Kirsten Gillibrand

Is there a role for Congress to assist in making improvements, such as a need for additional authorities?

The dynamic nature of the cyber threat presents a unique problem in that we typically find ourselves in a perpetual game of catch-up.

Global cooperation on cybersecurity is necessary to address the threat, build consensus on the norms of responsible conduct in cyberspace, and address ongoing malicious activity.

I have long agreed with this assessment, and introduced the Cyber Warrior Act which would establish National Guard cyber teams in each State to leverage this talent pool.

I am highly concerned about this information in light of the fact that TRANSCOM will be instrumental as we leave Afghanistan.

If confirmed, I see my role as supporting the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in executing their statutory authorities for civilian oversight of CYBERCOM.

I am confident that through these processes, as well as through U.S. Cyber Command's Cyber Guard exercises, the Department will develop a path to integrate cyber forces into our Homeland defense strategy.

In my opinion, there are three cyber needs for the next 5 years that are most important to address.

What do you think are our two most important cyber needs for the next 5 years?

This plan could severely impact the civilian employees currently working at DFAS sites like the one in Rome, NY.

I believe DFAS is a logical focal point to ensure that DOD has independent accountants developing standardized, auditable records.

To remain on the cutting edge of cyber defense, DOD needs to continue to invest in an elite, highly trained military and civilian workforce.

If confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to ensure that cyber capabilities for CYBERCOM, the Military Departments, and the Services are appropriately resourced and efficiently managed.

In your opinion, what can Congress do to assist DOD in this effort?

I have long-agreed with this assessment, and introduced the Cyber Warrior Act which would establish National Guard cyber teams in each State to leverage this talent pool.

I do not think you can say that with a straight face.

There's no evidence of that, sir.

We don't trust the system. We don't trust the chain of command. We don't believe justice will be done.

I do not believe the commander should overrule the judgment based on evidence.

In this country, justice is blind. You do not tip the scales of justice in favor of a victim or an accused.

Because, just because you've never seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If you believe he can decide not to pursue a prosecution if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed, on what basis do you think he should make that decision?

Do you think it's appropriate for a commander to ignore the advice of counsel or an Article 32 investigating officer when they recommend proceeding to prosecution?

Isn't it true that, today, when there is a serious crime that's taken place, there are sufficient lawyers to investigate those crimes?

I think it has been a very unfortunate episode.