Ryan D. McCarthy and Barbara M. Barrett testify at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee as the committee considers their nominations to serve as secretary of the Army and secretary of the Air Force, respectively, Sept. 12, 2019.
Transcript
Senator Blumenthal.
Thanks Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for your service, and thank you for visiting with me earlier in the week. Secretary McCarthy, you and I talked about military housing, and I have no doubt about your very good intentions, and you Ambassador Barrett as well, to make sure that the quality of housing is improved. Isn’t the best way to terminate the contractors? Shouldn’t they be held accountable? And shouldn’t the army be taking some action, and the Air Force, against them, including potential criminal referrals, as I have raised previously with General Milley. Do you know whether there are steps to hold those private contractors accountable for their clear violations of contractual obligation and possible fraud?
Senator, so, from the range of what you discussed, just recently, I delegated the authority for the incentive fee, with holds to the AMC commander, with maximum latitude to do what was needed to improve performance. With respects to criminal activity or potential fraud allegations, clearly it was something we would investigate and pursue with vigor.
The inspector general of the army recently completed a report, showing that the, residents, 1180 of them who participated as you well know, 2/3 of them, in that survey said they were dissatisfied, 48 of the 49 army locations with privatized housing had residents who expressed concern with safety and environmental issues, and the inspectors found that life, health, and safety items aren’t part of the current army housing inspection requirement. They found a 2013 army policy that specifically prohibited health and welfare inspections of privatized housing. Have you reversed that policy?
[Senator McCarthy] Yes sir.
Well, I would like a report back if possible, as soon as possible, on what is being done to hold those private contractors accountable, both civilly and criminally.
Yes, sir. 30 days, 45 days, as soon as you want it, sir.
[Senator Blumenthal] 45 days if necessary.
Very well.
30 days, preferable, and I know that you are focused on this issue, and you will be, Ambassador Barrett, so far as the Air Force is concerned. Ambassador Barrett, you and I discussed when you visited with me, the issue of stays by Air Force personnel at Trump-branded properties. This issue is far from new or novel. In fact I raised it with Secretary Esper, when I found that in the first six months of this administration, $140,000 had been spent, almost $140,000, at Trump-branded properties. As you’re aware, the Air Force recently ordered the global review, as to how the service selects overnight accommodations for service members, and I appreciate your commitment made to me. I hope you will restate it here to provide this committee with the Air Force investigation once it is complete. Secretary Esper committed to me to providing additional information about expenditures made by civilian and uniform DOD employees at Trump properties. He has not provided that information. I’m gonna renew my request to him. Will you, on behalf of the Air Force, provide a complete accounting to me and this committee about expenditures at Trump-branded properties?
Absolutely Senator.
Do you agree that, no taxpayer funds should be going to the president or his business, as a result of stays by Department of Defense personnel at Trump-branded properties?
It seems that we should have generic rules and regulations that look to the best value and best acquisition, and those rules should be enforced and enforced equally, independent.
Well will you commit to issuing a service-wide policy to prohibit all Air Force personnel from using Trump properties for military travel whenever operationally feasible. You and I have discussed the appearance, wholly apart from the reality of the president profiting from Department of Defense expenditures at properties he owns, is absolutely unacceptable.
What we need to do is have rules and regulations that are applied evenly and that are thoughtful and do include appearances in those rules and regulations, but again, they should be, they should not be specific to any particular owner.
Wouldn’t a clear policy, as you suggested, against violations of both the domestic and the foreign emoluments clause prevent the Commander-in-Chief from profiting from the Department of Defense expenditures?
Would that, Senator I understand, I understand the question, I understand the concern, but if there were a shareholder in a company that owns hotels, would that, should that be excluded from military housing or military involvement? But I would like—
I’m asking you about the President of the United States, who owns properties where the Department of Defense has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, to the profit of the President of the United States in violation of United States constitution, will you issue a clear service-wide policy, prohibiting that practice?
I’ll take a look at the rules and regulations on that, and evaluate what policy issued and support you.
Well, before your confirmation, I hope you will provide a clearer answer to this committee.
[Ambassador Barrett] Thank you senator.
[Senator Hawley] Senator Sullivan?
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the nominees and their families for their service to our country, previous service, continuing service. I think I’ve enjoyed a meeting with both of you, and I look forward to confirming you, and we need senior leadership, senate-confirmed leadership in the Pentagon, I think is very important so. Let me start with a question that’s in a region of the world, and I’m sure your not gonna be surprised, given our previous discussions I wanna talk about, and that’s the Arctic. You know America is a arctic nation because of Alaska, and I have a, some handouts. I can provide ’em to my colleagues as well, but I think they were provided to you. Hopefully they were. There’s a very significant Russian build up in the Arctic. You take a look at the handouts. Were you provided handouts? One of you?
[Man In Background] I have it sir.
The staff can take a look at these.
Got it, thank you.
And, almost daily if you look at the other handout, there are articles, literally almost daily about what’s happening in the Arctic in terms of a Russia, China build up, great power rivalry, just in the last couple days. In addition to what you have there as a handout, an article in the “Washington Post” said, “Forget Greenland. “A far more dangerous is game “is being played in the Arctic.” An article in the “National Interest Hall” within the last week, “What does China want “with the Arctic, given it’s new strategy?” And then on “The Hill,” “The Hill” newspaper just said, an article that started by saying “The next cold war with Russia may be “a literal vice metaphorical one. “So before we dismiss President Trump’s interest “in Greenland, we should consider “that our great power rivals China and Russia “aggressively seek Arctic influence.” This is daily. Ambassador Barrett, you have extensive experience in the Arctic, particularly given your tenure as ambassador, to Finland. Given that the national defense strategy focuses on great power competition, Secretary Pompeo recently gave a very, what I thought, well, thought-out speech on the Arctic, I’d like to get your views on what we should be doing there to protect our national interest, and Secretary McCarthy I’d like yours as well.
Senator, the, Mercator didn’t do us any favors by flattening the globe. People lose track of how small the northern hemisphere is and how close those properties are, and how close Alaska is to going over the top into the Siberian area. That is now both available in shipping, as well as the persistent space access to those areas, and that is an area where threats would potentially derive.
Let me just say real quick. I think, you know, I mentioned the Secretary of State. This committee’s certainly starting to raise awareness on this. I do think the biggest agency in Washington that hasn’t gotten the message on our strategic competition in the Arctic, is the Pentagon. Some are getting it. The big blob of a bureaucracy there isn’t yet. So can I get your, both of your commitments to come to Alaska with me, see the Arctic first hand in America, and get your commitment to work with me and this committee, which is very interested, by the way, in a bipartisan way on these issues, to work with this committee to make sure we are protecting American’s strategic interests in the this next great power rivalry arena? Ambassador?
Yes, of course.
Can I get your commitment on that?
Yes sir.
Mr. Secretary? Senator Duckworth raised a very good question with regard to logistics in the Asia-Pacific. Ambassador Barrett, the Air Force is looking to make its OCONAS decisions here on basing of the KC46. Alaska is gonna have over 100 5th generation fighters, F35’s, F22’s, within the next couple years. No place on the planet Earth will have that many combat-coded 5th gen fighters. When Secretary Esper went through his confirmation hearing, he mentioned that pairing 100 5th gen fighters with KC46’s that can reach three combat and commands areas within hours, would give the United States extreme strategic reach. Will you commit to working with me on that OCONUS decision, which again, this committee has laid out guidelines for the Air Force in terms of its OCONUS basing a KC46.
Absolutely Senator.
Let me ask a final question that relates to readiness. Mr. Secretary, the chairman, to his credit, has raised this readiness issue quite a lot in the committee. I chair the readiness subcommittee. From 2010 to 2015, the Department of Defense budget was cut by 25%. My first three months in the Senate in 2015, the Obama administration was still cutting 50,000 additional active duty army troops, which in retrospect looks like a strategically idiotic decision. But they did it anyways. Have you read this book? “This Kind of War,” by T.R. Fehrenbach, which the army and marine corps gives to all infantry officers?
Yes sir, twice.
Twice, good. I appreciate that. Can you talk a little bit about readiness and Task Force Smith and what happened in America when in 1945 we had the most feared military in the history of the world, and five years later, we couldn’t stop a third world peasant army from, invading the south.
Readiness is a constant state of– (man mumbles in background)
I’m sorry I didn’t hear you Senator.
[Man In Background] Try to expedite your answer as quickly as you can.
Yes sir. Senator, readiness is a constant state of vigilance, you can’t ever take your foot off the gas. Every day we have to get as many repetitions as we can. Physically, individual training, collective training. It’s something that is one of the greatest deterrents we have in the military, is having as many formations at the highest levels of readiness, capable to meet national objectives.
[Senator Sullivan] Thank you.
[Man In Background] Thank you, Senator Peters?
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Secretary McCarthy, as we discussed in my officer earlier, I have a very significant PFOS contamination problem in my state, and there seems to be some miscommunication going on between the Department of the Army, the National Guard Bureau, and the Michigan National Guard, as well as the local community, which is very problematic to have that level of miscommunication. To give some background, the Michigan National Guard submitted a time-critical response action request to the National Guard Bureau, in response to PFOS and PFOA contamination. There are homes in Grayling Township that have tested positive for very high levels of PFOS and PFOA due to contamination from the Camp Grayling army airfield. It is my understanding that a request was made by the Michigan National Guard through the National Guard Bureau and the Department of the Army, requesting funds to provide for a new water system to the residents so that were affected. They held the town meeting with the residents in late July, and they made an announcement to the town that they would receive a new water system, which was obviously received very positively. However following the meeting, my office was contacted by the Department of Army and was told that the Army Office of Legal Counsel determined funding could not be legally provided to build this new water system. This is obviously very problematic, and would hope that you would work with me on this and if confirmed, more specifically, how will you work with the local community to ensure this issue is resolved?
Senator, as we discussed, we send a team of experts forward to make the assessment. It’s clear that the mess was made by us. We have to clean this up. We worked out an initial potential solution that didn’t work out mechanically. And I vow to you and to all of your constituents that we will work together to get this fixed.
We’ll get it fixed, and while I appreciate the commitment, and we need to do expeditiously as well.
[McCarthy] Yes sir.
I appreciate that. There is also a provision in the house-passed NDAA that grants the National Guard access to defense environmental restoration program funding to support PFOS and PFOA cleanup that is currently controlled by the Department of Army. If confirmed, would you support giving the National Guard access to some of these accounts?
Yes Senator.
Thank you. Ambassador Barrett, I appreciated Assistant Secretary John Henderson’s visit to Michigan and my request in April to meet with residents also facing a PFOS contamination problem in and around the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base. I’m sure both of you have faced similar concerns of these communities. You’re well aware of what goes on. I have sought to ensure that the Air Force adequately budgets for projected PFOS contamination related needs, and I was disappointed, to say the least, that the Air Force recently diverted more than four and a half million dollars intended for cleanup at Wurtsmith, to cover needs at another site elsewhere in the nation. My question to you Ambassador, will you commit to work with Congress to secure the resources we need to fully address this PFOS contamination problem that’s exists not just in Michigan, but all across the country, and how will you do that?
Absolutely Senator, I would commit to working with the Senate. If confirmed, the, it is so important for the Air Force to work well with the communities, and this is a contaminant that was used in good faith, not knowing of the injury that could be caused, and now, there isn’t a health standard established, but it is clear that this contamination is a result of Air Force activity, and I would be, if confirmed, happy to work with Congress to resolve it.
Ambassador, I’m glad you brought up the health standard, ’cause that is an important issue, and Michigan and other states are now taking steps to establish enforceable drinking water in various cleanup standards for PFOS in the absence of federal standards, we need federal standards. But I’d like to better understand the circumstances in which the Air Force will recognize and meet environmental standards that are established by the individual state, where you’re operating. The Air Force has thus far committed to considering whether state laws will qualify as an applicable or relevant or appropriate requirement, I believe is the way it’s worded, in the CERCLA cleanup process. But respectively, you know, respectfully, for communities that feel that they have been waiting way too long, and they certainly have been doing that around Wurtsmith Air Force Base, this is frustrating to say the least. So to improve transparency, will you commit, if confirmed, to work with me to understand when and why in the past, the Air Force willingly met a state standard through the CERCLA process and how the Air Force will approach that moving forward?
I’ll be happy to work with you Senator, if confirmed.
Great, thank you.
[Man In Background] On behalf of the chairman, let me recognized Senator Blackburn.
Thank you, and I appreciate each of you being here and the time that you’ve spent visiting with us, about, what is in front of you, so thank you. Ms. Barrett, I wanna come to you and continue the discussion that we had a little bit about next gen networks in technologies in 5G, and it’s placement with Air Force, and the difference this is going to make for our war fighters, and also for some of the R&D that’s being done, and we’re delighted to know that Arnold Air in Tennessee is going to be one of the first to be completed. So what I’d like for you to do is to just give us an overview of the rollout for 5G capabilities and technologies throughout the Air Force system wide. Senator, the Air Force is based on technology, and the Air Force engages technology and provides technology, provides war fighting capabilities through technology. G5 is clearly the technology of the future. It’s a very important part of what the Air Force is building into the new generations of capabilities.
And then, how are you going to approach the integration with existing technologies and looking at artificial intelligence and data flows?
These are all very important to the new capabilities and how as we are modernizing our platforms and resources, next gen platforms are engaging the 5G and artificial intelligence and augmented intelligence. We’re seeing a lot of capability through the hypersonics and additional technologies that make our reach greater.
Great. Mr. McCarthy, I have been concerned, and we’ve talked previously about some of the gaps, and they’re really critical gaps in Army cyber defense. And, this is all going to be vitally important as we look at 21st century warfare, as we look at interoperability and integration and working cross platform. The readiness that you’re going to find, the multifaceted utilizations in AI, with AV’s, the way you’re going to have disparate and platforms that you’re going to be working from in multi locations. So why don’t you talk a little bit about how you envision the Army pursuing signet and EW and cyber. And how you see the Army network fitting into or shaping this strategy.
Senator first, it’s people. We have to recruit more cyber experts. It’s a very difficult skill set to recruit and even harder to retain. We’ve used total force solutions across the garden reserve, and we’ve found a lot of success there of trying to retain men and women to stay in the Army, as they make the move to the private sector, ’cause they’re clearly very marketable. We’ve established some unique relationships with academia, like at Carnegie Mellon, which is where we established our artificial intelligence taskforce. This is as much a cultural indoctrination to the force as well as, finding the best and brightest in academia, the hub of us, to work with academia to find the best and brightest to help us look at how do we apply these algorithms into our weapon systems. But that really is foundationally the cloud architecture. If we can’t get the Army to the cloud, the standards and formats of the data will not move seamlessly from system to system. So this become a big effort by us and a leadership team, to make sure we have the appropriate resources, focus, and attention to move forward. The network in on our top six investment portfolios. That’s as much of the types of radio… The telecommunication systems we have as well as the, within the space domain. Army’s investing in Low Earth Orbit satellites. So across the, from people to material, it’s been a monumental effort for the Army over the last three years.
Well we see it as having to be a monumental effort for DOD in total, as well as for the Air Force and the Army, and we see building these systems is being a priority, and the interoperability and the network capacity in those systems is being vital to 21st century warfare. I will just make one comment. You mentioned recruiting and retention, and yes, we’re quite concerned about the human capital, or lack thereof, when it comes to technologies and whether it is hypersonics or artificial intelligence, or the work with AV’s or super-computing, quantum computing, and we do share the concerns that are there. Also we share the concerns on pilots, and I know that each of you have a pilot shortage and we’ll continue to raise that issue with you. I yield back.
[Man In Background] Yes, thank you. Senator, let’s see who we have in here. Senator Hirono.
Thanks Mr. Chairman. I ask all nominees before any of the committees I sit, the following two questions. I’ll start with you Mr. Secretary. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
No Senator.
Madame Ambassador?
[Ambassador Barrett] No Senator.
Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
[McCarthy] No Senator.
[Ambassador Barrett] No Senator.
Mr. Secretary, in response to questions from Senator King regarding the legality of using MILCON funds for the border wall, you refer to a legal opinion. Who issued that legal opinion?
The DOD general counsel, Senator.
And is that the highest level for the legal opinion on whether or not this is okay, or does the Attorney General weigh in on the legality?
Senator, I used the Department of Defense legal counsel in the advice of making this decision.
And I take that the legal opinion is that this is okay for the president to have done?
For the 11 projects that we’re funding, yes, Senator.
Yes. So, if this okay, then I think we can expect more of this kind of what to some of us who call the raiding, of military funds for various purposes that the president has in mind. So if confirmed, what would you do to prevent the president from continuing to do this? Continuing to raid military funds?
Senator we, when the request came down to support this effort, Chairman Dunford conducted a military assessment to the value of the projects, and that’s where we ultimately determined the 11 had the security value, so that’s where we worked to—
So in other words, your effort was to comply with what the president wanted to do. That’s how you see your role?
This was a lawful order, and we intend to follow it.
And so, if the president wants to do this further, you will continue to support, making reductions in duly funded projects by this Congress, that you will comply. That’s what you’re telling me?
On lawful orders Senator, we will comply with the president’s intent. We will provide the appropriate military advice about these projects and the offsets associated with the choice being made.
What about you Ambassador Barrett? What would you do to prevent the president from continuing to raid military funds for whatever projects he sees fit.
Senator if confirmed by this Senate, I would look to work cooperatively with Senate, but I would look also to conduct every action in compliance with the law and the constitution. My commitment would be to the constitution, and that would be my guiding direction.
I think that that a lot of us would want our military leaders to speak up against this kind of action by the president, legal or not, because these are all duly funded, and sometime we can argue about, you know, at some point, whether this kind of, these kinds of reallocation, if you’re gonna call it that, what impact it has on readiness in national security. We can talk about that, but one hopes that that all of the funded projects are very necessary and relate to readiness and national security. You’ve been asked a number of questions about military housing, and we all share the concerns regarding the lack of oversight, that was done by the military, with regard to private housing, so Secretary McCarthy, you referred to the IDO Report, and there were some 20 recommendations in this IDO Report, how many have been addressed at this time?
We are gonna, I think we’re gonna execute just about all, about 90% of them. I can’t remember exactly the couple that we’re working back and forth on, but the preponderance of the recommendations will be executed.
Can you provide to this committee a list of the 20 recommendations and what the timeline is, and what you have been doing with regard to all of those, and I—
[McCarthy] Yes, Senator.
Thank you. And did hear a commitment from you Ambassador Barrett, to fast track some of the things that you need to do from the Air Force side. I wanna turn very quickly to the matter of suicide prevention in the military, and the quarterly suicide report of the Department of Defense released. It says, “Last month, 139 actively duty soldiers, “68 sailors, 60 airmen, 58 marines, “died by suicide last year,” and this is 40 more service members that the previous year. So, for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Army, this represents an increase over the previous year, and I would just like to ask, I’m running out of time, but you know, what you all are doing very specifically to prevent these, these suicides from happening? So without getting into it right now, this is a matter that we will follow up with you, both of you on.
[Ambassador Barrett] Great.
[McCarthy] Yes, Senator.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[Man In Background] Thank you Ms. Hirono. Senator Gillibrand?
Mr. McCarthy, yesterday marked the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, one that New Yorkers will never forget. We went into Afghanistan and accomplished our mission, eliminating Al Qaeda leadership and decimating its command structure. But the war has gone for almost 20 years and continues to claim the lives of service members with no clear end in sight. This is no longer the right strategy for our country, and it hasn’t been for many years now. During recent peace talks with the Taliban, there’s been a surge in violence and an increase in combat operations in which our soldiers have lost their lives. This week the White House brought these talks to an abrupt end without stating any changes in policies or goals. Has the administration policy of conducting diplomacy through Twitter caused significant challenges for the Army in Afghanistan?
Senator with respect to the talks being ceased, I think it was clear that the National Command Authority felt that they did not have the conditions appropriate to enter the next phase of negotiation, so I think that it was a right decision to step back from the table and try to look at how do you get to a framework to bring your political and state to the conflict.
Once the Army with, once the Army draws down our forces in Afghanistan, I believe that there are tactics that we can employ to ensure Afghanistan does not slide into once again, becoming a host to terrorists, with the intent and capability of harming the US. To what extent can you, in open session, provide insights on your thinking on post withdrawal?
Senator I worked this problem set for the last, as serving in all three of the last administrations. It’s clear that we’re gonna have to have been advised this capability as well as counter-terrorism strike capability to be there to help the Afghan government continue to grow and mature. You have roughly two to three of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations on the earth, along the Hindu Kush mountains, so we can’t take our eye off the ball there, until a time where there’s a much greater maturity and the strength within the Afghan government.
I’d like to change issues to West Point. The United States military academy at West Point in providing the Army with its next generation of officers. West Point cadets serve in a wide variety of roles in the Army, so the quality of their training can have far-reaching implications for the Army moving forward. Are you confident that West Point is providing the kind of advanced training to meet the future threats that these officers will face?
It’s remarkable how the West Point education for our officers and the experiences that they get in their four years on the Hudson. I think one of the things that Secretary Esper and General Milley were really hard on was the summer experience, where we’re working hard on the fundamentals of troop leading at the platoon level. So we made some changes there. We’re also looking at how we’re integrating them with ROTC, so we sent 40 cadets from West Point down to Fort Knox last summer. We’re gonna scale that over the next two years to where we can get in the upwards, you know have five, 600 cadets to go down over the course of the summer and integrate the officer core. The STEM education is very strong at the academy, but in particular, cyber has become a much sought after MOS. It’s so, we’re making some adjustments to increase sophistication in the classroom, but also really drill down into the fundamentals of troop leading so they become, you know, very good platoon leaders.
Recently the Secretary of Defense diverted $3.6 million in funding for military installations, including for the academy’s new engineering center, to pay for the administration’s wall. Doesn’t this disruption of funding and resulting delays undermine our ability to prepare our Army leaders for the future?
The Engineering department and the parking garage behind it specifically, it would improve the existing infrastructure. It’s something that I personally got involved with assessing and working in the budget when I went up there in the fall of ’17. It’s a, the deferral will be put us, a potential new schedule to improving the facilities over time.
Ms. Barrett, our military defense industrial base remain under siege from cyber threats, most notably from China, and by estimate, has cost us over a trillion dollars in losses. In response to some major data losses, the Navy conducted a comprehensive cyber security review and related an urgent need to modify its processes. What is your level of confidence that the Air Force is doing its best to prevent foreign exfiltration, and if you don’t have time to answer, she can submit it if, unless you’d like her to answer, Mr. Chairman?
Thank you, Senator Shaheen?
So could you either answer it in writing, or in a later question?
[Ambassador Barrett] I’d be happy to, with the Senator’s, Chairman’s indulgence, I would just say that the Air Force would be happy to take a look at doing similar cyber review as what the Navy did, and establish a report on that.
And please submit a letter to my office. Thank you, Ms. Barrett.
Senator Shaheen?
Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and congratulations acting Secretary McCarthy and Ambassador Barrett for your nominations to these very important roles and for both your past service and your willingness to continue to serve this country. I wanna start with a question about PFAS. I know that Senator, that this has come up in the hearing, but as I’m sure you’re aware on his first day as Defense Secretary, Secretary Esper announced the creation of a PFAS task force, and I wanted to ask both of you if you are willing to commit to working to ensure that we address PFAS contamination on all of our military facilities? Secretary McCarthy?
Yes Senator, either myself or Mr. James McPherson attend those meetings. We’re taking a senior leadership role on this.
[Senator Shaheen] Thank you, Ambassador Barrett?
Absolutely and the United States Air Force has, as I understand, been working to clean up those contaminations.
That’s right, as we discussed yesterday, and I appreciated the time that both of you gave me yesterday. The Air Force has been very responsive to the issues that we’ve had at the former Pease Air Force Base in the city of Portsmouth in New Hampshire. We hope you will continue that cooperation, and that you will support the health study that is currently under way by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease registry, where Pease is a model site for that.
[Ambassador Barrett] I look forward to it.
Thank you.
[Ambassador Barrett] It’s confirmed. And also, I hope you will both commit to urging the Department of Defense to come up with an alternative to the flooring, to the fire fighting foam that has had these PFAS chemicals that have done so much to contaminate military sites.
I will do that, Senator.
[McCarthy] Yes, Senator, we’re trying to find a commercial solution to replace existing capability. We’re having a hard time meeting the military spec.
Yes now I understand that, and as you’re aware, I’m sure, the defense bill, that we hope will pass this year, includes some directives to get that done in the next year. Ambassador Barrett I also wanted to call your attention to a request from the New Hampshire National Guard, to the Air Force Medical Support Agency to conduct a public health study for individuals who’ve lived and worked on Pease to determine if there’s higher than expected rates of morbidity and mortality, cancer deaths, other, other health impacts because of work that was done at Pease. I know the study is currently in development. I call it to your attention, and I don’t expect you to have an answer on where we are today, since you’re not on the job yet, but hope you will make that a priority as you go forward in the, assuming you get confirmed.
If confirmed, I’d be happy to do that.
Thank you, and finally, as we discussed yesterday, we are very excited to have, be the first guard base to receive KC-46, the new aerial refueling tanker. We have our first two, and we’re look forward to the remaining 10 that we will get with the first group and certainly we’ll do everything we can to urge Boeing to make that a priority, to get those out on time, and without the challenges that they’ve had. One of the issues is that many of the people who we expect to staff those tankers have been transferred to other bases to continue to deal with our legacy tankers, and I hope that you will commit to ensuring that they get transferred back to Pease so we make sure that we have the full force we need in order to, to continue to maintain the excellent record that the 157th refueling wing has had.
We appreciate the great performance of that refueling ring. Of course we would apply our personnel where best needed, but the performance there is some indication that it’s a high priority.
Thank you. I also understand Ambassador Barrett, that you have worked with the US-Afghan Women’s Council on project Artemis, and I know that you have supported making sure that Afghan women can go back to their home country and be successful in business and in other areas. I wonder if you could talk about given that work, how important you think it is for Afghan women to be at the table in any peace negotiations that are ongoing.
If you eliminate 50%, thank you Senator, I appreciate the question. If you eliminate 50% of the talent from any environment, you aren’t gonna have as good a product. The women in Afghanistan have been really underappreciated and completely abused in the past. With the US-Afghan Women’s Council, we have worked with both the health, education, civic, what my generation called civics, and economic empowerment of those women so that they can play a full role in their society. That’s really important and I would hope to continue that.
Well thank you very much. I’m sure both of you are aware that we have passed a law called, “The Women Peace and Security Act,” that guarantees that women are supposed to be at the table in any conflict negotiations that we participate in, so I would hope that you both will do everything you can to ensure that happens in Afghanistan and other places around the world. Secretary McCarthy?
I will Senator.
Yes ma’am. And just for the record, Secretary McCarthy, I agree with you. I think we need a counter-terrorism group to continue in Afghanistan regardless of what happens with all of the troops, because of the threat from ISIS and continued terrorist groups there. So thank you both very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[Man In Background] Thank you Senator Shaheen. Let me take the chairman’s prerogative a little bit here. A lot of comments were made by different members, concerning the wall, concerning the activity and the characterization of raiding our training, and I feel, I have been down there and observed that more than any other member of Congress. I worked down there for 20 years as a developer on the border. I know what’s going on down there. I’ve also been, as recently as two weeks ago, the only member of our Congress to be with the Mexicans themselves, the three generals in charge of the 2000 foot border, so I know what’s going on. I know what they’re doing down there. If all we have to do is talk to our guard in reserve and others who are down there with military, to find out that the training that they’re getting there, is training that is on-the-job training, it’s better training that they get at their home base. Now that’s what all of them said at that time. So I think to characterize that as raiding our training is totally inaccurate, and I wanted that to be included in the record. We have a request from Senator King to, for a further question.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
[Chairman] Did you—
Very quick question. Proposed Secretary Barrett, the F-35 started construction before the level of competition with China has reached the level that is has now, and before of our knowledge of their cyber intrusions. I don’t know if this has already happened, but I would urge you to order a survey of every single part of the F-35 to determine what if any of those parts are made in China and particularly with reference to software and electronics. I think that’s a national security imperative that we not have our most advanced airplane in a position where it could be compromised by some intrusion into the supply chain, coming from China. Will you take a look at that?
Yes, Senator, I would be happy to take a look.
[Senator King] Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Yes, a further question from Senator Shaheen.
Just to piggyback on that a little bit. I have had several conversations with folks who are working on the F-35, who are concerned about what the next steps are with respect to Turkey being removed from that program, and where some of those parts that we’ve been relying on Turkey for, are going to be made and how that’s gonna happen. I’m not asking you for a response today, but I would urge you to try and provide some direction for our other players in the F-35 program, so that they understand what’s supposed to happen next with respect to Turkey and the… Are throwing them out of that coalition. Thank you.
Thank you Senator Shaheen.
Senator Reed, do you have any further comments too?
No sir. Thank you very much for holding this hearing.
Good, and let me say to our two witnesses, our two nominees, you did a great job. I’m looking forward to working with you, and we are now adjourned.
[Ambassador Barret] Thank you Senator. Thank you very much.