One of the primary is the right to make sure people get well. They should be allowed to be sick and wither away and be homeless and die. How cruel and heartless is that . When i hear judges say, well, he has the right to be crazy. We wouldnt say you have the right to have a heart attack and die. You have the right to have alzheimers. But we assign that bigoted label to people with Mental Illness. Many states have it on the books. Whether or not they do it is a problem. When new york did this, the money they were saving they put back into the system. People had better access to services. They found they reduced incarceration 80 . They reduced rehospitalizations and homelessness by 70 . Duke University Center on the new york system. As other states and counties do this, they actually find it is more compassionate to help people who are in that revolving door of problems. We dont want to read more stories of the 100 plus people with Mental Illness involved in a Police Altercation and died. We want police to be able to approach folks in a calm and organized way and say, look, were going to get you help. That is how we will address these issues. I want to speak and end on the question of how Police Officer can be trained better to interact with individuals with Mental Illness, High Percentage of the individuals who are killed by Police Officers have Mental Illness. How can these confrontations be deescalated. There is crisis intervention training, which the bill authorizes payment on too. This is training for Police Officers to understand and identify a situation right at the onset. Many times they can tell how the person behaves, how they are addressed, that this person needs a different point of view. And even if someone is in a threatening posture, how to deescalate that quickly. How to talk to a person calmly. How you have Police Officers positioned. You have to protect the family safety. True. Especially when the person is threatening. In many cases a person may be verbally hostile, scared, paranoid, hallucinating. But there are problems out there. We need police to get that extra training so families feel safer. Also and primarily so the person is treated like a human being so they can be safer and recover as well. Thank you so much. Lets move on to audience q a at this point. Individuals who are lined up at the mikes. Lets start over here on my right. I havent done my background information. But word in the
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.