    [Senate Hearing 115-908]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                          S. Hrg. 115-908

               TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF THE HONOR-
                ABLE HEATHER A. WILSON, TO BE SECRETARY
                OF THE AIR FORCE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 March 30, 2017

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    63-156 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2026
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman	JACK REED, Rhode Island
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi		BILL NELSON, Florida
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska			CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas			JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota		KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    JONI ERNST, Iowa			RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina		JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska			MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia			TIM KAINE, Virginia
    TED CRUZ, Texas				ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina		MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    BEN SASSE, Nebraska			ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              	GARY C. PETERS, Michigan

                     Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
                     Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                               C O N T E N T S

    _________________________________________________________________

                                 march 30, 2017

                                                                       Page

    To Consider the Nomination of the Honorable Heather A. Wilson, to     1
      be Secretary of the Air Force.

                               Members Statements

    McCain, Senator John.............................................     1

    Reed, Senator Jack...............................................     3

                               Witness Statements

    Thune, Senator John..............................................     5

    Rounds, Senator Mike.............................................     6

    Wilson, The Honorable Heather A., to be Secretary of the Air          7
      Force.

      Advance Policy Questions.......................................    45

      Questions for the Record.......................................    66

      Nomination Reference and Report................................    92

      Biographical Sketch............................................    93

      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................    95

      Signature Page.................................................   104

                                     (iii)

                  This hearing is printed to include all available
                    information
                    requested or required to be inserted for the
                    record.

                                      (iv)

     TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF THE HONORABLE HEATHER A. WILSON, TO BE
                           SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2017

                                  United States Senate,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m. in room
    SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators McCain, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton,
    Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Perdue, Graham, Sasse,
    Strange, Reed, McCaskill, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal,
    Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Heinrich, Warren, and Peters.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN

        Chairman McCain. Good morning. The Senate Armed Services
    Committee meets today to consider the nomination of Heather
    Wilson to be the 24th Secretary of the Air Force.
        Dr. Wilson, we thank you for joining us this morning. We
    are grateful for your years of distinguished service to our
    Nation and for your willingness to serve once more.
        We also welcome your family and friends here with you
    today. As is our tradition at the beginning of your testimony,
    we invite you to introduce those who are joining you today.
        It is the standard for this committee to ask certain
    questions in order to exercise its legislative and oversight
    responsibility. These are the standard questions that we ask
    every nominee.
        It is important this committee and other appropriate
    committees of Congress be able to receive testimony, briefings,
    and other communications of information. Have you adhered to
    applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of
    interest?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Will you ensure that your staff complies
    with deadlines established for requested communications,
    including questions for the record in hearings?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
    and briefers in response to congressional requests?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Will those witnesses be protected from
    reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear to
    testify upon request before this committee?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Do you agree to provide documents,
    including copies of electronic forms of communications, in a
    timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or
    to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good-
    faith delay or denial in providing such documents?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
    any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
    confirmation process?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
        Chairman McCain. I would like to mention to our members
    that we are going to have a 10 o'clock vote, so we will not
    stop the committee. Senator Reed and I will bounce back and
    forth in order to make the votes. We have two votes at 10, so
    we will bounce back and forth, and continue the hearing to make
    sure that all members have appropriate time to ask questions.
        The next Secretary will lead America's Air Force in
    confronting the most diverse and complex array of global crises
    since the end of World War II--the threat of terrorism and
    instability emanating from North Africa to the Middle East to
    South Asia, advanced potential adversaries like Russia and
    China, and rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.
        The world is on fire, and now, more than ever, our Nation
    is counting on the global vigilance, global reach, and global
    power that are the hallmarks of Air Force capabilities.
    However, in recent years, your predecessor has informed this
    committee that America's Air Force is now the oldest, smallest,
    and least ready in its history. I repeat: America's Air Force
    is now the oldest, smallest, and least ready in its history.
        Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, it will be your mission, in
    partnership with Secretary Mattis and the Congress, to change
    that fact. That starts by recognizing how we got here. Twenty-
    five years of continuous deployments, troubled acquisition
    programs, and frequent aircraft divestments have aged and
    shrunk the Air Force inventory. The combination of relentless
    operational tempo and the self-inflicted wounds of the Budget
    Control Act and sequestration have depleted readiness.
        Meanwhile, potential adversaries are developing and
    fielding fifth generation fighters, advanced air defense
    systems, and sophisticated space, cyber, and electronic warfare
    capabilities that are rapidly shrinking America's military
    technological advantage and holding our aircraft at greater
    risk over greater distances.
        In short, we have asked a lot of our Air Force over the
    last 25 years, and the demands placed on the service continue
    to grow, but we have not met our responsibility to give our Air
    Force the resources, the personnel, and the equipment and
    training it needs to succeed. We are placing an unnecessary and
    dangerous burden on the backs of our airmen, and we cannot
    change course soon enough.
        Restoring readiness, recapitalizing our combat aircraft
    fleet, and modernizing to sustain our overmatch will require
    the strong personal leadership of the next Air Force Secretary.
        Dr. Wilson, I look forward to discussing the challenges you
    will face, if confirmed, and how you plan to tackle them.
        For example, the Air Force is facing a massive bow wave of
    modernization investment programs, and the bills will all come
    due over the next 10 years. Just consider the list of Air Force
    modernization priorities: F-35A fighters, KC-46A tankers, B-21
    bombers, JSTARS, Compass Call, AWACS, and a new trainer
    aircraft, not to mention a modernized nuclear force, including
    the ground-based strategic deterrent B-61 gravity bomb and the
    long-range standoff weapon.
        There is simply no way all of these important yet expensive
    modernization programs will fit into the Air Force budget as
    constrained by the Budget Control Act. It will be your task to
    develop and make the case for a path through this tremendous
    budget crunch.
        As you do, you also will have to be willing to challenge
    conventional wisdom and reevaluate how the Air Force is shaped.
    You will need to take an informed look at an optimal mix of the
    long-range and short-range combat aircraft, manned and unmanned
    systems, ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance],
    space and cyber capabilities, and key joint enablers, and you
    must also closely examine how the Air Force provides ready and
    capable forces to our combatant commanders.
        Furthermore, as this committee has emphasized over the last
    2 years, no matter how many dollars we spend, we will not be
    able to provide our airmen the equipment they need with a
    lethargic defense acquisition system that takes too long and
    costs too much.
        Like all the services, the Air Force has a troubled history
    with major acquisition programs. That is why you can expect
    this committee will exercise close and rigorous oversight of
    Air Force acquisition, particularly on programs like the B-21
    bomber.
        Today, I will be keenly interested in hearing how you will
    streamline and accelerate Air Force acquisitions, deliver
    needed capabilities on time and at cost, and meet our
    commitments to both our warfighters and the American taxpayers.
        Finally, this committee honors the service and sacrifice of
    the outstanding men and women of the United States Air Force.
    At the same time, we recognize that high operational tempo,
    manning shortfalls, reduced readiness, and lucrative
    opportunities outside the Air Force continue to drive some of
    our best and brightest to leave the service. This is only
    exacerbating problems such as the 800 fighter pilot shortfall
    you noted in your response to advanced policy questions.
        I am interested in hearing your plans on how to mitigate
    such manpower shortfalls, improve quality-of-life and quality-
    of-service of all airmen, and incentivize them to remain in the
    service of their Nation.
        Dr. Wilson, we look forward to hearing your testimony and
    how you intend to lead the Air Force to a stronger future.
        Senator Reed?

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I appreciate Dr. Wilson's willingness to serve the Nation
    and appear before the committee as the nominee for the
    Secretary of the Air Force, and there is no doubt that Dr.
    Wilson has many of the necessary qualifications to serve in
    this position. She is a graduate of the United States Air Force
    Academy, a Rhodes scholar, a former member of the national
    security staff for President George Herbert Walker Bush, and a
    former Member of the House of Representatives who served on the
    House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
        However, I believe it is incumbent upon this committee to
    ask some questions that have been raised regarding Dr. Wilson's
    nomination. Failure to do so could be an abdication of our
    oversight responsibilities and a disservice to the airmen and
    civilians that Dr. Wilson will lead, if she is confirmed.
        First, Heather Wilson and Company LLC, founded by Dr.
    Wilson following her tenure in Congress, had contracts with
    four National Nuclear Security Administration laboratories,
    Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and a Nevada national security
    site. From January 2009 through part of 2011, Dr. Wilson's
    company received $464,000 in payments from these laboratories
    for consulting services.
        However, due to claims of contracting irregularities
    involving her company, the Department of Energy (DOE) inspector
    general conducted two investigations into this matter. As a
    result, the contractors who operate the laboratories on behalf
    of the Government paid back at least $442,877 to the Department
    of Energy with respect to payments made to Dr. Wilson's
    company. The rationale for the repayments was the absence of
    any appreciable evidence of work product.
        Furthermore, Lockheed Martin, which operated Sandia
    National Laboratories, agreed to an overall settlement of $4.7
    million for the management failures.
        Let me be clear. Dr. Wilson was not found culpable of
    wrongdoing. Nevertheless, the allegations that were levied are
    serious and directly involve her company. I do think that the
    situation merits closer scrutiny.
        Second, in October 2006, Dr. Wilson contacted a sitting
    United States Attorney, David C. Iglesias, regarding the status
    of Federal corruption cases in New Mexico while she was serving
    as a member of the House of Representatives. As a former Member
    of the House myself, I have concerns about this action in terms
    of House ethics rules and the possibility a Federal prosecutor
    may have felt pressured by Congress in an ongoing
    investigation.
        Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues today because we have
    been asked to confirm Dr. Wilson to a high-level position in
    the Department of Defense, and that has implications for our
    national security. But equally important, we are confirming her
    to a position of public trust, and we hold all of our
    servicemembers to the highest standards of conduct, and I
    believe the individual confirmed to lead these brave men and
    women must be held to the same standards.
        Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Thank you.
        I note that we have two undistinguished Members of the
    United States Senate here this morning who would like to make
    brief comments. You are certainly welcome, Senator Thune and
    Senator Rounds. I take it because of your advanced age, you
    would want to begin, Senator Thune.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN THUNE

        Senator Thune. Thank you, Chairman McCain, Senator Reed,
    and members of the committee, for the honor of introducing to
    the committee Dr. Heather Wilson to be the next Secretary of
    the United States Air Force.
        I have known Heather for nearly 20 years and submit that
    President Trump could not have selected a more qualified
    candidate to lead the Air Force in these challenging times.
        I first worked with Heather in the House of Representatives
    when she was elected in 1998. But most recently, I have had the
    pleasure of working with her as she leads an exceptional
    engineering and science university in our State, the South
    Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
        Throughout her pathway to this nomination, Heather has
    repeatedly demonstrated her leadership abilities and her
    commitment to duty. Not only is she a distinguished graduate of
    the Air Force Academy, but she continued to earn her master's
    and doctorate degrees as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University
    in England.
        If confirmed, she will become the first Air Force Academy
    graduate in history to serve as Secretary of the Air Force.
    Heather served as an Air Force officer in Europe during the
    Cold War, in the United Kingdom, and at the United States
    Mission to NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] in
    Brussels.
        Upon leaving the Air Force, she served on the National
    Security Council staff for President George H.W. Bush, working
    on NATO and conventional arms control.
        She later moved west to marry her husband, Jay Hone. Within
    a few years, she started her own company working with the
    national labs and large defense and scientific companies.
    However, she was soon called back to public service, and she
    headed the Child Welfare Department for the State of New
    Mexico.
        After her election to Congress, where she served for a
    decade, she quickly became one of the go-to Members on national
    security issues. Heather was not afraid to take on tough
    issues, ranging from oversight of the President's terrorist
    surveillance program that led to the reform of the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act or sexual assault at the Air
    Force Academy.
        In a town where whoever speaks the loudest often gets
    heard, people would get quiet when Heather spoke because they
    knew that she had ideas that were worth listening to.
        Now, as president of the South Dakota School of Mines and
    Technology, Heather has ushered in a new era of excellence, and
    the school is well-positioned to remain a foremost engineering,
    science, and research institution.
        She is also a dedicated parent, adopting a son and raising
    two children. I can remember her son, Josh, coming to the floor
    of the House with his mom when he was about knee-high. Her
    daughter, Caitlin, is in college, and I understand has about
    five tests and a project due this week. Her husband, Jay, an
    Air Force veteran himself, is in South Dakota today recovering
    from shoulder surgery. We wish him a quick recovery. They are a
    great, supportive family, and they will be good for the Air
    Force.
        Mr. Chairman, Heather has been a proven leader since her
    days as a cadet. She is well-versed in national security policy
    and nuclear deterrence. She understands the Air Force's key
    capabilities of air and space superiority, global presence,
    rapid global mobility, precision engagement, information
    superiority, and agile combat support.
        She understands the Air Force's tremendous responsibility
    and role in our national security will be guided by the core
    values of the Air Force: integrity first, service before self,
    and excellence in all the Air Force does. She understands the
    importance of not only rising to meet the challenges of the day
    but to look ahead to defeat the threats of tomorrow.
        Mr. Chairman, I am honored to be with you today and honored
    to be able to highly recommend Heather Wilson to you and your
    committee. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Thank you very much, Senator Thune.
        Senator Rounds?

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE ROUNDS

        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Reed. It is my honor to join Senator Thune in supporting Dr.
    Heather Wilson's nomination to be the next Secretary of the Air
    Force.
        Senator Thune talked about her record of achievement
    throughout her life. I have known Dr. Wilson as a leader in
    South Dakota during the most recent segment of her long and
    distinguished professional life. She served in an outstanding
    fashion as president of one of the most highly rated
    engineering and science universities in the country for the
    quality of its education and the success of its graduates, the
    South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
        This school's success is exemplified by the average
    starting salaries of its graduates, which is higher than the
    corresponding figures for graduates of Harvard University, Yale
    University, or the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At a
    time when our Nation faces the skyrocketing cost of college
    degrees, tuition and fees for an out-of-state student at the
    South Dakota School of Mines and Technology is less than
    $15,000 a year, making it one of the best returns on investment
    for college education in America.
        Dr. Wilson became president of the School of Mines in the
    summer of 2013. She has been a great leader and, if confirmed
    to be the next Secretary of Air Force, she will leave some very
    big shoes to be filled by her next successor. Under her
    leadership, the School of Mines added new programs, expanded
    research, raised funds to build and refurbish buildings,
    started an honors program, and deepened the connections between
    the school and the community.
        People who work with her in South Dakota describe her as a
    great manager and an inspiring leader, and a tireless advocate
    for the school and her students.
        A few years ago, Forbes magazine had a story on the
    toughest leadership roles in America. They indicated, ``We
    revere the skills of prominent CEOs, perhaps more than we
    should,'' said one of the Forbes articles.
        "But there's an underappreciated form of leadership that
    requires far more skill than being a CEO does. It is the job of
    a university president.''
        Mr. Chairman, Dr. Wilson brought such leadership and skill
    to her position as president of one of the finest science and
    engineering schools in the Nation.
        General Mattis knows her quality. This explains the
    multiple requests he made to her to leave her position which
    she today finds deeply rewarding and at which she exceled, this
    to accept the President's nomination to be the Secretary of the
    Air Force.
        South Dakota's loss will be our Nation's gain.
        I look forward to this hearing today and to the prompt
    confirmation of Dr. Wilson as the next Secretary of the Air
    Force.
        I thank her for the honor of introducing her today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. I want to thank both of you. I know,
    Senator Thune, you have other responsibilities. Senator Rounds,
    thank you for joining us.
        We welcome Dr. Wilson. Please, Dr. Wilson, if you would
    like to introduce your family members who are here, your son
    here, we would be glad for you to, and proceed with your
    statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HEATHER A. WILSON, TO BE SECRETARY
                            OF THE AIR FORCE

        Dr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My son, Joshua, is
    here with me today, as is my brother-in-law, Mike Hone. As
    Senator Thune said, my daughter is otherwise detained, and my
    husband is recovering from surgery in South Dakota.
        Chairman McCain. Terrible place to recover.
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Reed,
    and members of this committee, for so graciously welcoming me.
        Thank you also to Senator Thune and Senator Rounds. The
    people of South Dakota are known for being hardworking and
    humble and kind, and I think they are well-led in both of you.
        Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to put my
    whole statement in the record and then just summarize for you.
        My nomination was unexpected. I did not anticipate
    returning to Federal service. I really enjoy being a university
    president, being the president of the South Dakota School of
    Mines and educating the next generation of young engineers and
    scientists, and making a contribution to the community in which
    I live.
        I live a blessed life. We all do. We enjoy the blessings of
    our liberty because volunteers step forward to protect the rest
    of us. If confirmed, it would be my honor to lead and serve
    them.
        As Senators in this committee, you know well that America's
    vital interests continue to be threatened, and I will not
    belabor the list of threats that we face, but I think we
    sometimes take for granted American dominance in air and space
    power.
        The last time that an American ground troop was killed by
    enemy aircraft was April 15, 1953, during the Korean War. Two
    legs of the triad have deterred our enemies and helped to keep
    the peace for over 70 years. For 26 straight years, the United
    States Air Force has been involved in combat operations.
        But dominating the high ground is not a sure thing, and
    there is cause for concern. We have a mismatch between our
    strategic objectives and the military means we have available
    to deter and confront threats. The Air Force is too small for
    what the Nation expects of it.
        Since the Budget Control Act of 2011, the number of airmen
    has declined, but the demand for air and space power has
    increased. Leaders of the United States Air Force have
    testified that less than 50 percent of the conventional Air
    Force is ready for all of the missions assigned to them, and I
    have no reason to doubt that estimate.
        We are short over 900 fighter pilots--900 fighter pilots
    short of the missions that we need to fly and fight. The Air
    Force is not currently ready to fight against a near-peer
    competitor, and that should concern all of us.
        Our equipment is aging in the Air Force. The average
    airplane today is the Air Force is 27 years old, and the next
    Secretary of the Air Force will modernize fighters, tankers,
    bombers, intelligence platforms, the nuclear deterrent,
    ammunitions, space capabilities. If confirmed, I will work with
    the Secretary of Defense and the United States Congress to
    restore the readiness of the force.
        I will also work with the Congress to address constraints
    imposed by the Budget Control Act so that the Air Force can be
    cost-effectively modernized.
        As a leader, I tend to be values-driven and mission-
    focused, but I am also people-oriented. The quality of our
    leaders, particularly at the squadron level and the wing level,
    really sets the culture of the United States Air Force. I look
    forward to working with the Chief of Staff to bring renewed
    focus to training and educating airmen, particularly focused on
    the quality of command.
        While our airmen of today have to face the fight of today,
    this committee and the other defense committees in Congress,
    and the Secretary in particular, really have to prepare for the
    future. I hope to review and further develop the research and
    development priorities for the Air Force to be able to look to
    the long term so that we are not only able to dominate today,
    we are able to face our adversaries for tomorrow.
        In sum, if confirmed, I intend to focus on readiness,
    modernization, the quality of command, and research and
    development for the future.
        On a personal note, several of you know that my roots in
    aviation are quite deep. My grandfather lied about his age and
    joined the Royal Flying Corps in the First World War, the
    predecessor to the RAF. He flew sub search over the Irish Sea,
    and he helped to integrate propeller arcs with machine guns and
    synchronize them, which sounds like a good idea to me.
        After the war, there was no work in Scotland, so he came to
    America, and he was a barnstormer, and he opened little
    airports all around New England. In the Second World War, he
    flew for his new country. He flew for the United States of
    America.
        My father started flying when he was 13 years old, and he
    enlisted in Air Force after high school, and he became a
    mechanic and a crew chief. He was a crew chief on the hottest
    jet in America at the time, the F-84 Thunderjet, and he was
    stationed at Walker Air Force Base in Roswell, New Mexico, and
    Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, and Selfridge Air Force
    Base in Michigan.
        When he got out of the Air Force, he went home. In the
    1950s, when a lot of women did not even drive, he taught my mom
    how to fly. They rebuilt an airplane together. Then he was a
    commercial pilot and built experimental airplanes, including
    inside our 1,600 square-foot house. My mother was a very
    tolerant woman.
        We live in a remarkable country, and when I, at the age of
    17, went into the United States Air Force Academy, I became the
    third generation in my family to serve. My husband is also a
    30-year retired Air Force, Guard, and Reserve Judge Advocate
    General.
        We are served by innovators and intrepid airmen who take
    great risks on our behalf. I have been called back to service
    in a role that I did not seek and did not expect. If confirmed,
    I will do my best to do my duty.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Heather Wilson follows:]

                    Prepared Statement by Dr. Heather Wilson
                               opening statement
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Heather Wilson, the President of the
    South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and the nominee to be the
    twenty-fourth Secretary of the Air Force.
        I want to thank you, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and the
    members of this committee for taking time to meet with me before
    today's hearing. In our meetings, I learned more about each of your
    interests and concerns about the future of the Air Force. I appreciate
    your willingness to give me so much of your time and, should I be
    confirmed, I look forward to our continued conversations.
        I want to thank Senator Thune and Senator Rounds for introducing me
    this morning, and for their support and friendship. The people of South
    Dakota have a reputation for being hard working, humble and kind. I
    have found that to be true, and they are well represented in both of
    you.
        My nomination to this position was unexpected; I did not anticipate
    returning to federal service. I thoroughly enjoy being a university
    president, educating the next generation of engineers and scientists,
    and making a difference in the community in which I live.
        I live a blessed life. We all do, and we have the liberty to enjoy
    our blessings because thousands of America's best citizens volunteer to
    protect the rest of us. It would be my honor to serve them to the best
    of my ability.
        As Senators on this committee, you know well that America's vital
    national interests continue to be threatened. China is rapidly
    developing new military capabilities funded by an economy that will
    rival our own in within a decade. Russia has used limited conventional
    force in Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria to achieve its political
    objectives. Iran is a destabilizing force in the Middle East and
    beyond. The Stalinist North Korean regime is willing to starve its own
    people to threaten neighbors and will sell weapons to any buyer with
    cash. Terrorism festers in weak states that cannot preserve order.
        We live in a dangerous time, and I think we sometimes take for
    granted American dominance in air and space power. The last time an
    American military member on the ground was killed by enemy aircraft was
    April 15, 1953--during the Korean War. Two legs of the nuclear triad
    operated by the United States Air Force have quietly deterred enemies
    and helped to keep the peace for over 70 years. Our Air Force has been
    continuously engaged in combat operations for 26 straight years.
        But dominating the high ground is not a certain thing, and, having
    spent some time over the past 3 months getting reacquainted with
    national security matters after several years in higher education,
    there is cause for concern.
        We have a mismatch between our strategic objectives and the
    military means we have available to deter and confront threats. The Air
    Force is too small for what the nation expects of it.
        Since the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, the number of
    Airmen has declined significantly while the demand for air and space
    power has increased. Senior Air Force leaders have testified that less
    than 50% of the conventional air force is ready for all of the combat
    missions assigned to them. I have no reason to question that estimate.
        With only 55 Active, Guard and Reserve fighter squadrons and a
    shortfall of over 900 fighter pilots, the Air Force is unable to
    sustain today's fight and, at the same time, effectively train. While
    the Air Force has rightly made support for the counterterrorism mission
    and nuclear deterrent operations a priority, the Air Force is not fully
    ready to fight against a near-peer competitor.
        While the size of the service is too small, its equipment is also
    aging. The average Air Force aircraft is now 27 years old, and while
    life extension programs and skilled maintainers have kept them in
    reasonably good shape, the cost of continuing to extend the life of old
    airplanes is very high. The next Air Force Secretary will be
    modernizing fighters, tankers, bombers, intelligence platforms, space
    capabilities, munitions and our nuclear deterrent.
        If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense and the
    Congress to restore the readiness of the Air Force so that it can
    defend the vital national interests of the United States.
        I will also work with Congress to address the constraints imposed
    by the Budget Control Act so that the Air Force can be cost effectively
    modernized to meet a range of threats now and in the future. Working
    with my colleagues in the other services and under the guidance of the
    Secretary of Defense, I will seek to bring business-minded reforms to
    the Air Force to get high quality capabilities at the best price for
    the taxpayer.
        While, as a leader, I am values driven and mission focused, I am
    also people oriented.
        The strength of the United States Air Force is in its people. The
    quality of our leaders at the squadron level will set the culture in
    the Air Force. Working with the Chief of Staff, I intend to bring
    renewed focus to the training and education of Airmen, and particularly
    the quality of command. If every Airman has a First Sergeant and
    Squadron Commander whom they trust to lead them, and do the right
    thing, we will continue to have the finest Air Force in the world.
        Finally, the Air Force Secretary and the defense committees also
    have to prepare for the future. If confirmed, I will review and further
    develop Air Force research and development priorities to ensure we are
    investing in basic and applied research that will keep the Air Force
    ahead of adversaries for the long term.
        To summarize, the Air Force is too small and not prepared for all
    of the threats we face as a nation.
        If confirmed, I will focus on readiness, modernization, quality of
    command, and research for the future. To do that, I will have to work
    with each of you to fix the budget so that we can defend the country
    that we love.
        On a personal note, several of you know that my roots in aviation
    are quite deep. My grandfather flew for the Royal Flying Corps--the
    predecessor to the RAF--in the first World War. He flew sub search in
    the Irish sea and helped to synchronize machine guns with propeller
    arcs. There was no work in Scotland after the war, so he came to
    America. He was a barnstormer and opened airports in New England in the
    1920s and 1930s. In the Second World War he flew for the United States,
    towing targets and ferrying parts for the Army Air Corps.
        My father started flying when he was 13 and enlisted in the Air
    Force after high school. He was a crew chief for what, at the time, was
    the hottest fighter in the world--the F-84 Thunderjet. After leaving
    the service, he was a commercial pilot and built experimental
    airplanes. When I joined the Air Force at 17, I became the third
    generation of my family to serve. My husband, also an Air Force
    veteran, retired after 30 years of Active, Guard and Reserve service.
        My grandfather started flying shortly after the Wright brothers and
    he lived to see a man walk on the moon.
        We live in a remarkable country, served by innovators and intrepid
    Airmen who take great risks on our behalf. I have been called back to
    service in a role I did not seek and did not expect. If confirmed, I
    will do my best to be worthy of those who serve.
        I look forward to answering your questions.

        Chairman McCain. Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
        Senator, if I could ask the indulgence of committee
    members, Senator Tillis has to attend the funeral of a dear
    friend, and I would ask the indulgence of the committee to
    allow him to go first, and then we will go through regular
    order.
        Senator Tillis?
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. He is actually a
    highly decorated marine who died just shortly after he retired,
    and we are going to be over at Arlington, so thank you for your
    indulgence. I will try to be brief.
        Dr. Wilson, I look forward to voting for your confirmation,
    and I fully expect that you are going to be confirmed. We need
    strong leadership at a time when--we were in a committee
    hearing yesterday where we had three lieutenant generals tell
    us that we only have four out of over 50 squadrons that are at
    their highest level of qualifications. We are more than 1,000
    pilots short, about 800 of them are fighter pilots. I could go
    down the list. We have already talked about the smallest Air
    Force in our history.
        So when you think about those deficits, they are deficits
    in what is the smallest Air Force in history, and the oldest.
        So I appreciate your courage and willingness to take on
    this task. We need to hurry up and get you confirmed so that
    people can hear the chairman's concerns about a CR that does
    not give you the certainty to start fixing some of the
    structural problems in the Air Force and all the lines of
    service.
        So I appreciate your courage in taking on the task. I think
    you are eminently qualified.
        I am going to briefly touch on a parochial issue, but I am
    not going to ask you to respond to it.
        Last year, and I have to agree with the chair, something
    that I was trying to do at Pope Army Airfield, a place where
    Senator Reed has a lot of fond memories of the Green Ramp, has
    a unique mission in the global response force. I was trying to
    do something that I do not think the chair liked, and he is
    probably right, and that was to really fix the 440th down
    there, because I do feel like a physical presence down there is
    important to account for all the other kinds of things,
    weather, illnesses, mechanical problems, the way that they are
    trying to help fulfill the training mission down there for the
    82nd Airborne.
        But I think, on reflection, I realize that I almost became
    a part of the problem because what I was doing was a
    legislative fix. What I was doing was constraining what you all
    need to do to optimize the resources and complete the missions
    and support, in this case, the mission down at Fort Bragg.
        But we really need feedback from you in terms of the things
    that we have done in the past that would take the 440th and put
    it on the top of the list of six other places that the Air
    Force deemed were more appropriate reductions that they could
    do to meet their cost-cutting goals--in other words, BRAC and a
    couple other legislative actions that would have been similar
    to the one that I was trying to take. Those sorts of barriers
    need to be removed.
        Can I get your commitment to go back and look at things
    that Congress has mandated on the Department that you think are
    not helpful and are actually hindering you to be able to
    achieve the other mandate that we gave to you, which is
    reducing costs and optimizing? Can I get your commitment to,
    fairly early in year tenure, to go after these things and tell
    Congress they need to act so that we can help you achieve these
    efficiencies that we are also expecting you to achieve?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I am very happy to work with you on
    those kind of mandates.
        Senator Tillis. There are a lot. You know, Dr. Wilson, we
    can absolutely give you the specific use case of what resulted
    in the 440th decision as an example of things that we have to
    change, if we are really going to put you in a position to
    succeed in your mission.
        This is the last thing I am going to talk about. That right
    there is actually something that started in the Air Force about
    10 years ago. It is a 680-page RFP for the next generation
    handgun. It started in the Air Force. It then went to the Army.
    It took 10 years to complete. Just over the last year--39
    pages, incidentally, are all the pages that are specifications.
        But almost a 700-page RFP to define a handgun. That does
    not make sense to me. In fact, we should probably already be
    iterating through the next handgun.
        Can I also get your commitment on acquisition reform, that
    we start figuring out why in the hell we spent 10 years and 700
    pages for the next generation handgun, and go look at that and
    maybe work with me to figure out how we can streamline and to
    what extent Congress has to get involved to do that?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. I look forward to your
    confirmation.
        Chairman McCain. I thank you, Senator Tillis. It brings to
    mind the incredible injection of enthusiasm, reform, and
    intellect that the newer members on both sides of the aisle
    have brought to this committee.
        Dr. Wilson, I understand that after you left Congress in
    2009, your consulting company did work for Sandia National
    Laboratories, SNL. Later, SNL and Sandia Corporation, which
    operates the labs, were the subject of two Department of Energy
    inspector general investigations. Sandia Corporation then
    reached a settlement with the Justice Department to resolve
    allegations related to lobbying activities.
        What was the nature of your work for Sandia National
    Laboratories?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I worked for the laboratories after,
    on a consulting basis, after--actually, before I was elected to
    public service and elected to Congress, based on my background
    in the military and national security policy.
        When leaving the Congress, the president of Sandia talked
    to me about working full time and joining Sandia. It did not
    seem to me that there was the right fit there, that there was a
    position that was a good fit, and I was not ready to make that
    commitment. But what we did agree instead was that I would work
    for them about a quarter time, about 50 hours a month for the
    president and vice presidents of the labs.
        After working that way for about 18 months, a position
    opened, and they interviewed a number of people for it. In
    February 2011, Sandia offered me the position of vice president
    over all of the nonnuclear defense and intelligence programs,
    about 1,400 employees and about 30 percent of the labs' work. I
    declined that offer in order to run for the United States
    Senate.
        With respect to the things that I did for the lab, I
    served--well, I did work for four laboratories.
        At the Nevada test site, I served on the president's
    advisory panel. I also was asked to review some special
    classified programs.
        At Oak Ridge National Lab, I served on their Global
    Security division advisory board with respect to intelligence
    programs.
        At Los Alamos, I did most of my work there, again, with the
    intelligence directorate and looking at field intelligence
    element operations and alignment, special program reviews,
    cognizance of national security policy, and matters related to
    the decline of thought leadership on the nuclear weapons
    program, as well as advice and support to a new vice president
    for intelligence matters.
        At Sandia, I served also on their intelligence advisory
    board. I helped them I think a great deal with respect to
    strategic planning, on nonproliferation and their
    nonproliferation advisory board with respect to nuclear
    materials. I did numerous program reviews, helped with
    cybersecurity in their new cyber program. There were some
    special satellite programs at Sandia I also assisted in.
        Chairman McCain. You will have to summarize your answer,
    Dr. Wilson. I have other questions.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there was a wide variety of national
    security things that I did.
        I also served, although not directly, with the
    congressional affairs office. I was always available to them to
    answer the vice president's and president's questions
    concerning the general operation of the United States Congress
    and the Federal bureaucracy.
        Chairman McCain. Did you contact any Member of Congress or
    Federal official concerning a contract extension for Sandia
    Corporation?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
        Chairman McCain. Did you recommend that Sandia Corporation
    take the position that competition of its contract was not in
    the best interest of the government?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Chairman McCain. Why?
        Dr. Wilson. Because it was not. It is my view that the
    national laboratories are special assets. They are government-
    owned assets, and we have had very long tenure and stability in
    those national laboratories. MIT Lincoln Lab, for example, has
    had MIT as its operator since 1963.
        These are nonprofit government laboratories that have a
    management and operating contractor, and they are of very long
    tenure.
        Chairman McCain. If confirmed, will you advocate for the
    competition of Air Force contracts?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, when it is in the best interest of the
    government.
        Chairman McCain. Were you disciplined or cited for a breach
    of ethics in connection with your consulting work for Sandia?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
        Chairman McCain. Were you investigated or charged with
    violating any law in connection with your consulting work for
    Sandia?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
        Chairman McCain. Do you view that your work for Sandia in
    any way would pose a conflict of interest as far as the
    assumption of your duties as Secretary of the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
        Chairman McCain. Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
        Senator Reed?
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me just continue.
        As I indicated in my opening statement, at the request of
    the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Department of
    Energy IG reviewed certain consulting agreements awarded to
    Heather Wilson and Company LLC, whether they were appropriately
    administered and managed. Essentially, that was a sole
    proprietorship, as I understand it.
        Two significant issues were identified in this review. It
    appears that you may have charged as many as four different
    government-owned and contractor-operated sites for the same
    consulting services for which you received approximately
    $450,000.
        The IG noted that, under the Federal Acquisition
    Regulation, fees for services rendered are allowable only when
    supported by evidence of the nature and scope of the service
    provided. The IG concluded that you did not comply with this
    requirement, nor was it enforced by the contracting officials
    involved.
        While the contracting official did not enforce the Federal
    Acquisition Regulation to the contract, were you aware of the
    requirements to provide evidence supporting your 50 hours of
    work for $10,000 a month for Sandia and Los Alamos?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I did the work. I complied with the
    contract. The review found no fault with me. The DOE auditors
    never even talked to me.
        Senator Reed. But were you aware, my question is, of the
    need to maintain work product and evidence of your work for
    accounting purposes?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I submitted substantial work product
    and worked directly for the laboratories for no less than 50
    hours a month.
        Senator Reed. Do you have records showing that you were
    spending 50 hours a month doing that?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, if the DOE auditors had bothered to
    talk to me, I would have been able to help them with that when
    this matter occurred 7 years ago now.
        Senator Reed. So your position is that you had no knowledge
    of the requirement to maintain records, and that whatever
    records were required are no longer in your possession?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I complied with the contract and
    provided the work that Sandia National Laboratories and the
    other laboratories asked of me.
        Senator Reed. Did versions of those contracts contain
    language requiring recordkeeping? Did you reject those versions
    of the contract before you signed it?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I do not believe so. I do not recall
    anything like that.
        Senator Reed. So you do not recall drafts of contracts that
    were offered to you that required, according to FAR
    regulations, that you would maintain records of your work so
    that they could be validated? You do not recall that?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the contracts that I signed were
    pretty standard contracts provided by Sandia and Los Alamos and
    so forth.
        Senator Reed. Did you review contracts before you signed
    the final contract and made comments?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Reed. So there was a negotiation about what would
    be in the contract and what would not be in the contract?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, mostly with respect to the statement
    of work, yes.
        Senator Reed. In that negotiation, did you cause or agree
    to the deletion of the requirement to maintain records at all?
        Dr. Wilson. I do not recall that at all, sir.
        Senator Reed. Just let me ask a question which is much more
    pertinent today, which would be, if you, as Secretary of the
    Air Force, discovered an invoice paid by a laboratory under
    your management which simply said, ``Consulting services, 8/1/
    2010 to 8/30/2010, $10,000,'' would you accept that?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I would expect the people who are
    managing that contract to manage it well. In this case, I was
    in very close contact with the people at Sandia. They knew
    exactly what I was doing. We worked every--often several times
    a week together on things that they wanted me to do. I fully
    complied with the contract, and I did the work.
        Senator Reed. Why would Lockheed reimburse the government
    $440,000 or more for work which the government could not find
    nor could Lockheed find evidence and not try to reimburse or
    ask you to reimburse monies?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, you would have to ask Sandia that.
        Senator Reed. So if you were Secretary of the Air Force,
    you would not probe down to the actual contractor or
    subcontractor to determine what was done and see if they were
    culpable for anything?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, as I understand it, at least
    initially, Sandia rejected the conclusions of the Department of
    Energy audit as well.
        Senator Reed. Let me shift quickly. In 2008, a report of
    the Department of Justice indicated that you contacted David
    Iglesias, the United States attorney for New Mexico, to inquire
    about the prosecution of certain public corruption cases.
        The House ethics manual in effect at the time provided that
    a request for background information or a status report from a
    Federal attorney ``may in effect be an indirect or subtle
    effort to influence the substantive outcome of a proceeding,''
    and further states that the best way to communicate is in
    writing and make it part of the proceedings.
        Why did you call Mr. Iglesias about the public corruption
    cases?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, let me correct one of your assumptions
    there. I did not call him about particular cases or any
    particular person.
        This matter was reviewed by two independent groups, both
    the Department of Justice and the House Ethics Committee. The
    House Ethics Committee interviewed Mr. Iglesias and chose not
    to even start an investigation of me.
        With respect to why I called him, it is because public
    corruption was a serious problem in the State of New Mexico,
    and an individual, a constituent, with knowledge of ongoing
    investigations told me that the U.S. attorney was intentionally
    delaying corruption prosecutions, and I felt as though I had to
    address that allegation in some appropriate way.
        Senator Reed. So you did not call about corruption cases
    specifically but you called him about corruption cases, which I
    think, logically, people would infer or he would infer were
    those cases that were pending before his Federal attorney's
    office. Is that a fair assumption?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, sadly, there, at the time, were a very
    large problem with public corruption in New Mexico and a large
    number of investigations underway.
        Senator Reed. You said you called in response to an inquiry
    by someone. Who was that person?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, someone trusted me to do the right
    thing with information that concerned them, and I did not
    betray them then, and I am not going to betray them now.
        Senator Reed. Well, I think it is important because it adds
    to sort of the motivation for the call. If this was a random
    constituent, that is one factor. If this was someone who had an
    issue or a motive to bring the cases or not bring the cases,
    that, I think, would cast this call in a much different light.
        So I think it is very unhelpful to not be able to indicate.
    If this was an innocuous call about the general status of
    prosecutions in the State, of your home State, prompted by an
    innocuous contact by someone, I do not see why you would be
    reluctant to indicate who urged you to call.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I did not betray them then, and I am
    not going to betray them now.
        I do think that the issue here--and you and I come from a
    very similar background; you came from West Point, and I came
    from the Air Force Academy--that one of the appropriate ways to
    resolve an allegation of impropriety is to talk to someone
    about it. That is what I did with David Iglesias, who is a
    personal friend. He gave me his word, and I took him at his
    word.
        Senator Reed. So you called a Federal official in his
    Federal role to make an inquiry about pending cases, maybe not
    specifically, based on an anonymous contact that you received?
        Dr. Wilson. It was not about--Senator, I called him to
    resolve an allegation of impropriety made against him. You and
    I both know that, in some ways, ethically, the most difficult
    questions to ask yourself or to deal with are not about what
    you do as a person but whether you tolerate other behavior. I
    had an allegation that the U.S. attorney was intentionally
    delaying corruption prosecutions. In some way, I had to resolve
    that, and I chose to resolve it by calling him and asking him
    about it. He denied it, and I took him at his word.
        Senator Reed. [Presiding.] Well, I find it still very
    unsettling. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe?
        Senator Inhofe. Dr. Wilson, I think we covered it pretty
    well in your opening statement and the questions that were
    asked previously, but it is worth restating. I think it is very
    important, because people out there do not know what our
    situation is. Now you stated, and you stated again in your
    opening statement, we have a mismatch between our strategic
    objectives and the military means that we have available to
    deter and confront threats. That kind of says it all. It is a
    very good statement.
        But then within that, we hear from others, General
    Goldfein, for example, said the most pressing, that was to this
    committee, challenge for the U.S. Air Force is the rise of peer
    competitors with advanced military capabilities rivaling our
    own.
        Now, what he is saying is, it is not like it used to be, we
    are automatically better at everything. Those days are behind
    us.
        Hopefully, that will change. But nonetheless, that is a
    problem that we have.
        Now, we are faced now with looking at some new equipment
    coming in, and some of the problems that we learned from the
    past. I will quote General Carlisle. He said: We do not have
    enough of F-22s. It is a fact of life. We did not buy enough.
    That is because we were shortsighted. We curtailed the F-22
    procurement to just 187 when it started off to be 781.
        Now some of the same arguments used to end that program are
    now used in reference to the F-35 and the B-21. I would hope,
    and I know that you have studied these causes and the problems
    that we had in the past, that you could use our past failures
    to avoid another problem coming up.
        Does that make sense to you?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, Senator. It does.
        Senator Inhofe. Last month, we had a Readiness
    Subcommittee. I chair the Readiness Subcommittee. We had all
    four Vices in there, including another Wilson, and he did a
    very good job. During that time, he talked about the problems
    that are facing us right now, and I know that you have already
    studied that.
        The only thing I wanted to get to was this morning I saw
    that the Air Force Times had an article by Gina Grosso, who is
    the personnel chief of the Air Force. In here, she points out
    the very good case on the pilot problem.
        I have been active and still am an active commercial pilot,
    so I talk to a lot of these guys and gals who are out there and
    are faced with a problem that she points out vividly, and that
    is that we have a high optempo on the ones that are actually
    flying out there, but the ones that are not flying, are not out
    in front, are not getting the hours. I will not quote all of
    the statistics that we have, but I know that you understand
    that is the case.
        I would hope--it seemed like she was stressing the idea
    that you can go from 25 to 35 on a reenlistment bonus and
    somehow solve the problems. I do not think that is going to be
    enough. I think we are going to have to do something about the
    training of these guys and allowing them to fly hours, because
    right now, they are flying about one-fourth of the hours that
    they were prior to over the last 10 years.
        So I would like to ask that you get involved in that end of
    the argument, and that you and I can talk about this, because I
    see this as a pretty serious problem that we have.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I look forward to that.
        Senator Inhofe. That is good, and I look forward to
    supporting you.
        Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Senator Peters, please, on behalf of the
    chairman.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Reed.
        Thank you, Dr. Wilson, for being here. I enjoyed our
    conversation in the office and appreciated the opportunity to
    kind of dig deeply into a number of issues that are confronting
    the Air Force, and I appreciate your appearance here today.
        I have kind of a broad question I want to start with, and
    then I want to drill down to some things more specific to my
    State of Michigan.
        I want to talk a little, hear a little bit more about your
    thoughts on R&D [research and development]. You mentioned that
    in your opening statement, that we have to think about the face
    of warfare years ahead, and those changes are happening a lot
    quicker than many of us anticipated.
        As a Senator from Michigan and being intimately involved in
    self-driving vehicles, soon we are going to have self-driving
    vehicles here before us much sooner, and we expect the same
    thing when it comes to autonomous flying vehicles as well. UAVs
    will likely transform the face of warfare, as well as a lot of
    other areas.
        It also may address things like pilot shortages, although
    we have to deal with that now. That does not relieve us of very
    significant challenges that we are facing right now.
        But what do you see for the future of airpower going
    forward? What sort of R&D work do we need to do. I have had
    some folks tell me that we may have constructed the last
    fighter aircraft with a human pilot in it, that it is going to
    change dramatically. Just kind of generally your thoughts.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I look forward to working with the
    scientists and engineers to help identify what are the most
    important vectors to pursue. But there is one thing that is
    very clear, and that is that the pace of change is going to
    accelerate. We are either going to have to rapidly accelerate
    ourselves and be able to spin on innovation into the service,
    or we are going to be left behind. But it is things like
    autonomous systems, network systems, advanced materials. I
    think there are a wide array of things.
        But one of the things that concerns me is the low
    percentage of the Air Force budget that is actually spent on
    R&D. That concerns me because if you look at--my grandfather
    started flying shortly after the Wright brothers. He lived to
    see a man walk on the moon.
        The pace of innovation in this field is stunning, and we
    are either going to continue to innovate or we are going to get
    left behind.
        Senator Peters. Right. That is accelerating as well, that
    pace, as you rightly portray.
        Dr. Wilson, I would like to talk a little bit about
    Selfridge Air National Guard Base, a base that you know very
    well because of your father's service there. We are very proud
    that he served at our base in Michigan. As you know, they
    currently host the A-10 fighter aircraft and the KC-135
    tankers.
        When the Air Force planned to retire the A-10 sooner than
    they are planning to do now, the mission of record for
    Selfridge listed removing the A-10s and doubling the tanker
    mission, adding additional KC-135s in fiscal year 2021. For the
    airmen that fly and maintain these platforms, more certainty
    and clarity about the future of that mission at installations
    like Selfridge is certainly very important to them.
        Now that we know that the Air Force will not be retiring
    the A-10 in the near term, will you review the mission of
    record of bases that have A-10s like Selfridge? Would we expect
    that kind of review coming forward?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, first, the Chief of Staff in the Air
    Force has committed to keep the A-10s. I think it is out
    through 2020.
        The Air Force has a strategic basing process to look at
    basing and planning. What I will commit to you is it will be
    straight. There will not be any thumbs on the scale. We will
    have the Air Force do things based on the best interests of the
    country and the Air Force. That also often means that where one
    Senator may be, in the end, very happy, there are 49 who are
    not, or 49 States that are not.
        But I will commit to you to be open and transparent and to
    be fair.
        Senator Peters. Related to that is the strategic basing
    process for the F-35. We currently have five candidate bases
    that have been determined through that process. I would hope
    that we would continue to move that process forward without any
    type of modification and hopefully have your commitment to do
    that.
        It has been a good process. It needs to continue as it has
    been spelled out, I believe.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, as I understand it, the Air Force is
    moving forward with that and--they are obviously doing a review
    directed by the Secretary of Defense with respect to the F-35,
    but I have heard nothing yet about any change to its strategic
    basing plan.
        Senator Peters. Right. Thank you very much. I appreciate
    your answers.
        Chairman McCain. [Presiding.] Dr. Wilson, I would hope
    that, as part of your new duties, you would call Colonel Graham
    back to Active Duty.
        Colonel Graham?
        Senator Graham. Thank you. We do not want to help the
    enemy, so I would recommend you do not do that. But I did enjoy
    my time.
        So about basing of the F-35, would you agree with me that
    the strategic basing initiative was based on fewer F-35s with a
    declining budget, the idea that we are not going to have as
    many F-35s as we like because of sequestration?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there is no question that
    sequestration is placing great constraints on the force, and we
    need to fix this.
        Senator Graham. Would you agree with me that if we had more
    F-35s, we need to probably look at more bases in terms of where
    to deploy them, if the budget numbers change?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, if the budget number changed and there
    were more aircraft, you have to have a place to put them.
        Senator Graham. Okay. I would urge you to do that, because
    I am not so sure the first product was that well thought out.
        But the bottom line is, a continuing resolution from April
    of this year to September of this year would be a disaster for
    the Air Force. Do you agree with that?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir. I do.
        Senator Graham. So if this body cares about the military at
    all, we would not pass a continuing resolution.
        Dr. Wilson. That is correct.
        Senator Graham. So we actually need a budget.
        Do you agree with me that the amount of money we are
    spending on the Department of Defense in terms of GDP is a
    virtually historic low?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I have not seen the most recent chart,
    but I will accept that.
        Senator Graham. Do you agree with me that the threats to
    this Nation are growing, not lessening?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Graham. When it comes to North Korea, I know you
    are new to the job, and you will be an excellent Secretary of
    the Air Force. I congratulate the President. It is stronger for
    choosing you because you understand the Air Force. You
    understand the challenges that we face.
        Do you see, without some change, North Korea developing a
    missile that can strike the American Homeland with a nuclear
    weapon on top of it? Do you think that is inevitable without
    change?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I have not had a classified briefing
    on North Korea for some time, but based on what we are seeing
    in the public press, there is serious cause for concern.
        Senator Graham. Would you agree with me that that is a bad
    news day for America, when North Korea can reach our Homeland
    with a nuclear-tipped missile, and we should avoid that, if at
    all possible?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Airpower may be necessary to avoid that. Is
    that correct?
        Dr. Wilson. Sir, I have not seen any kinds of plans or had
    a classified briefing, but I think airpower and strong airpower
    is necessary for just about any operating----
        Senator Graham. When you look over the arc of time, the
    next 10 or 20 years, it seems to me that Iran is marching
    toward nuclear capability. In terms of assets available to the
    President of the United States to deter Iran from going
    nuclear, to deal with an aggressive Russia and China, we need
    to modernize our force as quick as possible.
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Okay. When it comes to the airmen who serve
    so well, do you agree with me that the war on terror is taking
    the Air Force in new directions never envisioned, where airmen
    are out there basically doing infantry jobs because of the
    shortage in the Army?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. Driving trucks, doing things that----
        Dr. Wilson. We drive trucks too.
        Senator Graham. Yeah, but I mean, really combat----
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir. We have battlefield airmen who have
    always been battlefield airmen doing Air Force jobs on the
    ground.
        Senator Graham. I would say that there are more battlefield
    airmen today than any time since World War II. I would urge you
    to capture that and preserve it, because as we talk about
    technology changing the Air Force, the one thing we will always
    need is brave young men and women. The more versatile our Air
    Force, the more able it is to meet the threats of the future, I
    think the better off we are.
        When it comes to asymmetrical warfare, what role do you see
    the Air Force playing? Can you think of a better platform than
    the A-10 for the moment against the fight we have against ISIL
    [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] and other asymmetrical
    threats?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, 40,000 munitions have been put on the
    ISIS target since 2014. Ninety percent of them have been
    delivered by the United States Air Force. That is an air
    commander who has to decide at the moment what platform he
    needs to do a particular job at a particular place. Whether
    that is an F-16 or whether that is in F-18 or an A-10 just
    depends on the job. We need to make sure that that air
    commander has all kinds of opportunities to defeat and kill the
    enemy.
        Senator Graham. Final question. On the asymmetrical
    battlefield against radical Islam, we play an important role in
    the Air Force. But part of the Air Force's duties is to offer a
    nuclear deterrence and deter nation-states from ever getting in
    a fight with the United States.
        Do you believe that our ability to deter war has suffered
    because of sequestration and that the best way to deter war is
    to make the enemy think they cannot win the war, and you are
    going to need more money and more people to do that?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Fischer?
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wilson, in your responses to the committee's advanced
    policy questions, you answered a question about the necessity
    of maintaining a nuclear triad and you stated that, ``We must
    maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. The
    deterrent has been effective for over 70 years. The air and
    ground legs of the triad are a core mission of the Air Force
    and will continue to be a core mission.'' You also mentioned
    that briefly in your opening statement.
        I appreciate your statement that the nuclear mission is a
    core mission of the Air Force, and I understand that, if
    confirmed, you will only be responsible for the air leg and the
    ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. But is it your
    personal view that we need to maintain the entire triad?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I do think we need to maintain the
    entire triad.
        Senator Fischer. Where do you believe we are right now with
    regard to modernization for that triad, and specifically the
    two legs that, if confirmed, you will be responsible for?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, based on the publicly available
    information that I have had access to over the last 3 months,
    it seems to me that the Minuteman is a 1970s missile. The Air
    Force does not believe they can extend the life of it any
    further. Likewise, we need to modernize the air-based
    deterrent, and the V-21 is being designed from the beginning to
    be nuclear-capable.
        We also need to modernize the command, control, and
    communications system for the control of our nuclear deterrent.
        So modernization is needed across-the-board, and there is
    only so much you can do with 70-year-old materials, and I think
    it is time to say we have to replace them.
        Senator Fischer. Have you had an opportunity yet to look
    into the debate that is going on about a possible third site
    for missile deployment? If so, do you have an opinion on that?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to look
    at that.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Doctor, I also would like to ask you about the UH-1N Huey
    helicopters that are currently performing the nuclear security
    and the continuity of government missions.
        Last year, we saw General Robin Rand, who commands the Air
    Force Global Strike Command, testify that, ``We will not meet
    the emergency security response with the present helicopter.''
        Admiral Haney, who was then the United States Strategic
    Command (STRATCOM) Commander, went into greater detail before
    this committee, stating that the current helicopters ``do not
    have the lift capability, speed capability, to meet the
    requirements that have been approved and validated through a
    number of studies, as well as Mighty Guardian exercises.'' He
    went on to describe the need for a replacement as urgent, and
    that was a year ago.
        Despite the clear need, the Air Force replacement program
    continues to be delayed time and time again. Just last month,
    the Air Force withdrew the draft RFP and changed the
    acquisitions strategy.
        If confirmed, I would like your commitment to ensure that
    the Air Force moves forward as soon as possible to replace this
    aging fleet. Are you ready to give a commitment at this time?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I will look at the UH-1N program. It
    is something that I have just looked at the very top level at
    this point, but it is one of the many modernization programs
    that I am sure I will be looking at very closely.
        Senator Fischer. But I know you do understand the
    importance of making sure that those fields are protected and
    there is limited capability of doing so.
        Dr. Wilson. Absolutely.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        When you and I met in my office, we discussed the Air
    Force's troubled history with its nuclear mission, and that was
    particularly stemming from a lack of senior leader interest in
    the area. To its credit, the Air Force has made this a high
    priority in recent years.
        I hope that we would have your commitment to continue to
    make this area a high priority and that you will be an advocate
    for the needs of our nuclear forces. That includes space. It
    includes the command and control system that we depend upon.
        Could we have that commitment at this time?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Rounds?
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, I am just very happy to have you here in
    front of us today, and I look forward to a very speedy
    confirmation process for you.
        I am just curious, when you have the opportunity, and I
    would suspect that you are going to have lots of opportunities
    in the future, what is your elevator speech regarding the
    effects of the sequester, the BCA, on the United States Air
    Force?
        Dr. Wilson. I think it needs to be repealed, and there are
    a variety of ways that Congress might do that, but it is
    hurting the Air Force and our ability to defend ourselves. More
    importantly, the most immediate issue that Congress is going to
    face is the possibility of a continuing resolution.
        If there is a continuing resolution for this year, we will
    make all of the problems that we are talking about here so much
    worse. We will have to stop noncombat flying hours in the Air
    Force. The pilot exodus would increase. The aircraft will not
    be going to depots to be maintained. There will likely be a
    freeze on a civilian hiring.
        We cannot operate this way. We need to get beyond the
    Budget Control Act and get back to normal operations for
    budgeting.
        Senator Rounds. As you know, there is a dispute within our
    party regarding the right balance between increased defense
    spending and deficit reduction. Where do you come down on this
    issue?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the debt is also an issue for our
    country, but I think this is a country that can afford to
    defend itself.
        Senator Rounds. A matter of priorities, perhaps?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. You are about probably a third of the way
    through your hearing today, I would suspect. I am just curious,
    with regard to the questions that have come up so far today,
    are there any questions that you perhaps have not had the time
    to answer fully? Anything that you would like to add to any of
    the questions, or clarifications on any of the questions that
    have been in front of you so far?
        Dr. Wilson. No, sir. Not at this point.
        Senator Rounds. Very good.
        Let me talk a little bit about how we are going to move
    forward in the Air Force with regard to technology and the need
    to upgrade the entire system.
        We have peer competitors. I think everybody would recognize
    both China and Russia have been moving forward not only with
    the development of new aircraft but with new aircraft with
    large numbers.
        How do we move forward in regard to fourth gen. We have
    some fifth gen, not enough. What is the right mix between our
    fourth generation aircraft, which are clearly mature, clearly
    can have some upgrades added to them? But with the changing
    environment, how do we add? What we do in terms of upgrading
    the technologies so that the men and women that we send into
    battle have absolutely no question the best equipment, and that
    every single fight they ever get into is not a fair fight, one
    in which they clearly have the technological advantages? How do
    we move forward? Where do we go? Do we keep fourth gen around?
    What we do?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there will be fourth generation
    aircraft around for a long time. As to what is the right mix, I
    would have to defer to the uniform military as well as to the
    civilian folks in the Air Force, whom I have not yet really
    been fully briefed on what they are looking at for plans. The
    Air Force is always planning.
        But I would say this. I think it is really important to get
    capabilities from the drawing board to the flight line faster.
    The cycle of innovation has to be faster. You have to fix
    requirements; move forward; get small, focused project
    management teams, and get things out the door, because unless
    you do, you will always be left behind.
        Long procurements have changes in requirements, and costs
    escalate, and the people in the field do not get what they need
    to do the job. So I think those things--I am very interested in
    becoming more familiar with the experimentation and prototyping
    authorities that the Congress has put in the last defense
    authorization act.
        Of course, I think it needs to be easier to buy commercial
    products, particularly in the areas of very rapid--where there
    is very rapid innovation, where we need to make sure that the
    military has access to high-quality services and capabilities
    that may have been developed for a nondefense purpose.
        Senator Rounds. Prepared to take comments from individual
    organizations that contract with the government on how to
    provide a lot of these pieces of equipment, these new
    technologies in terms of what they see as the most efficient
    way to move forward with new acquisition plans and so forth,
    recognizing that they have to fit our need but also recognizing
    that sometimes the folks who are living within those fields are
    sometimes some of the best places to get good advice about ways
    to expedite and streamline a very broken process today?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I am very open to all kinds of ideas.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. [Presiding.] Thank you.
        On behalf of Chairman McCain, Senator Wicker, please?
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Senator Reed.
        Dr. Wilson, it is wonderful to have you back here, and I
    look forward to you serving in government again. You were a
    terrific colleague in the House.
        We talked about retention of pilots. We talked about the
    pilot shortage. Part and parcel to that is the retention
    problem we have. They are so well-trained, they are so
    talented, they are so marketable, that the private sector wants
    to hire them.
        So speak to that, if you will. But also, do we have the
    same problem with the cyber work force in the Air Force? What
    are we going to do about that, because these folks are so
    skilled and so smart and the demand for them is so keen out
    there?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, let me take those in reverse order.
    With respect to the cyber work force, you are right. The demand
    is very high outside of the Air Force for folks with those
    capabilities.
        One of the things that you put in the defense authorization
    act last year was to allow the services to explore some other
    direct commissioning programs, and I would like to kind of turn
    to the Air Force and kind of ask them whether that provision
    might be used in the area of cyber and particularly whether
    there are opportunities for National Guard and Reserve units in
    cyber that we could locate in places where there are
    concentrations of highly technical people. I would be
    interested in turning to the Air Force and to ask them that and
    working with you all on it because it is going to be an issue.
    They are just too highly valuable to not be taken away.
        With respect to the pilot issues, there are a couple
    things. I was very pleased yesterday to see General Grosklags'
    testimony concerning targeted bonuses, so it is not across-the-
    board. It is more of a negotiation to try to keep as many
    pilots as we can and a lot of flexibility there with respect to
    trying to retain a pilot.
        But it is not just about the money, because we will never
    be able to compete with the commercial airline industry. It is
    going to be about the quality of service and being able to do
    the job, and that is readiness. If a pilot can go out and fly
    today, if the aircraft is ready today, it is maintained, they
    have enough jet fuel and enough flying hour time, you are much
    more likely to keep them.
        I think there are a lot of additional duties that get added
    in for people who are here to fly and fight. We need to try to
    make sure that their experience of flying in the Air Force is
    something no one in their right mind would ever give up.
        Senator Wicker. Is it partially about bonuses though? I
    wonder how much we are talking about spending.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there are some bonuses that General
    Grosklags testified about that yesterday, and you all have
    authorized some additional pilot retention pay.
        What I was pleased to see, and you all authorized, was the
    Air Force testified yesterday about using those dollars
    flexibly so that we do not just say, across-the-board, if you
    are a pilot, then you get this X bonus for Y number of years.
    But as private industry does, make this a bit of a negotiation
    and certainly try to keep pilots in the areas where we are most
    short, particularly we know we are having a problem with
    fighter pilots. Allowing the same amount of money as a bonus
    for somebody who is not a fighter pilot does not make a lot of
    sense to me.
        Senator Wicker. So we can agree that it is a matter that
    needs attention both with the fighter pilots and the cyber
    force.
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Now you mentioned on page 2 of your
    testimony the quality of leaders at the squadron level and also
    education of airmen and the quality of command. You talked
    about this in the answers to the questions that you answered in
    writing.
        So what are the specific concerns about the quality of
    command at the squadron and wing level?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I think it is that the squadron level
    where you really set the culture for the Air Force. If an
    airman has confidence in their first sergeant and their
    squadron commander that they will do the right thing, they will
    treat them fairly, and that they care about them, you have a
    great, well-led Air Force.
        Senator Wicker. We have been deficient there?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, it is not so much that we have been
    deficient, but we always have to be developing those young
    leaders. The Air Force does it differently than the other
    services, and it is really driven by the way we do our mission.
        Someone is put in a cockpit, and they are flying and
    mastering that weapons system with very little responsibility
    for people until they become a commander. As I understand it,
    there is about a 1-week training course, and then you are on
    the job. I think that perhaps we can learn something by taking
    a step back, looking at how the other services develop their
    commanders or even other countries, the RAF, the Israelis, or
    whomever, to see what we could do better.
        Because if we have well-trained, well-educated, well-
    prepared squadron and wing commanders who are first sergeants,
    we will set the culture in a positive way for the United States
    Air Force.
        Senator Wicker. Put your thinking cap on. We look forward
    to having your thoughts.
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        On behalf of Chairman McCain, Senator Sullivan, please.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wilson, welcome. Thank you for your great service to
    our Nation. Very, very impressive.
        My State, the great State of Alaska, has been called by the
    father of the Air Force, Billy Mitchell, the most strategic
    place in the world. Right now, we are the hub air combat power
    for the Asia-Pacific. With the F-35s coming, we will have over
    100 fifth generation combat coded fighters. We have an entire
    strategic airlift and mobility command and control with C-17s,
    KC-135s, AWACS, a whole host of air assets. Of course, we have
    JPARC, which General Welsh referred to as the crown jewel of
    air-to-air combat training anywhere in the world, an airspace
    the size of Florida.
        So can I get your commitment, if you are confirmed, to come
    to Alaska with me and see this critical State, critical
    strategic location for the U.S. Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, any day in the field is better than a
    day in the office. I look forward to coming out to Alaska and
    to a lot of other places and seeing where we are. Yes, I would
    love to come to Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        With regard to last year's NDAA, there was a provision that
    talked about characteristics and principles that the Air Force
    should be looking at with regard to the OCONUS basing of the
    KC-46. A lot of those characteristics actually look like
    Alaska.
        When General Goldfein was up for his nomination, he gave me
    his commitment that he would look at those characteristics hard
    and give Alaska a very, very hard look at the strategic basing
    of the KC-46s, which, when you are up there, I think you will
    see how much sense that makes.
        Can I get your commitment as well to take a hard look at
    Alaska, following what the NDAA put in last year on the basing
    of the KC-46s?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I will take a hard look, and I will
    take a look at those criteria in the NDAA.
        Senator Sullivan. Then there has been a lot of talk--
    actually, a number of us sat in on a Readiness Subcommittee
    hearing in Armed Services just yesterday with a number of the
    top generals in the Air Force testifying on the issue of
    readiness, on the issue of ranges.
        When you are up in Alaska, I would like to get your
    commitment to take a look at JPARC and again at some of the
    upgrades. In the testimony yesterday, it was widely
    acknowledged that, given the size of that training area, it is
    what we are going to need with fifth-generation training
    because the stand-off of the fifth-generation aircraft are so
    dramatic.
        Can I get your commitment to take a look at that as well?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I look forward to that when I get up
    to Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask about the F-35. You
    know, there was a lot of discussion in the press. President
    Trump took a lot of interest in it. I think he actually, from
    what I can tell, just reading in the papers, I think done a
    good job helping drive down the cost. But at one point there
    was a discussion about, well, heck, maybe we can just replace
    the F-35 with a souped-up F-18.
        Can you enlighten us on whether you think forgoing a fifth
    gen upgrade to our Air Force and Navy and Marine Corps--would
    it make sense to just rely on a souped-up F-18? How important
    is that aircraft to the future of the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the Secretary of Defense has directed
    a review of the F-35, and that is underway. But as a general
    matter, the real thing I do not think you could do with an F-18
    or F-15 or F-16 is give it stealth capability retroactively.
        Senator Sullivan. So from your perspective, would we be in
    a fair fight with our potential adversaries if we souped up F-
    18s versus move forward with F-35s with adversaries are
    developing their own fifth-generation aircraft capabilities?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, just what I have seen in the public
    press, the defense news kinds of things on Chinese
    capabilities, they are developing stealth capability. I do not
    see how we can stop modernizing and expect to win a near-peer
    fight. I would rather have that fight be unfair and on our
    side.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, I think with the cost reductions
    and the increase in the number of aircraft being produced, that
    will also drive down to the cost. It is important to try to
    keep the F-35 deployments that are already laid out by the Air
    Force to different areas across the globe and across the
    country on time.
        Can I get your commitment to focus on making sure we are
    trying to get these aircraft out, produced, in a cost-effective
    manner, but also in a manner that gets them fielded in a way
    that helps the national security of our Nation?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there is a review underway that
    General Mattis has directed with respect to the F-35. But I do
    take your point that it is important to continue to get cost-
    effective equipment into the field on schedule.
        Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have additional questions
    for the record, Dr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
        On behalf of Chairman McCain, Senator Warren, please.
        Senator Warren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for being here, Dr. Wilson.
        I would like to associate myself with the comments of the
    ranking member and the chairman, and echo some of their
    concerns around ethics issues. I will be submitting some
    questions for the record on that.
        But right now, I would like to focus on another issue, and
    that is, I know that the Air Force wants a lot of new F-35s,
    but whether you think we should spend more or less money on the
    overall military budget, it seems like we are going to need to
    use and maintain our current aircraft for a long time to come.
    That is why I was surprised to hear that the Air Force is
    considering retiring the F-15 C and D variants. I was
    disappointed to learn that this decision is being considered
    even before a cost and capability analysis has been completed.
        So, Dr. Wilson, I want to ask, if confirmed, will you defer
    this decision until the committee has been provided with an
    analysis that purchasing new F-16s instead of servicing
    existing F-15s will provide the same level of capability and
    actually save taxpayer money?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I saw the article in the paper that
    you are referring to. It was either testimony here or over in
    the House. I have not been fully briefed on that particular
    program. But I can say that the Air Force, as it should, is
    always doing out-year planning and what-if kind of planning. I
    will also commit to you to be fully transparent about----
        Senator Warren. Listen again to my question. I want to know
    that you are going to defer the decision until the committee
    has been provided with an analysis that purchasing new F-16s
    instead of servicing the current F-15s is going to give us the
    same capability and actually save taxpayer money. I want to
    make sure we get that analysis before you make that decision.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, my problem is that I am not sure that
    it was an F-16 substitute, so I have not been briefed on what
    their actual planning excursion was that they were trying to
    evaluate and that came out in a hearing here. So I feel a
    little bit at a loss that I have not been briefed on what they
    are looking at for options or life extension versus something
    else. I do not know what the something else was, which is my
    problem. But what I will commit to is that I will be very
    transparent with you on what we are doing, whether it affects
    you or it affects anyone else.
        Probably even more, I think it is important to gather ideas
    and share analysis as it is being done sometimes as
    hypotheticals, not just after a decision has been made.
        Senator Warren. I appreciate that, Dr. Wilson, but I really
    do want to bear down on this point. So let me ask you another
    question.
        Can you give me a commitment that the Air Force will
    consult with the Air Guard and specifically with the adjutants
    general in States with Air Guard F-15 wings before any
    decisions are made?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Good.
        So I would like to move to another topic, if I can, that is
    very important to me, and that is science.
        The Air Force has requested $28 billion for research,
    development, test, and evaluation, RTDE, in fiscal year 2017. I
    am concerned, however, that too much of this funding is going
    to the development and testing part, the later stages of
    scientific progress, and not enough to basic research. As you
    know, basic research is the science that provides the building
    blocks of our most important technological developments, like
    stealth and precision weapons and GPS and even the Internet.
        The Air Force has asked to cut funding for basic research
    for the third year in a row. That is a more than 7 percent
    decrease in funding for basic research since fiscal year 2015.
    I am also concerned that the Department is not doing everything
    it can to keep up with advances in commercial technology.
        So, Dr. Wilson, if you are confirmed as Secretary of the
    Air Force, will you prioritize funding for basic and applied
    research?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Warren. Good.
        How will you work with the commercial technology sector and
    universities so they can help you tackle the Air Force's
    greatest military challenges?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, this is an area where I think you and
    I have very common interests in not only identifying
    technologies that have been developed in commercial areas that
    can be spun onto the military but making it easier for
    commercial companies and universities to provide those
    capabilities to the Defense Department and particularly the Air
    Force.
        In the area of basic and applied research, you are
    absolutely right. The things that we invest in today result
    in--sometimes it is very hard to predict which ones or which
    vectors are going to be the ones that lead to the breakthrough.
    It was Hanscom Air Force Base in World War II where they
    developed radar, revolutionized the protection of this country
    and of the United Kingdom.
        What is the next one? We have trouble sometimes imagining
    how basic research can lead to innovation. But if you do not do
    it, you will not have innovation, and that is why I am so
    concerned about it.
        Senator Warren. Good. Thank you very much, Dr. Wilson. I
    find your answer very encouraging.
        Our adversaries are investing heavily in research and
    development, and doing whatever they can to exploit advances in
    commercial technology for their own interests. I want to see us
    do the same. I think it is a matter of national security, so
    thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Well-said.
        Senator Ernst? Colonel Ernst?
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Admiral.
        Thank you, Dr. Wilson, very much. I appreciate your
    testimony today and the fact that you are willing to take on
    this very, very great and grave responsibility.
        Before I begin, I would just like to ask you some simple
    yes or no questions.
        Dr. Wilson, number one, do you commit to cutting wasteful
    spending and making it a priority?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Two, do you commit to working with me to
    combat and prevent military sexual assault and retaliation in
    the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Three, will you provide me with advanced
    notice should changes to the gender integration policies be
    considered?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Finally, given your previous work with the
    defense contracting industry, do you commit to upholding an
    unbiased approach throughout the acquisition process?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you for those answers.
        Dr. Wilson, when Secretary Mattis was commander of United
    States Central Command (CENTCOM), he initiated Combat Dragon
    II, an innovation experiment designed to rapidly introduce
    highly lethal, low-cost capabilities to the battlefield.
        As part of this experiment, United States Special
    Operations Command (SOCOM) borrowed two mothballed Vietnam-era
    aircraft from NASA [National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration]. They outfitted them with advanced commercial
    ISR systems and precision weapons, which cost less and, in many
    cases, provided more capabilities than traditional ISR and
    strike aircraft combined.
        During a 3-month deployment, the SOCOM unit achieved a 99
    percent sortie completion rate and was able to find, fix, and
    finish highly sensitive missions by employing 63 precision-
    guided rockets on 41 different targets.
        Can you speak to the benefits of a high-low mix of combat
    capabilities? Specifically, how can we leverage the lessons of
    Combat Dragon to rapidly provide new capabilities to the
    warfighter without overburdening our American taxpayers?
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator.
        I think that is probably a good example. I was aware of
    some OV-10s that were recently brought back to service. I do
    not know if that was the Combat Dragon program.
        But I do think that there are ways to innovate. I have been
    involved in a few of them myself when I was on the National
    Security Council staff trying to get some very new capability
    to the warfighter.
        We always have to be sensitive to the fact that sometimes
    our great ideas in the world of science and engineering have to
    be operated by an 18-year-old with minimal training in a very
    highly stressed situation. So we always have to be sensitive to
    those things and the total cost of maintaining and all of those
    things.
        But I think, particularly the Air Force, we are supposed to
    be the innovators. We are supposed to be the can-do, fix it,
    get it there, duct tape and bailing wire kind of service, in a
    way. I think I am very open to those kinds of experiments.
        Senator Ernst. Very good. Do you see other ways that you
    can use innovation in the Air Force to really protect the
    taxpayers? Are there other programs that you think should be
    looked at?
        Dr. Wilson. There are a wide variety of innovation
    programs. I do think that thinking about how we engage the
    scientific and technical community, because we are all short of
    scientists and engineers, so how do we better engage them to
    try to move us forward, and also to try to be aware of what our
    adversaries might be doing?
        Our entire intelligence system since Pearl Harbor has been
    set up for indications and warning. It is to prevent surprise
    attack. In the area of science and technology, preventing
    surprise attack is detecting what our adversaries might be
    doing with respect to scientific and technical advancement, and
    what implications that might have for us.
        So their development of stealth technology--the best
    examples are the development of the jet engine in World War II
    or the V-2 rocket or Einstein's letter to the President about
    the potential for a nuclear weapon.
        How are we systematically assessing scientific and
    technical development to prevent surprise at the scientific and
    technical level? I think there may be some things that we can
    do today that were not even possible to do 10 years ago because
    of the ability to link scientists and engineers who otherwise
    would not have known each other.
        Senator Ernst. I appreciate that very much and will
    continue to look for innovation.
        Something I heard not long ago, which I think really plays
    into the Combat Dragon II, is a comment that was made: Why do
    we spend our millions and millions or even billions of dollars
    on aircraft and munitions to destroy a $10,000 pickup in the
    middle of the desert?
        So I think there are ways that we can refine what we do
    with innovation and make it very cost-effective as well for our
    armed services.
        I want to thank you again for being here today and taking
    on this challenge. Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Heinrich?
        Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, welcome. Congratulations on
    your nomination.
        Two of the President's nominees for civilian leadership
    posts in the military services have now dropped out, so I think
    it is incredibly important that the administration nominates
    and that the committee considers qualified nominees as quickly
    as possible, and you certainly have impressive qualifications
    for this post.
        As you know well, New Mexico's men and women in uniform are
    proud to take the lead in addressing many of the challenges
    that you would face as Secretary, and Holloman Air Force Base
    in New Mexico has already proven to be critically important in
    addressing the Air Force's shortfall for both RPA and F-16
    pilots.
        As Secretary of the Air Force, you will be responsible for
    growing and retaining our pilot and our maintainer forces. When
    selecting an installation for these purposes, can you talk a
    little bit about what criteria you would most value, given the
    constraints that the Air Force is currently under?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the strategic basing initiative for
    every mission comes up with a set of criteria for that mission,
    and there is at least an interim decision with respect to
    Holloman and training there. There has not been a final
    decision on a final location. But as I mentioned to Senator
    Peters, when those decisions are made, we will not put any
    thumbs on the scale. We will try to make those straightforward,
    direct decisions in the best interests of the country.
        Senator Heinrich. Can you talk a little bit about some of
    the particulars that that decision basing system is based on
    and what the Air Force is looking for in those cases?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, with respect to a particular weapons
    system, I probably could not, but I think with every weapons
    system and with every mission, there is a set of things that
    the Air Force decides are really important to them, for
    example, airspace to be able to conduct training operations or
    particular kinds of electronic practice areas, those kinds of
    things. For every mission, it is probably slightly different.
    Then they just rank those in order.
        Senator Heinrich. I was looking at your preliminary hearing
    questions and you said that you strongly support rapid
    prototyping, experimentation, and using rapid acquisition
    authorities to provide new capabilities to the warfighter.
        Last year, the Senate Armed Services Committee granted
    rapid acquisition authorities for directed energy weapons
    systems.
        As Secretary, would you look to use those authorities for
    directed energy? Would you support transitioning these systems
    to the warfighter more quickly?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I do support transitioning systems
    very quickly to the warfighter. With respect to an acquisition
    strategy for a particular procurement, I would look for advice
    from the acquisition community before I would make any
    particular decision.
        Senator Heinrich. In light of the current administration
    hiring freeze, one of the things I am concerned about is the
    military's ability to meet mission requirements under those
    pressures. Military leaders have explained that, by not hiring
    civilians, more pressure is shifted onto military workers to
    finish those jobs, and, in some cases, they are now being asked
    to do additional duty as a result.
        At Air Force Research Lab in Albuquerque, there are a
    significant number of vacancies for civilian positions that
    actually carry out critical missions for the military.
        Can you talk generally a little bit about how important you
    believe civilians are to the overall mission of the Air Force
    and what steps you might take or what things you would look to
    as Secretary to be able to fill those vacancies and ensure that
    the mission requirements are being met?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, we do have the hiring freeze in place.
    There are exemptions and work through position by position. It
    is my understanding the Air Force is operating under that at
    this point.
        Almost half of the people that serve in the United States
    Air Force are civilians. Many of them were prior military, but
    many were not, and they make significant contributions to the
    mission. They are part of the team, and I treat them as part of
    the team.
        I would say with respect to the pressure on the force, the
    worst thing we can have happen right now is to have a
    continuing resolution for the last 5 months of the year that
    would probably result in a complete hiring freeze with no
    exemptions and will exacerbate the pilot shortage. We will have
    to stop, likely, if confirmed, we would have to stop a lot of
    the new starts that we have going, and we will dig the hole
    deeper.
        So with respect to civilian employment, I think that is the
    biggest issue before us all.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Perdue?
        Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wilson, thank you for your stellar career and your
    willingness to take this on. I have two quick questions today.
        I grew up in Warner Robins, Robins Air Force Base, and I am
    very proud that that base has morphed over time from being a
    SAC base to a MAC base, and today is a major depot for the U.S.
    Air Force. But at a time when we have the smallest and oldest
    Air Force, I am very concerned.
        General Levy is in charge of the Air Force supply chain, a
    great lieutenant general and has a stellar career of his own.
    But he has been educating me about the difficulties. Half the
    employment of the Air Force are civilians, as you just
    mentioned, and yet it takes 148 days, according to General
    Levy, because of Air Force rules, to onboard a new employee.
        At a time when we are competing for cyber talent,
    mechanics, engineers, scientists, programmers, and so forth, as
    we talked privately, I am very concerned that we are not
    competitive in trying to reach out and retain and attract the
    best and the brightest for the Air Force in these civilian
    jobs.
        So can you address how you would prioritize that, if you
    are confirmed?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there are a lot of rules and
    regulations that sometimes--they are trying to prevent us from
    doing bad things, but they keep us from doing good things. I
    think, obviously, there are rules and regulations that are
    there for a reason. We all want to drive on the right side of
    the road in the morning and have everybody else do the same
    thing.
        But sometimes, and you just identified one, if it is that
    hard to hire someone, talent is going to be taken out from
    under you.
        So I would be happy to take a look at those kinds of
    things. If there are particularly priority regulations that
    others have identified that need to be looked at, I am very
    open to what those should be.
        Senator Perdue. Personally, as one example, two-thirds of
    our F-18s are not airworthy today. This is an all-hands-on-deck
    issue.
        Would you pledge to work with the committee and bring us
    those idea to break through those regulations that we can help
    with to become more competitive?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I would, and I would ask you to do so
    and help me.
        Senator Perdue. Absolutely. You have it.
        The second thing, I want talk about something we do not
    talk much about here, and that is space.
        The Vice Chief of the Air Force, General Wilson, provided
    written testimony recently at one of our last subcommittee
    hearings on readiness that, ``In the not too distant future,
    our potential adversaries will have the capability to hold all
    of our military space capabilities at risk.''
        Dr. Wilson, those are strong words. Do you agree with those
    words? How would you propose to make changes in the national
    security space policy and programs, if you are confirmed?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, one of the things I am most looking
    forward to about this job is being potentially the senior
    adviser to the Secretary of Defense with respect to space and
    chairing the Defense Space Council.
        There is no question that space will be a contested domain
    in any future conflict, and I was actually serving on the House
    Intelligence Committee at the time the Chinese successfully
    launched an antisatellite weapon, and I do not expect that
    things have slowed down since then.
        There are a variety of things I think we need to do. There
    are launch issues we are going to have to deal with. But I
    think rethinking the way in which we think about space as a
    contested domain has to be part--it is the development of
    strategies and techniques and capabilities to be able to fight
    through, to be resilient, to be as crafty and as successful in
    space as we are in air, and that is a very big change for the
    country, to be starting to think that way.
        I think there are some elements in the Air Force that
    already are starting to develop those thoughts. I look forward
    to working with them and, of course, our national partners and
    partners in other agencies.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you. The last question I have is, at
    the very time that you are considering this responsibility and
    we are considering your confirmation, it looks to me like all
    the major platforms of the Air Force are maturing to the end of
    their expected lives and beyond at the same time. At the very
    time that they are expiring, the ramp-up of new programs to
    replace them, through delays and regulations and whatever
    funding, we are building a gap and it is a significant gap. The
    B-21, KC-46, the F-35, the JSTAR platform, all of these have
    projected gaps in capability between the time that the existing
    platform rolls out and expires and the new platforms are
    available.
        Have you had a chance to look at that yet? Would you pledge
    to us to help educate us about that growing gap in the Air
    Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, when we talk about what is the risk or
    the Air Force talks about what is the risk of things like the
    Budget Control Act, that is a very good example of one.
        Senator Perdue. But it is bigger than that. I am sorry, Dr.
    Wilson. It is actually bigger than that. This is a multiyear
    issue that has to do with our debt position and the fact that
    we will not face up to our responsibility as Congress and how
    we spend money. We are not fulfilling one of the major
    responsibilities we have as a unified government, and that is
    to defend the country.
        So I welcome your input, and I pledge to you our support. I
    am out of time, but I would love to work with you to make sure
    we fill that gap. It is very concerning.
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Perdue. I fully expect your confirmation. Thank
    you, again, for being willing to do this.
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Donnelly?
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
        I wanted to ask you about a discussion we had in my office.
    Your predecessor made a commitment to continue the heritage of
    the 122nd Fighter Wing in Fort Wayne, Indiana, by maintaining a
    manned combat mission there at the base, replacing the A-10s
    with either F-16s or F-35s.
        Will you honor that commitment that has been made to us?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I am not familiar with the particular
    commitment that has been made.
        Senator Donnelly. I asked you this a month ago.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I cannot commit to a future mission
    today, in part because I am not privy to a lot of the internal
    discussions in the Air Force because I cannot be because I am
    before my confirmation. So there are a lot of things.
        The Air Force can provide me all of the things that have
    been publicly available, but not anything behind it. So I am
    still kind of outside of the door in that way.
        Senator Donnelly. I know you are referring to the strategic
    basing process, but I am not talking about making a new basing
    decision. This one has already been made, and all I am asking
    you to do is to honor the commitment of the person who went
    before you.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I will tell you this. If a commitment
    has been made, we will stand by it.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
        Dr. Wilson. I need to understand what the commitment was a
    little bit more before I feel comfortable, and I cannot know
    that until I walk in the door of the office.
        Senator Donnelly. Well, let me ask you about mental health
    as well. I appreciate your commitment to prioritizing that. It
    is a readiness issue. It is a matter of maintaining the
    strength of our force.
        In 2014, this committee passed legislation providing a
    mental health assessment for every servicemember every year. It
    was named after a constituent of mine, Jacob Sexton, who was
    lost to suicide in 2009. Each of the service chiefs has
    testified to this committee that the mental health assessments
    required under this act will be fully implemented by the end of
    this year.
        If confirmed, will you ensure the Air Force keeps to that
    schedule?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
        In regards to our nuclear arsenal, we are undertaking a
    tremendous and necessary effort to modernize our nuclear
    deterrent. We have put it off for a long time, and as a result,
    we have a heavy bill coming due. But we are going to need to
    implement acquisition practices across-the-board to succeed,
    and that means doing a better job of promoting collaboration
    and commonality.
        So what I am also asking is, will you be committed to
    commonality as a means to modernize and maintain the triad and
    reduce the cost of risk?
        The Navy has a lot of parts of this. The Air Force has a
    lot of parts of this. We want to try to work together so we are
    not in separate stovepipes here, so we are not reinventing the
    wheel every time we start a new system
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, yes. There are some times where that
    is appropriate. There are some times where it is actually more
    costly to force systems to use common parts. But where it makes
    sense, obviously, you bet.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Cotton?
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Dr. Wilson, congratulations on your nomination. You have a
    big job with a lot of big challenges ahead of you, some of
    those we explored yesterday in a Subcommittee on Airland power
    hearing with some of the deputy chiefs from the White House--or
    from the Air Force.
        One in particular was the pilot shortage. We heard
    testimony yesterday saying the pilot shortage was up to 1,550
    pilots as of yesterday.
        I think there seems to be a mismatch between force
    structure and strategy. If we continue down this road, are you
    worried about creating a hollow force for our Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, yes, I am.
        Senator Cotton. The Air Force has provided pilots with
    bonuses. Those bonuses are increasing. We heard testimony
    yesterday the Air Force anticipates seeking even higher
    bonuses. But as you stated earlier, the retention crisis is
    about more than just money.
        Both General Goldfein and your predecessor committed to
    reducing unpopular additional duties in squadrons, jobs that
    take pilots away from their core mission. For example, this
    committee has heard private comments from one frustrated young
    F-10 pilot who said, ``I would give up my flight pay if it
    meant getting a full-time squadron scheduler.''
        Do you share the commitment to reduce this burden of
    additional duties for our pilots and their squadrons?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. What are your thoughts on the best ways to
    continue to bring down those burdens on our pilots?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, there are a couple things. I think,
    again, this gets down to squadron leadership. But it is also,
    every time something happens, there is another, well, we have
    to train everybody, or there is another computer-based training
    program that everybody has to sit through and push the yes, no,
    and next buttons.
        I think taking a complete review from the perspective of an
    airman of what is the extra stuff you are being asked to do--
    now, some of it is entirely appropriate. If you are asked to be
    the squadron training officer, you should be the squadron
    training officer. But there is a lot of other stuff that gets
    added on that is really dispiriting, and I think we need to
    take a look from their perspective on whether every one of
    those things really is needed. Do we really need to do ladder
    safety training again this year?
        Senator Cotton. With those steps and with the additional
    civilians that have been added in squadrons, do you think the
    Air Force will have the remaining combat coded squadrons fully
    manned by the end of the fiscal year?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I do not know the answer to that, but
    I think it is probably--I do not know the answer to that.
        Senator Cotton. Okay.
        I would like to turn my attention now to nuclear
    modernization. You spoke earlier about this with Senator Inhofe
    on the B-21, learning some of the lessons about the B-2 and the
    F-35 program. But I would like to ask about the stated goal of
    the program to acquire 100 aircraft.
        Do you believe that 100 aircraft are sufficient for our
    National Security Strategy in the future, given the challenges
    we are going to face from growing A2AD air defense systems in
    places like Russia, China, Iran, North Korea?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, we certainly need to be able to
    penetrate to hold targets at risk. I understand that the next
    piece of the national military strategy at the classified level
    was finished late last year. I have not yet seen that.
        I believe threat drives strategy. Strategy drives force
    posture. The force posture is dependent on that strategy, which
    I have not yet been fully briefed on.
        Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you.
        You spoke with Senator Fischer about nuclear modernization,
    specifically about the B-21, about nuclear command and control,
    and about the ground-based strategic deterrent. I do not think
    you touched on the long-range standoff cruise missile.
        What are your thoughts on that missile?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the Air Force has it in its plan. We
    need modernization across-the-board with respect to the nuclear
    deterrent.
        Senator Cotton. Do you support the LRSO program?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, sir. I do.
        Senator Cotton. Now I would like to ascend from nuclear
    modernization to modernization as a whole and the budget.
        The Air Force has a lot of bills coming due, not only
    nuclear modernization but the F-35 and the B-21 and the KC-46
    and the JSTARS and the presidential aircraft replacement
    program, among other things.
        Have you received indications from the senior leadership in
    the Department of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget,
    and the White House that their budget request will fully
    support the Air Force's modernization needs over the coming
    years?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, as I understand it, there is a top
    line for fiscal year 2018, and the Air Force and the other
    services are working through what is the structure under the
    fiscal year 2018 number. I think we all know we are not going
    to get out of this in a single year.
        Senator Cotton. Are you confident we will in the coming 5
    years' defense program?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I am here to try to do that.
        Senator Cotton. We will be here to try to help you and our
    Air Force do that as well.
        Thank you, Dr. Wilson. Congratulations again.
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Gillibrand?
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Dr. Wilson, for being here, and for your
    commitment to public service. We are all very grateful.
        One of the good fortunes we have in New York is our
    talented work force, and the Air Force Research Lab in Rome is
    a perfect example of an installation that has benefited from
    the State's ability to attract and concentrate high-skilled
    workers.
        Past Air Force leaders have visited Rome and have been very
    impressed by the amazing work happening at the lab and its
    leadership on cyber in the Air Force and beyond. I would love
    to have you visit Rome and see this critical work firsthand.
    Will you come to the Rome labs?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, as I mentioned with respect to Alaska
    and others, I do like to get out of the office and up and out
    and be where people are. I find that I learn a lot more that
    way, and particularly in the area of research and development,
    which is a focus for me. So, yes. All of this will depend on
    timing.
        Senator Gillibrand. Of course.
        Dr. Wilson. But I do want to come.
        Senator Gillibrand. It is just really impressive and very
    inspiring. I think if you get to see what they are doing, you
    will have more of an interest in supporting their work, so I
    would like to extend that invitation.
        The second issue I am interested in is the issue of PFCs.
    The Air Force, including the Air National Guard, is dealing
    with contamination of water supplies across the country as a
    result of perfluorooctane sulfonates, PFOS, expelled by
    firefighting units on these bases.
        There are two known sites in New York, one at the 106th on
    Long Island, which was quickly identified and immediately
    cleaned up, and one at the 105th in Newburgh, which has moved
    much slower.
        My staff has been in constant contact with the National
    Guard on this matter, and I know it is not unique to New York.
        Do I have your commitment to address this crisis head on
    and work with communities in New York and across the country to
    ensure that all contamination is remediated in a timely manner
    so our citizens can have access to clean drinking water?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        My last issue is about LGBTQ issues. As Secretary of the
    Air Force, you will be responsible for running the Air Force
    enterprise, including dealing with issues related to LGBT
    airmen and civilians, and I am concerned by some of the things
    you have said in the past about the rights and protections for
    LGBT citizens.
        Specifically, in 2012, you stated that you ``tolerate'' but
    do not ``approve of'' LGBT individuals.
        Do you still stand by that statement?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, it is not my intention to change any
    of the policies currently in place with respect to sexual
    orientation. I think the appropriate thing to do, as I do as a
    university president, is to treat everyone with dignity and
    respect.
        Senator Gillibrand. Well, I appreciate that you make a
    commitment to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I think
    that is really important in a position of leadership and very
    important as a public servant, because you must value all men
    and women who serve underneath you regardless of their sexual
    orientation.
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Strange?
        Senator Strange. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome, Doctor, here today. I appreciate your willingness
    to serve, and I have a high degree of confidence that you will
    do very well in this position.
        I especially enjoyed our conversation and your background
    as a graduate of the academy and a female in the Air Force. As
    I mentioned, my aunt was one of the pioneering women aviators
    in World War II, so I know she would be proud to see you in
    this position, leading the Air Force.
        We covered a lot of ground when we talked, and I
    appreciated your answers. I just want to point out again the
    importance of Dannelly Field Guard station in Alabama, one of
    the installations I am very proud of in our State.
        It is one of the five being considered, as you know, for
    the F-35. That process is ongoing. I just want to confirm that
    you are comfortable with the process and the timing for the
    selection of one of the two facilities that will ultimately be
    the destination for that program.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I know that that is underway. As I
    mentioned, I do not have a very deep insight into what the
    tradeoffs are, but I am sure I will be briefed on that, if
    confirmed.
        Senator Strange. Great. That is a very high priority for
    me. I am proud of the service men and women that are there. It
    is an excellent facility, and I look forward to working with
    you in that process.
        Mr. Chairman, that is really the only question I had. I
    will yield back my time.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal?
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for your service, Dr. Wilson, and for being here
    today.
        I want to follow up on a couple questions that Senator Reed
    asked. I know that with respect to most policy questions, you
    said you need to be briefed, you need to learn more, you need
    to be better acquainted with the policies and programs ongoing
    at the Air Force. So there will be a time, I am sure, when we
    will want to go into greater depth on those issues, if you are
    confirmed.
        But on the issue of the contract that Senator Reed cited,
    my understanding is that you were cited by the Department of
    Energy inspector general for lacking sufficient detail in your
    own invoices. One of them I would like to place in the record,
    if there is no objection.
        Chairman McCain. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        The IG investigators noted that I think you attended a
    single meeting on at least two separate occasions and billed
    two individually owned labs for the exact same time and
    service.
        Because of the lack of detail in the invoices that you
    submitted, it was difficult to discern what service you
    provided to whom and when. The document that I just placed in
    the record is an invoice, which I could show to you to read,
    but there is nothing to read on it because it is virtually
    blank except for your name and the invoice number, and an item
    that says ``consulting services.''
        So just as a matter of procedure and accountability,
    because this is a profoundly important issue for defense
    procurement, should there not be better oversight of contractor
    billing and documentation?
        Is this not a bad example--leadership is by example; the
    best leadership is by good example--of how billing and invoice
    submission should be conducted?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, in each of the months in which I
    worked for the national laboratories, I did more than 50 hours
    a month of work in close consultation with the people at the
    laboratories.
        I was working for them quarter time. I did the work. I
    complied with the contract, a contract negotiated and signed by
    the laboratories. The review found actually no fault with me.
        The DOE auditors never even bothered to talk to me. If they
    had at the time, I probably would have been able to reconstruct
    what I did that month.
        Senator Blumenthal. Assuming all of that is true, why not
    invoice it?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the laboratories never asked for that.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I am asking you, as a potential
    Secretary of the Air Force, whether you will hold contractors
    to a higher standard than is indicated by this document. It is
    a forward-looking question. I am not asking you to reconstruct
    in your testimony now what you did. But should we not expect
    more from contractors than this kind of blank invoice?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I think we should expect contractors
    to comply with the contracts which they signed with the
    government. In this case, I did.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, you know, the answer to my
    question is really a simple yes. That is the right answer,
    don't you think? Because regardless of what you did, in the
    future, looking forward, my hope is that we improve contracting
    involving the United States Government and United States
    taxpayer money by imposing a higher standard than is indicated
    or reflected by this invoice.
        There is no way of knowing from this invoice even vaguely
    what you did.
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the people that I worked with were
    supervising me and knew what I did and that I was doing the
    work that they were satisfied enough with to offer me a full-
    time position as the vice president of the laboratory. I did
    the work. They were happy with the work. I complied with the
    contract. I will expect anyone who has a contract with the
    United States Air Force to comply with the contract as well.
        Senator Blumenthal. Did it occur to you that maybe the
    United States of America deserved a fuller accounting of your
    services than this blank slate?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, the United States deserved my best
    work, and that is what they got.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, they may have gotten your best
    work, but I hope, if you are confirmed, that you will hold
    contractors providing services to the United States of America
    to a higher standard than this blank sheet of paper, which is
    not the only invoice that is as vague as this one. It is in the
    record, so it will speak for itself.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Shaheen?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Wilson, I want to congratulate you on your nomination,
    and I certainly appreciate your willingness to serve at this
    difficult and complex time.
        I also want to point out that you are a native of Keene,
    New Hampshire, and we are very proud of you in the State. I do
    not know if you saw earlier, but we had about 40 members of the
    New Hampshire Army and Air National Guard who were here for the
    early part of this hearing. They are here for their
    professional development today, and it is a recognition of the
    effort that you are taking on.
        I want to start with a program that we are very concerned
    about in New Hampshire, and that is the KC-46A. We have learned
    recently that the delivery of the first aircraft to Altus and
    McConnell Air Force bases is likely to miss the target date of
    2017.
        We are concerned about it because Pease is one of those
    first bases that is supposed to get the new KC-46A. I
    understand it is going to be delayed another 6 months to the
    end of 2018.
        There was a recent GAO report that identified Boeing, the
    manufacturer of the KC-46A, and explained that it struggled to
    meet scheduled milestones throughout the duration of the
    program, and it is at least a year behind on most measures.
        So I wonder if you could talk about how, if confirmed, you
    would work to maintain the delivery schedule of aircraft and
    prevent further delays, because, as we know, this is not the
    only delay that we are seeing. I am not even going to get into
    the F-35, though we discussed it when you were in my office.
        But can you tell us how you might approach this problem?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, I think there are a number of things.
    You have to set realistic schedules upfront, and you have to
    have very good program managers who are authorized, and often
    very small and focused program management offices of
    exceptional professionals to manage these programs.
        Then, of course, you hold people accountable for results.
    Sometimes people set out schedules and timelines that are too
    ambitious upfront, but I think getting those realistic upfront,
    and then, finally, making sure that requirements do not change
    in the process. Fix those requirements and build the system.
        As a university president, the worst thing you can do is
    start changing the design after you have started construction
    in the laboratory or the building. You have to fix it up front
    and then come in and build to print and get it on a tight
    timeline. I think the same is true for most major weapons
    systems.
        Senator Shaheen. Should we be looking at--it is my
    understanding that for a lot of these oversight positions that
    people are in, that they are only in those positions several
    years, and then they are moved on.
        What kind of a challenge does that present as we look at
    long-term projects that we are doing in terms of new aircraft?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, you are right. There is turnover in
    that field. Developing the capability in the acquisition field
    has been an issue in the past. It may well be an issue today.
        But one of the other things is procuring things on a tight
    time frame. I think the A-10 was procured on a very tight time
    frame. The F-16 was certainly tighter than some of the other
    aircraft that we built. Getting somebody as a program manager
    and saying, ``All right, you are going to be in this assignment
    for 4 years and here is what we expect you to accomplish. We do
    not expect miracles. We do not want a 15-year program. We want
    tight turns, and then we will iterate and innovate after
    that.'' I think that generally has been more effective at
    getting capability out to the service in a cost-effective way.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        We had an interesting hearing yesterday in the Emerging
    Threats Subcommittee. One of the presenters talked about the
    new challenges of the hybrid warfare, cyber warfare that we are
    facing, and that we are not doing enough within our military to
    develop ways to address that, that we are very focused on
    conventional warfare and that we are not focused enough on the
    unconventional warfare, which is much of what we are facing
    today.
        So I appreciate that we are still going to need the role of
    the Air Force, but what should the Air Force be looking at as
    you all are thinking about this unconventional warfare
    challenge that we are all facing?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, when people say unconventional
    warfare, sometimes they really mean guerrilla warfare, but I
    think you are talking about cyber and----
        Senator Shaheen. I am actually talking about a combination.
    I am talking about cyber. I am talking about the kind of
    efforts that we saw in Ukraine and Georgia, to some extent. I
    am talking about what we are seeing with Russia.
        So what else should we be thinking about?
        Dr. Wilson. Senator, we need to be thinking about the full
    range of potential conflicts, all the way from low-intensity
    warfare through a near-peer adversary and nuclear deterrence. I
    think there are new techniques, and cyber is one of them, that
    can be used both by nation-states and by terrorists or
    insurgents to achieve their political objectives. But we need
    to be able to pay both offense and defense in all of those
    realms.
        Senator Shaheen. I am glad to hear that, because right now,
    I do not think we have a strategy. We are playing defense, and
    we are not playing much offense.
        So thank you. I look forward to working with you.
        Dr. Wilson. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Dr. Wilson, I just want to mention to you
    that one of the enduring frustrations, a source of anger and
    discontent in this committee and amongst the American
    taxpayers, is cost overruns and the way we do business and
    acquire weapons systems.
        I was just looking at, in 2001, where there was a proposal
    for an F-35 that was going to cost $233 billion, and we were
    going to build 2,800 of them. Today, they cost $391 billion and
    about 400 less. The first trillion-dollar weapons system in
    history. Four hundred thousand dollars for a helmet. Stuff you
    cannot make up.
        So we have tried to make some changes, and have in the
    acquisition system here in the Armed Services Committee. But I
    have to tell you, we have not gotten a lot of cooperation from
    the Department of Defense.
        We have made changes such as separating AT&L into two
    different divisions. We got nothing but resistance.
        So I agree with all of the comments that you have made and
    that of my colleagues about the dire situation we find
    ourselves in, and the absolute necessity of avoiding a
    continuing resolution. But when you have scandals like this,
    $233 billion to $239 billion cost of a weapons system, then it
    is hard for us to make a case for more funds to defend the
    Nation.
        So there are a lot of challenges that we face, but I find
    myself continuously frustrated by the cost overruns, whether it
    be a $3 billion cost overrun on the Gerald R. Ford or whether
    it be now we are having cost overruns associated with the
    tanker.
        It goes on and on, and it has to stop. We are pretty well
    aware that we can do a lot, but we cannot do everything unless
    we have a cooperative environment over where you work or will
    be working.
        So I hope that, if not the highest, the next highest
    priority that you have is to address this broken acquisition
    system.
        Frankly, I grow tired of fighting with the Pentagon. I get
    tired of seeing these scandals and calling people to account.
        But the fact is, in reality, back on the F-35, to my
    knowledge, not a single person has been held accountable for a
    $160 billion cost overrun--not a single person that I know of,
    certainly not the manufacturer who comes before this committee
    and tells us what a great job they are doing.
        So there either has to be accountability and truth in
    contracting, and the American taxpayers get their investment,
    or we are going to face further crises, such as we are facing
    now.
        One of the reasons why we have not got enough money is
    because we have wasted it. We have wasted so much, so many
    billions of dollars, time after time after time.
        So my strong recommendation to you is that we start firing
    some people. We start penalizing contractors. We break up this
    iron triangle of the military-industrial-congressional complex.
    I hope that you will devote some energy in that direction.
        Senator Reed?
        Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
    the hearing. I want to thank Dr. Wilson for her testimony
    today. I presume there will be additional questions for the
    record.
        Senator Reed. Thank you, Dr. Wilson.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
                                  ----------

        [Prepared questions submitted to The Honorable Heather A.
    Wilson, to be Secretary of the Air Force by Chairman McCain
    prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
                            Questions and Responses
                         department of defense reforms
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
    included the most sweeping reforms since the Goldwater Nichols
    Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.
        Do you support these reforms?
        Answer. I am becoming more familiar with the reforms enacted in
    this legislation and their impact on the Air Force. To the extent I
    understand their broad outlines, I support them and will more fully
    evaluate them if confirmed.
        Question. What other areas for defense reform do you believe might
    be appropriate for this Committee to address?
        Answer. I have no recommendations for further reform at this time.
                                     duties
        Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
    the Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force is responsible for all
    affairs of the Department of the Air Force in accordance with title 10
    of the U.S. Code, subject to the authority, direction, and control of
    the Secretary of Defense. These functions include organizing,
    supplying, equipping, training, maintaining, and administering the Air
    Force.
        Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
    the duties and functions of the Secretary of the Air Force, as set
    forth in section 8013 of title 10, United States Code, or in Department
    of Defense regulations pertaining to functions of the Secretary of the
    Air Force?
        Answer. None at this time.
                                 qualifications
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
    amended section 8013 of title 10, United States Code, to require that
    the Secretary of the Air Force ``to the greatest extent practicable, be
    appointed from among persons most highly qualified for the position by
    reason of background and experience, including persons with appropriate
    management or leadership experience.''
        What background and experience do you have that you believe
    qualifies you for this position?
        Answer. I have 35 years of professional experience in a range of
    leadership and management roles in the military, government, private
    industry and higher education.
        Since 2013, I have been the President of the South Dakota School of
    Mines & Technology, an engineering and science research university
    located in the Rushmore Region of South Dakota. As the chief executive
    reporting to the Board of Regents, I have been responsible for all
    matters related to the operation, performance, and financial management
    of the university.
        From 1998 through 2009 I was a member of the U.S. House of
    Representatives, where I served on House Armed Services Committee and
    the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. While the Chair
    of the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, the
    Committee conducted a review of the nation's overhead intelligence
    collection architecture and initiated oversight of the President's
    Terrorist Surveillance Program, which lead to significant revisions to
    the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
        Before being elected to the Congress, from 1995 through 1998, I was
    a Cabinet Secretary in New Mexico's state government where I
    administered an agency with over 2,000 employees and a $200 million
    budget responsible for foster care, adoption, juvenile delinquency,
    children's mental health, and early childhood education.
        From 1989 through 1991 I was the Director for Defense Policy and
    Arms Control on the National Security Council Staff at the White House
    responsible for advising the President through the National Security
    Advisor on matters related to NATO and the negotiation of the
    Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.
        I was an Active Duty Air Force officer from 1982 through 1989.
    Following the completion of graduate education, I served at
    Headquarters Third Air Force at RAF Mildenhall, England where I was
    responsible for base planning and host country negotiations for the
    arrival of nuclear capable cruise missiles at RAF Molesworth. I then
    served at the United States Mission to NATO in Brussels, Belgium in the
    office of Defense Plans, and briefly in Vienna, Austria at the
    Conventional Forces in Europe arms control negotiations.
        From 1991 to 1995 and again from 2009 to 2013 I worked as a senior
    advisor and consultant to several national laboratories as well as
    defense and scientific industry on a wide range of programs related to
    nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, arms control verification,
    intelligence and the defense industrial base. In 2011 to 2012 I was
    also a candidate for the U.S. Senate.
        I have served on the boards of two publicly traded corporations--
    Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU), and Raven Industries (NASDAQ: RAVN)--as
    well as numerous advisory and non-profit boards including the CIA
    advisory board on Biological Warfare, the National Security Agency
    Research Advisory Board, and the Congressional Panel on the Nuclear
    Security Enterprise.
        I am a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a
    Rhodes Scholar with Masters and Doctoral degrees in International
    Relations.
        While I was not a military pilot, I am an instrument rated private
    pilot. I am also the spouse of a retired air national guardsman, giving
    me a deeper understanding of the guard and the important role of
    families and family support for our airmen.
        In sum, I am a seasoned and successful senior executive with very
    broad administrative and national security experience and deep roots in
    the United States Air Force.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities will you establish?
        Answer. While I have been away from federal service for several
    years, my initial impression is that we must restore the readiness of
    the Air Force so that it can defend the vital national interests of the
    United States. In addition, I will work with Congress to address the
    constraints imposed by the Budget Control Act so that the Air Force can
    be cost effectively modernized to meet a range of threats now and in
    the future. I intend to bring renewed focus to the training and
    education of airmen, particularly with respect to the quality of
    command at the squadron and wing level. Working with my colleagues in
    the other services and under the guidance of the Secretary of Defense,
    I will seek to bring business-minded reforms to the Air Force to get
    high quality capabilities at the best price for the taxpayer. Finally,
    I expect to review and further develop the Air Force research and
    development priorities to ensure we are investing in basic and applied
    research that will keep the Air Force ahead of adversaries for the long
    term.
        Question. In your view, what are the major challenges, if any, you
    would confront if confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. Since the passage of the Budget Control Act in 2011, the
    number of people in the Air Force has declined significantly while the
    demand for air and space power has increased. During this period the
    Air Force made supporting the warfighter a priority. In its 26th year
    of continuous combat operations, the decline in readiness to fight peer
    or near-peer adversaries and deferral of modernization is the greatest
    risk and the biggest challenge we face.
        Question. If confirmed, what management actions and time lines
    would you establish to address these challenges?
        Answer. While there is no instant fix to the readiness problem, we
    must immediately start recovering this year. Over the next 5 years,
    working with the Congress and the Secretary of Defense, I will seek to
    steadily increase the size of the Air Force to fill the vacancies we
    have for today's missions.
        There are numerous modernization and procurement projects
    underway--fighters, bombers, tankers, intelligence platforms, space
    capabilities, and our nuclear deterrent. In each case, I will ensure we
    systematically review timelines and costs to get the capabilities we
    need in a timely way at the best possible price.
                            relations with congress
        Question. What are your views on the state of the Air Force's
    relationship with the Senate Armed Services Committee in particular,
    and with Congress in general?
        Answer. Based on pre-confirmation meetings, I believe the
    relationship is good, but there is also room for improvement. I respect
    the role of the Congress under our constitutional system of divided
    power. If confirmed, I will seek to understand concerns and address
    them directly. I will also be forthright about the challenges we face
    and transparent in my recommendations to address those challenges.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
    productive and mutually beneficial relationship between the Congress
    and the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to develop a relationship of
    mutual respect based on trust and competence. I think it is important
    to communicate frequently and frankly. I will listen carefully to your
    ideas for reform and improvement.
        A significant number of issues important to Members of Congress
    happen at the local level and can be handled at the local level, and I
    will seek to enable meaningful relationships between our Air Force
    units and your local offices.
        Question. The committee has experienced frustration with the
    timeliness of responses from the Air Force on requests for information,
    questions and inserts for the record, and reports required by law.
        If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure such requests
    from the committee are met in a timely manner, with comprehensive
    responses and detailed information?
        Answer. I will review recently instituted process changes intended
    to improve the quality and timeliness of responses. I'll monitor
    results and direct that adjustments be made accordingly.
        Part of the solution to this problem is likely to be improved
    responsiveness to informal requests for information so that formal
    reports are not required. In that regard, I will review congressional
    interaction guidance so that Congress gets accurate information in a
    timely way.
                 torture and enhanced interrogation techniques
        Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment
    specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
    22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the
    Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated August 19, 2014, and
    required by Section 1045 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92)?
        Answer. Yes
                        air force military end strength
        Question. Senior Air Force leaders have stated on many recent
    occasions that the Air Force is the smallest size in its history, that
    it cannot get any smaller, and has numerous manpower shortfalls,
    particularly in the maintenance and fighter pilot career fields. While
    the Air Force's fiscal year 2017 budget submission did not request an
    increase in military end strength, the fiscal year 2017 NDAA authorized
    an increase in Air Force Active end strength to 321,000. Subsequently,
    the Chief of Staff of the Air Force made statements that the Air
    Force's Active Duty military end strength should be increased to
    350,000.
        In your view, can the Air Force meet national defense objectives at
    the end strength levels authorized in the fiscal year 2017 NDAA? Could
    the Air Force meet those objectives at end strength levels in fiscal
    year 2018 and beyond that would be necessary when a return to 2011
    Budget Control Act discretionary spending caps is mandated?
        Answer. My initial view is that we have a mismatch between our
    strategic objectives and the military means we have available to
    confront and deter threats. The Air Force is too small for what the
    nation expects of it.
        Unless the Air Force receives funds above the caps imposed by the
    Budget Control Act, it will not be able to achieve the readiness,
    modernization, and force structure required to meet emerging threats.
        The 321,000 airmen authorized in this fiscal year is a step in the
    right direction to restore the readiness of the force. The Air Force
    has estimated that 350,000 airmen are required to perform today's
    missions. I have no reason to question that estimate.
        Question. Do you believe the Air Force needs additional force
    shaping tools requiring legislation beyond those tools that Congress
    has provided the past few years, to include extending the numerous
    authorities that expire at the end of fiscal year 2018?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will fully examine existing authorities in
    order to determine which force shaping tools are necessary to recruit
    and retain skilled airmen. I am unaware of additional force shaping
    tools that are required at this time.
        Question. What are your views on the appropriate size and mix of
    the Active Duty Air Force, and the Reserve components?
        Answer. In general, our assessment of threats and our national
    security strategy to meet those threats should drive force structure--
    including the mix of Active, Guard, and Reserve forces. Particularly in
    the Air Force, Guard and Reserve units are highly capable and vital to
    our national security. I don't have sufficient information to determine
    the optimal mix of Active, Guard, and Reserve components at this time.
        Question. What total force end strength should the Air Force field
    to support the National Military Strategy?
        Answer. I understand that the classified national military strategy
    was updated in late 2016, but I have not yet been briefed on it. If
    confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of Defense and the Air Force
    Chief of Staff to guide an evaluation of the force structure needed to
    support an updated military strategy.
        Question. How would you, year over year, increase the Air Force's
    end strength? How long would it take to build an Air Force of 350,000
    regular airmen, and what would be the cost?
        Answer. The Air Force estimates that expansion of 4,000 to 5000
    airmen a year to an end strength of 350,000 is a sustainable growth
    rate to recruit and train airmen with the skills and experience levels
    required. At this time, I have no reason to question that estimate.
                       air force recruiting and retention
        Question. The recruitment and retention of quality airmen, officer
    and enlisted, Active Duty and Reserve, is vital to the Department of
    the Air Force.
        How would you evaluate the effectiveness of the Air Force in
    successfully recruiting and retaining high caliber personnel during a
    sustained period of increasing or decreasing end strength?
        Answer. The Air Force reports that it continues to meet its
    recruiting targets in both numbers and quality. Retention of highly
    trained airmen, particularly in high demand career fields, is a
    challenge and the Air Force is falling short on retention. This is
    particularly evident for pilots, but also in other well compensated
    specialties that are in demand outside the service.
        Question. What initiatives would you take, if confirmed, to further
    improve Air Force recruiting and retention, in both the Active and
    Reserve components?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current recruiting and
    retention initiatives authorized by Congress and used by the Air Force
    to evaluate their effectiveness. It is my view that one of the most
    important things we can do to improve retention of pilots and
    maintainers is to improve readiness--flying hours, spare parts,
    aircraft availability etc. Readiness has a direct effect on morale and
    retention.
        Question. What do you believe will be the impact, if any, of the
    new retirement system effective in fiscal year 2018 on recruiting and
    retention in the Air Force?
        Answer. I am unaware of any reliable estimates of impact at this
    time. If confirmed, I will review available estimates of the impact.
                                pilot retention
        Question. Anticipated increases in pilot hiring by commercial
    airlines are likely to apply pressure on aviator retention for all the
    services, but most acutely for the Air Force. The Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force has recently described this impending pilot shortage as a
    national problem, and not just limited to the armed forces. The U.S.
    Government is not likely to ever match the salaries of commercial
    airline companies, especially as shortages grow more acute and
    compensation increases to attract a shrinking pool of eligible pilots.
        If confirmed, what immediate steps would you take to retain the
    necessary numbers of aviators in the Air Force?
        Answer. While the bonus authority provided in the National Defense
    Authorization Act is helpful, we will not be able to compete on a
    purely monetary basis with commercial aviation over the next decade.
    Increased readiness levels--particularly flying hours--will likely have
    a direct effect on pilot retention. We will almost certainly have to
    increase pilot production and review other retention initiatives
    including reduced additional duty requirements, quality of service and
    quality of life improvements.
        Question. Do you agree that aviation incentive pays and bonuses
    should be tailored to target communities experiencing shortfalls, and
    not uniformly offered to every pilot at the maximum rate regardless of
    platform?
        Answer. Yes
        Question. What other long-term initiatives would you use to provide
    a more lasting solution to aviator retention in the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate all options and their
    effectiveness. In addition to monetary incentives, increases in
    readiness and flying hours will likely have a positive impact on
    retention and morale.
        Question. Given the high cost of training new aviators, do you
    believe the Air Force is subsidizing the airline industry with a
    pipeline of ready-trained aviators at a fraction of the cost to the
    airline? How would you recommend addressing this dynamic?
        Answer. The demand for commercial pilots is significantly higher
    than the supply, particularly for pilots with sufficient experience to
    fly for the airlines. I expect the airline industry to continue to
    recruit highly qualified pilots to meet their needs from all sources,
    including from the Air Force. In a free market, when pilots have
    completed their service obligation for the Air Force, I would not
    describe this as a subsidy.
        There is a national shortage of pilots. While there are a number of
    private tuition assistance programs to increase the number of
    commercial pilots, experienced Air Force pilots will continue to be in
    demand.
        Question. The Air Force states their most critical pilot shortages
    are in the fighter aircraft career fields, where the Air Force is
    currently 500 fighter pilots short of requirements. The Air Force
    believes that shortfall could grow to more than 1,000 by the end of the
    decade. One of the challenges is that the Air Force no longer has a
    robust inventory of fighter cockpits sufficient to train all of the
    newly graduated pilots that would be required to sustain an experienced
    and combat ready Air Force.
        What initiatives would you pursue to address the lack of training
    opportunities that would mitigate fighter pilot manning shortfalls and
    help sustain a healthy fighter pilot inventory?
        Answer. In my discussions with the Air Force, the problem seems to
    be less of a lack of training opportunities and more of a lack of
    ability to train due to the small size of the force combined with high
    operations tempo. With 55 fighter squadrons and a shortfall of
    approximately 800 fighter pilots, the Air Force is unable to support
    today's fight and, at the same time, effectively train.
        We cannot assume that the demand for fighter squadrons will decline
    in the near term. We need to increase manpower, ensure sufficient spare
    parts and trained maintainers, reduce additional duty requirements not
    related to flying and make as much time available as possible for
    mission training and readiness.
                                   readiness
        Question. The Air Force Chief of Staff testified in March, 2016,
    ``Readiness remains both an imperative and a struggle for us. Less than
    half of our combat aircraft are fully prepared for a high tech fight
    against a capable, well equipped force.''
        What is your assessment of the current readiness of the Air Force
    to meet national security requirements across the full spectrum of
    military operations?
        Answer. Senior Air Force leaders have testified that less than 50
    percent of the conventional air force is ready for all of the combat
    missions assigned to them. While the Air Force has put a priority on
    nuclear deterrent operations and support for counterterrorism, the Air
    Force is not fully ready to fight against a near-peer competitor.
        Question. What is your assessment of Air Force readiness to conduct
    a mobilization in a national emergency?
        I am not familiar with the specific readiness rates of Guard and
    Reserve forces. If confirmed, I will be looking more closely at
    readiness of different units, including the Guard and Reserve.
        What specifically would a fully-funded whole ``ready'' force look
    like, and how much time would it take to achieve?
        Answer. A ready force would have adequate well trained airmen to
    fight against a range of enemies in air, space and cyberspace. Airmen
    would have sufficient well-maintained equipment and flying hours in
    realistic situations to deter or prevail in any fight.
        Question. What readiness-related accounts are you currently
    executing at maximum capacity, and if you were given more funding
    today, what would be the top near-term priorities in which you would
    invest to restore full spectrum readiness as soon as possible?
        Answer. I have not yet been briefed on the specific accounts and
    the best path to recovery, but it seems clear that shortages of
    maintenance manpower and pilots is a very important factor. If
    confirmed, I will seek to understand more fully the priorities for
    recovery in order to systematically restore readiness.
        Question. The Air Force has difficulty articulating its readiness
    levels because of the diverse missions it accomplishes, as well as its
    large proportion of garrison-based capabilities such as space and
    nuclear missile forces.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to more accurately measure
    and articulate comprehensive Air Force readiness levels?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force, the commanders of our Major Commands, and the Headquarters
    Air Force staff to validate our readiness measures and report them
    accurately.
                             federal hiring freeze
        Question. Recently, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work issued
    implementation guidance on the civilian workforce hiring freeze
    directed by the President. The guidance authorized exemptions for
    ``positions in shipyards and depots'' that ``perform direct management
    of inventory and direct maintenance of equipment.''
        For what types of workers and mission functions is hiring still
    frozen by the President's order?
        Answer. I have been told by the Air Force that it is fully
    complying with the President's Executive Order and DOD guidance for
    freezing all civilian vacancies regardless of funding source. The Air
    Force is applying the authority to exempt specific positions as
    necessary to meet national security and public safety responsibilities.
        Question. If every year you are losing depot workers to retirement
    and attrition, how are you going to be able to increase readiness if
    you need more funding and end strength, yet are unable to hire more
    civilians to work?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the Air Force's exemption
    process and determine if depots need additional exemptions within the
    current authority granted to the Secretary of the Air Force.
        Question. Which readiness-related functions are at the most risk
    because of this hiring freeze?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review which readiness-related
    functions, if any, are at risk.
                               acquisition issues
        Question. The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years
    2016 and 2017 made many changes to defense acquisition processes,
    including reinserting service chief influence and accountability into
    acquisition processes.
        Do you support the acquisition reform provisions in the Fiscal
    Years 2017 National Defense Authorization Act?
        Answer. We need to get good ideas from the drawing board to the
    flight line faster and at lower cost. I am becoming more familiar with
    the reforms enacted in this legislation--particularly experimentation
    and prototyping--and will seek to identify early opportunities to use
    these new tools. I support the intent of these changes.
        Question. What roles do you see for developmental planning,
    prototyping, and experimentation for fielding of future Air Force
    capabilities?
        Answer. Experimentation and prototyping are tools that can help get
    good ideas into the hands of airmen faster and at lower cost.
    Experimentation can help shift the culture from risk aversion to one
    that celebrates and rewards productive failure. A willingness to ``fail
    fast'', harvest lessons and continue to innovate should be celebrated
    in a technically advanced Air Force.
        Question. Do you agree the services should exploit non-
    developmental or commercial off-the-shelf solutions to meet Air Force
    requirements? Would this help put capabilities into the hands of airmen
    more quickly?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. How can the Department and the Air Force better access
    and integrate commercial and military technology to remain ahead of its
    potential adversaries?
        Answer. Too many companies will not supply the Defense Department
    or other federal agencies because it is too hard to do business with
    the government. With private sector research and development exceeding
    that done in the military, we have to be able to buy capabilities
    developed in the commercial sector. If confirmed, I will work with the
    Air Force Acquisition Office to identify more and better ways to buy
    commercial products and services that are a good value for the Air
    Force.
        Question. What additional acquisition-related reforms do you
    believe the Committee should consider?
        Answer. I am not aware of additional reform authorities needed at
    this time. If confirmed, I will advise the committee of any additional
    acquisition reforms needed as I identify them.
        Question. If confirmed, how will you synchronize your acquisition
    responsibilities with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force?
        Answer. While the Secretary focuses on budgets and acquisition, and
    the Chief has authority for requirements, in reality, a close working
    relationship is essential to make decisions that are the best for the
    warfighter and get the best value we can for the taxpayer.
        Question. What is your assessment of the size and capability of the
    Air Force acquisition workforce?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the size and professional
    development of the acquisition workforce. While it varies by program,
    in general, I think we are well served by highly competent, empowered
    program managers with focused exceptional teams of professionals
    supporting the program manager.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    the Department of the Air Force has an acquisition workforce of the
    size and capability needed to manage acquisition challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the state of the acquisition
    workforce and make appropriate adjustments to the organization,
    operating guidelines and professional development.
        Question. Recent press reports cite an email that you sent to a
    major defense contractor in which you advised the contractor to take
    the position that ``competition is not in the best interest of the
    government'' in an attempt to avoid recompeting an existing contract
    with the Department of Energy.
        What is your view about the value of competition for Department of
    Defense contracts?
        Answer. Competition generally improves the quality and price of the
    things we buy and can drive innovation.
        Conducting a contract competition for management of a Federally
    Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) is expensive and
    disruptive if there is not a clear benefit to doing so. In this
    particular case, the cost-plus fee the government paid for managing
    that lab was significantly less than the fee paid at other DOE labs
    which had been through re-competition more recently. In my opinion, it
    was unlikely that the DOE would have saved money or improved lab
    performance through re-competition of the management of this federal
    facility at that time. That perspective was the basis for my
    recommendation.
        Question. If confirmed, will you advocate for competition of Air
    Force contracts?
        Answer. Yes, if it's in the best interests of the government.
                                audit readiness
        Question. The Department of Defense and the Services remain unable
    to achieve a clean financial statement audit. The Department also
    remains on the Government Accountability Office's list of high risk
    agencies and management systems for financial management and weapon
    system acquisition. Although audit-readiness has been a goal of the
    Department for decades, it has repeatedly failed to meet numerous
    congressionally directed audit-readiness deadlines.
        What is your understanding and assessment of the Air Force's
    efforts to achieve a clean financial statement audit in 2017?
        Answer. I support the Air Force having auditable financial
    statements and systems. If confirmed, I will assess the progress
    towards being audit ready by the end of fiscal year 2017.
        Question. In your opinion, is the Department of the Air Force on
    track to achieve these objectives, particularly with regard to data
    quality, internal controls, and business process re-engineering?
        Answer. I am not fully informed on the status of the Air Force
    efforts to comply with the requirement to have auditable financial
    statements. If confirmed, I will assess these matters.
        Question. If not, what impediments may hinder the Air Force's
    ability to achieve this goal and how would you address them?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will become more familiar with the progress
    and work remaining to be done in this area.
        Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure the Air
    Force achieves these objectives without an unaffordable or
    unsustainable level of one-time fixes and manual work-arounds?
        Answer. The Air Force should have auditable financial statements
    and Air Force financial systems should be configured in such a way that
    the finances are able to be audited.
                               nuclear enterprise
        Question. What are your views on the necessity of maintaining a
    nuclear triad?
        Answer. We must maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear
    deterrent. The deterrent has been effective for over 70 years. The air
    and ground legs of the triad are a core mission of the Air Force and
    will continue to be a core mission.
        Question. What are your views on the condition of the ground-based
    leg of the nuclear triad, and the urgency of the need for its
    recapitalization?
        Answer. The Minuteman III is aging and it needs to be replaced. It
    was built in the 1970s, further life extension is no longer feasible
    and continuing to rely on it for the long term is not cost effective.
    If confirmed, I will be informed in more detail about the operational
    and cost of maintenance issues that will influence the timeline for
    replacing the Minuteman III.
        Question. What priority would you give to the following Air Force
    nuclear modernization programs within the overall Air Force acquisition
    budget over the next 5 to 10 years: the Ground Based Strategic
    Deterrent, the Long Range Standoff Weapon, a nuclear-capable variant of
    the F-35, and modernization of the nuclear command and control
    infrastructure?
        Answer. I believe that each of these modernization efforts is an
    important element in the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The Ground Based
    Strategic Deterrent and Long Range Standoff Weapon will replace systems
    that are operating decades beyond their originally intended service
    lives. The dual capable F-35 aircraft will continue to extend the
    umbrella of our nuclear deterrent over our allies.
        I am not fully informed on the planned upgrades to our nuclear
    command, control, and communications systems and, if confirmed, will be
    fully briefed on this effort.
        Question. If confirmed, will you affirm that you will give priority
    attention to continued implementation of the recommendations of the
    2014 Nuclear Enterprise Review, especially those recommendations
    concerning the training, readiness, and morale of service personnel
    assigned to the nuclear mission?
        Answer. Yes.
                           f-35 joint strike fighter
        Question. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, the largest and
    most expensive acquisition program in Department of Defense history,
    was formally initiated as a program of record in 2001, and subsequently
    adjusted to a total planned buy of 2,443 aircraft for the U.S. The
    program has not yet completed the System Development and Demonstration
    (SDD) phase, now projected for an additional seven-month delay and an
    additional $500 million in cost overruns. The full rate production
    decision is not due at least until 2019, 18 years after its inception.
    At currently projected annual procurement rates, the last delivery of
    the Air Force's F-35A is now planned for the year 2040.
        The Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying S. 1376,
    the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, required
    the Secretary of Defense to assess the current requirement for the F-35
    Joint Strike Fighter total program of record quantity, and then
    revalidate that quantity or identify a new requirement for the total
    number of F-35 aircraft the Department would ultimately procure. The
    Department provided an interim response that stated a reassessment of
    the total procurement quantity would be provided at a later date.
        If confirmed, will you direct a reassessment of the Air Force's F-
    35A total program procurement quantity, currently established at 1,763
    aircraft?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will fully support the review of the F-35
    program as directed by Secretary Mattis so that the Air Force has the
    capability it needs to protect our vital national interests against
    threats now and in the future.
        Question. President-elect Trump recently stated, ``Based on the
    tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I have
    asked Boeing to price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet!''
        In your view, what are the alternatives for the Air Force to
    purchasing 1,763 F-35A fighter aircraft? Should the Air Force consider
    restarting the F-22 production line, purchasing advanced fourth
    generation fighters still in production such as enhanced F-15s and F-
    16s, or developing a next generation fighter aircraft beyond the F-
    35A's capabilities?
        Answer. I fully support the review of the F-35 fighter program
    directed by Secretary Mattis.
        As we evaluate needs and options, there are some things I will keep
    in mind.
        The last time an American soldier or marine was killed in combat by
    enemy aircraft was August 15, 1953--during the Korean War. Public
    reports indicate that, in the current fight against ISIS, the United
    States and its coalition partners have used more than 40,000 munitions
    against the enemy with deadly effect. Ninety percent of these strikes
    were conducted by the United States Air Force.
        While we have dominated the air for the last 26 years of continuous
    combat operations, we must continue to maintain the advantage in air
    and space power against emerging threats. Our potential adversaries are
    not standing still and there is cause for concern.
        While current aircraft like the F-16, and F-15 can be effective in
    lower threat environments, against well defended targets and the newer
    aircraft being developed and deployed by our adversaries, they are
    likely not good enough.
        As part of the review directed by Secretary Mattis, I would expect
    the Air Force to evaluate the cost of re-starting the F-22 production
    line and the effectiveness of the F-22 against emerging threats.
        We need to have an Air Force with a range of capabilities that can
    win every fight. That will require modern, stealthy aircraft that can
    penetrate defended airspace, and see and kill the target before the
    enemy even knows what is happening.
        Going forward, in procurement of major systems, time is money. We
    have to keep the time from conception to operational capability short.
    If we don't, technology of subsystems changes and design discipline
    erodes, which results in increased cost.
                         b-21 long range strike bomber
        Question. On October 27, 2015, the Air Force announced the award of
    the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) contract for the
    new B-21 bomber. The fiscal year 2017 NDAA directed enhanced reporting
    of B-21 program cost, schedule, and performance data to the Government
    Accountability Office for more frequent assessments and focused
    oversight.
        If confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, what will be your role
    in the management of the B-21 bomber program to insure cost, schedule,
    and performance remain on track?
        Answer. The Chief of Staff and I will work together so that the
    requirements remain stable, achievable and affordable and the B-21 is
    delivered on time, and on budget.
        Question. The Air Force publicly released the adjusted average
    procurement unit cost (APUC) of $511 million in fiscal year 2010
    constant dollars, and $3.5 billion FYDP funding reduction, both of
    which were adjusted downward due to the independent cost estimate based
    on the winning bid.
        In your view, why would it be necessary for the Air Force to keep
    the total value of the B-21 EMD program contract award classified,
    despite the fact that the Air Force budget has included an unclassified
    request for the EMD phase each year since fiscal year 2012 and each
    fiscal year's actual expenditures are publicly available?
        Answer. As a nominee, I have not received classified briefings on
    the B-21. I am aware that there are ongoing conversations between the
    Air Force and members of the committee and members of the committee
    staff on this issue.
        If confirmed, I will ensure that the committee is kept informed
    about classified programs and their costs so that the committee can
    perform its oversight role.
        Question. What actions shall you take if confirmed to ensure that
    the provisions of section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act
    of Fiscal Year 2013 are met?
        Answer. The B-21 has been designed from the outset to be a nuclear
    capable bomber. Nuclear capability is not a modification or ``add-on''
    feature. My role will be to ensure that the B-21 is capable of carrying
    strategic nuclear weapons when it achieves initial operating capability
    and that it will be certified to use nuclear weapons not less than 2
    years later.
        I have been informed at the unclassified level that nuclear
    certification requirements have been confirmed at the program's latest
    design review.
                    presidential aircraft replacement (par)
        Question. The Air Force's total cost estimate for PAR program
    development is $4.3 billion in ``then-year'' dollars. After President-
    elect Trump stated, ``costs are out of control, more than $4 billion,''
    the Boeing CEO stated his company will, ``get it done for less than
    that... We're going to make sure that he gets the best capability and
    that it's done affordably.''
        If confirmed, how will you ensure the Air Force will keep the
    development costs ``less than that,'' especially as the Air Force plans
    to sign a development contract with a cost-plus reimbursement
    structure?
        Answer. In January, Secretary Mattis directed the Deputy Secretary
    of Defense to guide a review of the requirements for the aircraft in
    coordination with the White House Military Office in order to reduce
    program costs.
        If confirmed, I will work to ensure the Air Force meets the
    Administration's intent to provide the best taxpayer value while
    meeting executive airlift needs for the Office of the President.
                 ec-130h compass call recapitalization program
        Question. The Air Force has plans to buy 10 business jet aircraft
    to replace the capabilities provided by the current EC-130H Compass
    Call aircraft. These plans include using some form of rapid acquisition
    procedures that would lead to selecting a particular airframe very
    quickly. This approach causes some concern because selecting an
    aircraft for this program could give the selected aircraft contractor a
    particular edge winning later competitions for modernization programs
    for other Air Force capabilities, such as programs to modernize the
    Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS), signals
    intelligence aircraft and airborne warning and control aircraft.
        How would you suggest the Air Force ensure that subsequent
    competitions are not unduly influenced by a near-term rapid
    acquisition?
        Answer. It is my understanding that one contractor filed a bid
    protest regarding the Compass Call program in February and that it is
    currently under review.
        While I have not been briefed on the bids or the protest, it is my
    understanding that the Compass Call aircraft replacement program is
    quite different from the modernization of JSTARS.
        In the case of Compass Call, the Air Force needs a contractor to
    move the current equipment into a new airframe. It's a mechanical
    design and wiring job.
        Modernization of JSTARS will be much more complex, involving the
    development of an improved JSTARS system. This is a very different
    challenge requiring different capabilities from the contractor.
        Based on this understanding, it is my view that the Air Force
    should approach each competition independently to get the right
    contractor for each job, with the appropriate capabilities, in order to
    get the best value for the taxpayer.
        If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force reviews the results
    of the bid protest and acts accordingly.
        Question. If the Air Force cannot provide such assurances now,
    should the Air Force hold a broader competition now for aircraft that
    would reach beyond the more narrowly defined Compass Call modernization
    program?
        Answer. I understand that one contractor has challenged the bid
    process and I have not been briefed on the proposals or the challenge.
    That said, based on my understanding of the difference in these
    projects set out above, my view is that the Air Force shouldn't
    increase the cost and delay the new airframe for Compass Call to
    benefit higher capability contractors who are likely very competitive
    for JSTARS.
        The Air Force needs a robust industrial base and I see no advantage
    to the Air Force mission or the taxpayer from blending these two very
    different procurements.
        If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force takes into account
    the results of the bid challenge and proceeds accordingly.
       replacement of the e-4b national airborne operations center (naoc)
        Question. The E-4B will be reaching end of life in the late 2020's.
    This is a unique asset for performing the full range of the Secretary
    of Defense's Title 10 responsibilities, including nuclear command,
    control and communications. There is concern that a possible split of
    the missions of the NAOC amongst separate future aircraft could cause a
    loss of functionality and interplay between the E-4B's current mission
    sets.
        What are your views on the E-4B replacement program, and will you
    ensure that any replacement program ensures that the Air Force will
    retain the ability to perform the full E-4B mission set?
        Answer. I understand that the Air Force is conducting an analysis
    of alternatives for the replacement of the National Airborne Operations
    Center. The analysis is due in fiscal year 2018. If confirmed, I will
    keep the committee informed on the results of this review.
                                   munitions
        Question. Air Force munitions inventories, particularly those of
    precision guided munitions, have declined significantly due to high
    operational usage, insufficient procurement, and a requirements system
    that does not adequately account for the ongoing need to transfer
    munitions to our allies and operations short of major combat, such as
    in the current operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the Air Force has
    sufficient inventories of munitions to meet combatant commanders'
    needs?
        Answer. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, the Air Force has reportedly
    used over 40,000 munitions in operations against ISIS. Congress has
    supported the Air Force by authorizing Overseas Contingency Operation
    funds to replenish these munitions.
        It is my understanding that the Air Force is using these funds to
    buy munitions and industry has reached the limit for current industrial
    capacity for some munitions.
        If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force continues to explore
    opportunities to increase munitions manufacturing capacity.
        This may also be an area where the three military services need to
    work more closely together and with industry to improve advanced
    manufacturing capability so that industry can respond to the needs of
    the service.
        Question. How will the Air Force adapt to self-imposed Department
    of Defense restrictions on area attack and denial munitions in
    accordance with the Ottawa Agreements?
        Answer. With respect to area denial munitions, the Ottawa
    Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines (APL) bans the development,
    production, acquisition, stockpiling, and retention of all anti-
    personnel landmines. The U.S. is not a signatory to the Ottawa
    Convention. However, there is a Presidential Policy Directive that
    restricts use of anti-personnel landmines. If confirmed, I will ensure
    the Air Force continues to work closely with the Army on alternatives
    to anti-personnel landmines.
        With respect to area attack munitions, I am aware that Department
    of Defense (DOD) policy restricts the use and sale of cluster munitions
    after 2018 that have a greater than one percent chance of leaving
    unexploded ordinance behind on the battlefield. It is my understanding
    that the Air Force currently has approximately 2,000 area attack and
    denial munitions that meet the DOD policy and will continue to be
    available for warfighter use after the January 2019 deadline. In
    addition to these munitions, it is my understanding that the Air Force
    is developing alternative munitions that will meet both the warfighter
    area attack requirements and the DOD cluster munitions policy.
                                     space
        Question. The Secretary of the Air Force was assigned new oversight
    responsibilities for space programs in the Department of Defense when
    the position was designated as the principal DOD space adviser (PDSA).
        If confirmed, would you propose any changes to National Security
    space policy and programs?
        Answer. I look forward to my responsibilities as principal DOD
    space advisor and chairing the Defense Space Council. The Air Force is
    responsible for over 90 percent of the Defense Department's space
    assets on orbit and the nation is heavily dependent on space
    capabilities for navigation, communication, command and control,
    intelligence, and precision targeting.
        I will seek to lead Department efforts to deepen our understanding
    of the growing threat to our space assets, refine our strategy for
    space control, and organize and equip the Air Force to meet the threat.
    In addressing these issues, I will work closely with the other services
    and federal agencies to align efforts where needed.
        Question. There is growing concern about the vulnerability of our
    nation's space-based systems and its supporting architecture.
        Do you agree, and, if so, what would be your priorities for
    addressing these vulnerabilities?
        Answer. Yes.
        As mentioned above, I will seek to lead Department efforts to
    deepen our understanding of the growing threat to our space assets,
    refine our strategy for space control, and organize and equip the Air
    Force to meet the threat. In addressing these issues, I will work
    closely with the other services and federal agencies to align efforts
    where needed.
        Question. What do you perceive as the threats to our national
    security space satellites?
        Answer. Space is no longer a sanctuary. In any conflict, it will be
    a contested environment. I was serving on the House Intelligence
    Committee when China successfully tested an anti-satellite missile
    nearly a decade ago. While I have not been briefed on classified
    matters for several years, it is my understanding that the threat to
    space assets has continued to advance.
        Question. Do you support the development of offensive space control
    capabilities to counter those threats?
        Answer. Yes. We need to think of air, near-space and space as a
    continuum that the United States must protect through all phases of
    potential conflict.
        Question. According to a recent study by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO), fragmented leadership has undermined the
    Department's ability to deliver space capabilities to the warfighter on
    time and on budget. One repeated cause for concern has been fractured
    decision-making and many layers of bureaucracy.
        Do you believe the existing space acquisition structure is
    sufficient? If not, what changes do you believe are appropriate?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the acquisition structure for
    space to ensure the warfighter is getting the capabilities we need at a
    reasonable price.
        Question. Do you support more competition in the launch of
    Department of Defense payloads?
        Answer. I believe competition can result in cost savings for the
    government. At the same time, commercial launch providers may not be
    able to meet launch requirements for national security space payloads
    as those requirements are currently crafted.
        I also believe that it is very difficult for commercial launch
    providers to supply government customers at competitive prices because
    of the constraints imposed by federal acquisition rules. If those rules
    are the best way to serve the Air Force and the taxpayer well over the
    long term, their use is justifiable. But if our processes and
    regulations are impeding the accomplishment of the mission, we should
    review our processes and improve them.
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
    prohibits the use of Russian rocket engines after December 31, 2022.
    Are you committed to ending United States dependence on the use of
    Russian rocket engines as soon as possible, perhaps even before
    December 31, 2022?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Air Force's commitment to
    ending United States dependence on the Russian RD-180 engine. The Air
    Force is currently working with industry to develop launch capability
    and transition from the RD-180. I understand that the Air Force
    estimates it will take until 2022 to have new launch capability
    available. I understand that the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
    Authorization Act authorized the Air Force to buy 18 more RD-180
    engines through December 31, 2022 for launches through 2024. If the
    transition can be done faster than 2022, I would support an earlier
    transition.
                          cyber and electronic warfare
        Question. Cyber is an issue that cuts across many departments and
    agencies of the Federal Government, from the intelligence community to
    the Department of Defense, the FBI, Homeland Security, the State
    Department, the Justice Department, and so on. This fact, and the
    complexities associated with the cyber domain, severely challenges the
    ability of diverse agencies to integrate and collaborate effectively.
        Do you believe the Air Force is organized and postured
    appropriately to address the full spectrum of cyber threats to Air
    Force air, space, and cyberspace operations?
        Answer. While the Air Force is currently providing cyber forces to
    Combatant and Joint Commanders, I don't think any element of government
    or the private sector is prepared for the full spectrum of cyber
    threats.
        Question. Do you have recommendations for improving inter-service
    and inter-agency orchestration of offensive and defense cyber
    capabilities?
        Answer. While the strongest national capability for both cyber
    offense and cyber defense is in the National Security Agency, each of
    the services also have cyber forces. There likely needs to be a focus
    in all three services on developing common understanding of cyber
    operational capabilities, training and deployment processes as well as
    developing specific areas of focus and expertise.
        Question. As the Department prepares to release its new electronic
    warfare (EW) strategy, and considering the Air Force has relied upon
    Navy and Marine Corps EW capabilities since retiring the EF-111 Raven
    aircraft in 1998:
        How do you envision the future of Air Force electronic warfare
    capabilities?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force provides the
    Defense Department's electronic warfare capability against command and
    control systems with EC-130H COMPASS CALL aircraft. The Navy and Marine
    Corps provide the majority of the Defense Department's electronic
    warfare capacity against radar with the EA-6B and EA-18G.
        Specialization by agreement among the services in the kind of
    electronic warfare capabilities provided to combatant commanders makes
    sense to me for assets that are important, but small in numbers.
        Question. Because of the difficulty in determining and defining the
    point where cyber operations and electronic warfare operations merge,
    how would you organize, train, and equip the Air Force to minimize gaps
    and seams with regard to threat assessment, requirements determination,
    material solutions, and concept of operations development for these two
    critical mission areas?
        Answer. The Air Force has collocated the divisions responsible for
    cyber operations, cyber requirements, and electronic warfare in the
    Pentagon to allow for collaboration on requirements and programs.
        While both electronic warfare and cyber operations can have similar
    effects--disabling an enemy's systems rather than physically destroying
    them--the method, equipment and concept of operations is quite
    different.
        Ultimately, a combatant commander must have an integrated system of
    command and control in order to accomplish military objectives by a
    variety of means.
                   air force information technology programs
        Question. The Air Force's Air Operations Center 10.2 system upgrade
    program recently experienced a Critical Change (Major Automated
    Information System equivalent to a Nunn-McCurdy critical program
    breach) that resulted in development costs doubling and a 3-year delay.
        What major improvements would you like to see made in the Air
    Force's development and deployment of major information technology
    systems?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will become more familiar with this
    particular program.
        As a general principle, information technology is likely an area
    where it makes sense to take advantage of commercially available
    systems, or allow greater flexibility to buy new capabilities rapidly
    when it can be done securely or with reasonably low risk.
        Question. How will you encourage process and cultural change in
    organizations so that they maximize the benefits that new enterprise
    information technology systems can offer in terms of cost savings and
    efficiency?
        Answer. The potential cost savings from enterprise information
    technology systems and how the Air Force has organized its IT systems
    is an area where I will have to learn more, if confirmed.
        From my experience in higher education and child welfare,
    improvements in information technology enterprise systems usually take
    longer and cost more than estimated--particularly when transitioning
    data and tools from legacy systems.
        Though new enterprise IT systems may enable performance
    improvements, they don't always improve efficiency or save money.
        Question. What is the relationship between Air Force efforts at
    implementing enterprise information technology programs and supporting
    computing services and infrastructure to support Air Force missions,
    and efforts being undertaken by the Defense Information Systems Agency?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will need to learn more about how the Air
    Force is modernizing its information technology systems, and how it can
    improve performance and reduce cost by aligning with or relying upon
    the Defense Information Systems Agency.
        Question. How will you ensure that appropriate business process
    reengineering is undertaken and accomplished before initiating new
    business systems, IT program development, and deployment?
        Answer. While business process reengineering is required by statute
    before initiating a new business system acquisition, it is also just
    good management practice to continually review processes to streamline
    and eliminate unneeded steps at all levels of the organization.
        While the motivation to reduce unnecessary costs that drives the
    private sector to continuously improve processes does not exist in
    government, the frustration of inefficient processes contributes to
    dissatisfaction among high performing airmen and wastes taxpayer money.
        If confirmed, process reengineering will be required before any
    business system acquisition. More importantly, if confirmed, I would
    seek to reinforce that process improvement teams and other quality
    management tools are the standard way the Air Force should operate in
    general, and not just when buying information technology.
        Question. What role will the Air Force's research and testing
    enterprise play in the development and deployment of Air Force business
    IT systems?
        Answer. With a much larger commercial market, business IT systems
    an area where the Air Force can benefit from private sector development
    and will more than likely focus on purchasing commercial products
    rather than research and development of unique systems.
        If confirmed, I would anticipate that the Air Force will continue
    to advance science and technology in intelligent and autonomous
    systems, complex data visualization, human/machine interface, computer
    science, and cybersecurity.
                   air force-related defense industrial base
        Question. What is your assessment of the systems and processes for
    identifying, evaluating, and managing risk in the Air Force's organic
    and commercial defense industrial base, including the munitions
    industrial base?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will examine these systems and processes. I
    understand that Air Force policy requires acquisition leaders to assess
    the industrial base throughout each program's lifecycle, and there are
    defense department efforts to evaluate and ensure access to a robust
    defense industrial base. I am nonetheless generally concerned that the
    difficulty of doing business with the government discourages medium and
    small businesses and innovative technically oriented businesses from
    viewing the defense department as a desirable customer. In a reversal
    from the immediate post-World War II era, there is by far more research
    and development done in the commercial sector than done by the defense
    department. We must ensure that the Air Force can benefit from private
    sector innovation.
        Question. How should Air Force acquisition leaders consider impacts
    on the industrial base when addressing requirements for
    recapitalization or modernization of major defense weapons systems and
    munitions?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that the Air Force
    takes industrial base impact into consideration when planning major
    procurement and long term support of weapons systems and munitions.
    When possible, maintaining multiple sources of supply for components
    and leveraging commercially capability and capacity benefits the Air
    Force.
        Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you pursue in
    systems and processes to improve identification, monitoring,
    assessment, and timely actions to ensure that risk in the Air Force-
    relevant sectors of the defense industrial base is adequately managed
    to develop, produce, and sustain technically superior, reliable, and
    affordable weapons systems and munitions?
        Answer. At this time, I do not have any changes in mind. If
    confirmed, I will keep the committee informed if I identify changes
    that need to be made.
                        air force science and technology
        Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the role
    that Air Force science and technology programs have played and will
    play in developing capabilities for current and future Air Force
    systems?
        Answer. The Air Force science and technology program advances
    capabilities in all mission areas. More than at any time in our
    history, rapid innovation moved quickly to the battlefield will
    determine who will prevail in conflict. The Air Force must continue to
    invest in path-breaking research and development and get new
    capabilities from the lab bench to the flight line faster than our
    adversaries.
        Question. How will you ensure that promising Air Force science and
    technology programs will successfully transition to operational
    warfighting capabilities?
        Answer. We need to tighten the connection between intelligence,
    operations, research and acquisition. I strongly support rapid
    prototyping and experimentation on tight time cycles for new
    capabilities, and using rapid acquisition authorities to provide needed
    capability to the warfighter.
        Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to judge the
    value and the investment level in Air Force science and technology
    programs?
        Answer. Metrics for research and development are inherently
    difficult and often are not related to operational success. Common
    metrics used in higher education and commercial industry like patents
    awarded, license agreements signed, percent of sales from new products
    and royalty revenue are not really relevant to Air Force research.
    Moreover, the Federal Government has more latitude to support basic
    research with long term potential than the private sector, which often
    operates in a maximum 3 to 5 year time horizon.
        I am unaware of what metrics the Air Force currently uses to
    evaluate the value of science and technology programs, or how the Air
    Force prioritizes research areas.
        I would expect metrics like number of people involved in research,
    percent of the budget spent on research, numbers of Ph.D. students or
    research scientists engaged in Air Force sponsored projects, numbers of
    active projects, numbers of Small Business Innovative Research grants,
    numbers of active research partnerships and average project duration
    are likely monitored and measured by the Air Force research enterprise.
        Given that even the best metrics are of questionable value in
    research enterprises, it is probably more important to seek to develop
    and protect a sub-culture in Air Force research and development that
    cultivates and rewards highly creative innovators, encourages
    interdisciplinary partnerships, and rewards fast-paced productive
    failure.
                              religious guidelines
        Question. In your view, do Department of Defense policies
    concerning religious accommodation in the military appropriately
    accommodate the free exercise of religion and other beliefs, including
    individual expressions of belief, without impinging on those who have
    different beliefs, including no religious belief?
        Answer. Air Force commanders have a responsibility to ensure that
    the spiritual needs of all airmen are met. This responsibility, unique
    to the military, is carried out through the Chaplain Corps. Commanders
    must avoid the official endorsement of any particular religion, while
    also being able to freely exercise their own religious beliefs. Air
    Force policy must continue to ensure that all airmen are able to choose
    to practice their particular religion or subscribe to no religious
    belief at all.
        Question. Do you agree that the primary role of the military
    chaplaincy is to provide for the free exercise of religion by all
    servicemembers and that military chaplains are sufficiently trained to
    perform or provide for this constitutional right in today's pluralistic
    military community? If not, why not?
        Answer. The Air Force Chaplain Corps provides spiritual care and
    ensures that the spiritual needs of all airmen and their families are
    met. A chaplain advises Air Force leaders on matters related to
    religious, spiritual, ethical, moral and morale concerns and advocates
    for the religious and spiritual needs of airmen and their families.
        The Chaplain is a valuable member of the military unit as airmen
    deal with not only the joys and pains of life that all of us know, but
    with the unique spiritual questions and pressures combatants face. In
    my experience on Active Duty and as the wife of a guardsman, military
    chaplains at the unit level carry out these responsibilities well.
        Question. Do you believe it is the role of military chaplains to
    provide for the religious and spiritual well-being of all members of
    the armed forces, regardless of their faith beliefs?
        Answer. Air Force Chaplains ``provide and provide for'' the
    spiritual needs of airmen and their families. If the chaplain cannot
    personally ``provide'' for the need of the airmen and their family due
    to tenets of their faith, they seek to ``provide for'' the need of the
    airmen and the family.
        Chaplains provide religious worship and rites, pastoral care,
    counseling and spiritual care for airmen. Chaplains will not perform
    duties incompatible with their faith and noncombatant status.
        Question. Do you believe that current policies provide sufficient
    guidance to military chaplains who conduct non-religious command
    training where attendance is required or encouraged to allow chaplains
    to discuss their religious faith anecdotally and respectfully in a
    pluralistic setting to support the training objectives?
        Answer. I am not familiar with the specific details of current
    guidance to military chaplains. It is my understanding that Air Force
    guidance makes clear that chaplains adhere to the tenets of their faith
    and they are not required to participate in religious activities,
    including public prayer, which are inconsistent with their faith
    tradition.
                     sexual assault prevention and response
        Question. What is your assessment of the Air Force's sexual assault
    prevention and response program?
        Answer. I served on the House Armed Services Committee in 2003 when
    the Air Force Academy sexual assault scandal led to intense
    Congressional scrutiny. The Fowler Commission, which investigated the
    Air Force Academy scandal, concluded that a systematic failure in Air
    Force leadership helped foster a breakdown in values which led to the
    pervasiveness of sexual assaults.
        In the almost 15 years since that scandal, I think the Air Force
    has made significant progress in three areas.
        First, the systems in place to support and respond to victims are
    better and are more widely known. The procedure that allows airmen to
    initially get care without having to commit to participating in a
    criminal investigation as a victim is widely understood and used. The
    Air Force is consolidating violence response, recovery and care under
    the Air Force Surgeon General to provide airmen and commanders
    comprehensive clinical and non-clinical response support, especially
    during a crisis.
        Second, the education and training of airmen about sexual assault
    prevention is standard practice and widely deployed.
        Third, Commander accountability for command climate, as well as
    responsibility for the thorough and impartial investigation of and
    response to allegations of assault have been reinforced.
        While it is difficult to assess, the increase in sexual assault
    reporting in the Air Force over the past few years is, I think, a
    positive sign of increased trust in the system that did not exist with
    respect to the Academy and Air Force leadership in 2003.
        Question. What additional steps would you take, if confirmed, to
    address the problem of sexual assaults in the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, my objective will be to reduce the incidence
    of sexual assault in the Air Force, to ensure victims are cared for, to
    ensure allegations are investigated properly, to ensure perpetrators of
    sexual assault are appropriately punished, and to ensure that
    retaliation against victims who report is not tolerated.
        I am aware that the Air Force is seeking to get beyond
    ``awareness'' to implement prevention strategies that have proven
    results, like bystander intervention training. Programs like bystander
    training and focusing on leadership excellence at the squadron level is
    intended to address the culture and climate issues, rather than just
    the manifestation of harassment, assault or retaliation.
        As a university president responsible for implementing the
    requirements of Title IX on my campus, I am familiar with bystander
    education and think that this may help reduce the incidence of sexual
    assault in the Air Force by influencing the peer culture in Air Force
    units. As part of this effort, I am aware that the Air Force is in the
    process of hiring a prevention specialist at the installation level who
    will be responsible for implementing sexual assault and violence
    prevention activities that have proven to be effective. If confirmed, I
    would support this initiative.
        Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
    resources the Air Force has in place to prevent sexual assaults and to
    investigate and respond to allegations of sexual assault?
        Answer. My understanding of awareness and prevention training is
    addressed in the previous answer.
        The Air Force has Special Victims Investigation and Prosecution
    teams which are formed to respond to sexual assault cases. These units
    receive comprehensive training to investigate and respond to
    allegations of sexual assault.
        Question. What is your understanding of the adequacy of Air Force
    resources and programs to provide victims of sexual assault the
    medical, psychological, and legal help they need?
        Answer. The Air Force has a Special Victims' Counsel Program to
    provide legal representation to victims of sexual assault.
        The Air Force also has a Special Victim Investigation and
    Prosecution capability to ensure that investigations comply with best
    practices and victims get needed support. The Special Victim
    Investigation and Prosecution capability is made up of specially
    trained Air Force Office of Special Investigation agents, judge
    advocates (including trial counsel), paralegals, and victim liaisons.
    Air Force personnel in these positions are specially trained and
    qualified individuals assigned on a case-by-case basis.
        Once an investigation is initiated, a Victim Witness Assistance
    Program liaison is assigned to help the victim to navigate the military
    justice system, provide the victim case information, help the victim
    use military and civilian community resources, and facilitate access to
    legal assistance.
        Medical and psychological help for victims is consolidated under
    the office of the Surgeon General.
        Question. What is your assessment of the Department of the Air
    Force special victim's counsel program?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Air Force began the Special
    Victims' Counsel program in 2013 and that this program has helped to
    build trust in the military justice process. It gives victims more
    meaningful input on the disposition and resolution of their cases.
        Since 2013, over 2,800 clients, of which 83 have been children,
    have been represented by special victim's counsel. According to
    anonymous survey results provided to clients at the end of the case, 99
    percent of respondents would recommend a special victim's counsel to
    others who have reported a sexual assault and 99 percent were satisfied
    with their representation.
        Question. What is your assessment of the potential impact, if any,
    of proposals to remove the disposition authority from military
    commanders over violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
    including sexual assaults?
        Answer. The foundation of military discipline is the commander's
    authority to set standards, to require airmen to meet those standards,
    and to hold airmen appropriately accountable when they fail to meet
    standards. The military justice system is the commander's ultimate tool
    to ensure a disciplined force. Removing commanders' disposition
    authority undermines the effectiveness of the military justice system.
        Commanders do not and cannot make their decisions in a legal
    vacuum. Instead, every commander is informed and advised by his or her
    staff judge advocate throughout the life of a case, from report and
    investigation through disposition and adjudication. The military
    justice system depends on both a judge advocate who advises a commander
    and the commander who then decides what happens with a case. This
    system best ensures fairness, justice, and discipline and keeps the
    commander responsible and accountable for the climate, training,
    prevention and response to infractions in the unit.
        Our primary objective should be to reduce the incidence of sexual
    assault. Command responsibility is vital to the success of that effort.
        Question. What is your assessment of the Air Force's protections
    against retaliation or reprisal for reporting sexual assault?
        Answer. All reports of sexual assault as well as all reports of
    retaliation or reprisal for reporting sexual assault or any crime must
    be investigated. Substantiated allegations must be referred for
    appropriate command action.
        Recognizing the issues and the importance of the issues surrounding
    retaliation, the Air Force has already taken significant steps to
    prevent and respond to retaliation, especially related to reports of
    sexual assault.
        Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Victim Advocates and Special
    Victims' Counsel are able to identify victims' concerns about
    retaliation and address them early and effectively through the
    installation Case Management Group--the support system led by
    commanders.
        Complaints about retaliation can also be made to and handled by
    command, AF Office of Special Investigations, the staff judge advocate,
    the inspector general, or the Equal Opportunity office.
                        child abuse in military families
        Question. Recent press reports indicate that the number of
    incidents of child abuse in military families has increased.
        What is your understanding of the extent of this issue in the Air
    Force, and if confirmed, what actions will you take to address it?
        Answer. I have been informed that the rate of child maltreatment in
    the Air Force has remained stable at a low rate for over a decade.
        The Air Force Family Advocacy Program provides clinical services,
    safety planning, risk management, prevention services and advocacy to
    military families. Early identification and reporting to the Family
    Advocacy Program is the key to keeping children and families safe.
        As a former foster and adoptive parent and the former Cabinet
    Secretary for the child welfare system in New Mexico, the issues
    surrounding child abuse and neglect and responses to it are familiar to
    me. If confirmed, I will continue to assess the effectiveness of these
    programs.
                              military health care
        Question. Section 702 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2017 transferred oversight and management of military
    hospitals and clinics from the military services to the Defense Health
    Agency (DHA).
        How would you ensure a rapid and efficient transfer of the
    operations of Air Force medical facilities to the DHA?
        Answer. I understand that planning for the transition is underway
    and that the Air Force is committed to supporting a timely transfer of
    operations as required by the law. If confirmed, I will ensure an
    efficient transfer of oversight and management of hospital and clinic
    operations.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Air Force
    reduces its medical headquarters staffs and infrastructure to reflect
    the changing scope and size of its mission?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will become more familiar with this
    transition. It is my understanding that the Air Force and the other
    services are planning the transition to Defense Health Agency
    management of hospitals and clinics. If confirmed, I will rely on the
    Surgeon General to ensure there is a fully developed plan that
    identifies the specific functions and assets to be transferred to the
    Defense Health Agency or eliminated as redundant. The Air Force Surgeon
    General will be assigned appropriate staff at the headquarters level to
    perform remaining responsibilities.
        Question. What is your assessment of the quality of health care and
    access to health care provided to Air Force military personnel and
    their families?
        Answer. It is my understanding that satisfaction with quality of
    health care delivered at Air Force military treatment facilities has
    consistently scored over 95 percent with the military health system
    goal being 90 percent. Satisfaction with inpatient care has
    consistently been between the 75th and 90th percentile.
        I also understand that the Air Force is in its second year of a
    ``Trusted Care'' initiative that applies the same principles used in
    aviation safety to the goal of eliminating instances of harm to
    patients. It is my understanding that there is a significant reduction
    of ``harm events'' with strong performance against national healthcare
    benchmarks.
        Finally, to improve healthcare access, the Air Force has
    implemented policies to increase the number of same day appointments
    while streamlining or eliminating specialty care referrals.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Air Force
    Surgeon General to improve the healthcare experience for Air Force
    military personnel and their families?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will rely on the Air Force Surgeon General
    to continue to operate an exceptional healthcare system using best
    practices for safety, quality, and access.
        More than one million patients entrust the Air Force with their
    healthcare. Through continuous process improvements and development of
    performance management metrics, the Air Force Medical Service continues
    to meet or exceed most of the Military Health System benchmarks for
    patient satisfaction and outcomes.
        I will continue to support this system.
                               suicide prevention
        Question. What is your assessment of the Air Force's suicide
    prevention program?
        Answer. Suicide is a terrible tragedy for the individual and for so
    many others whose lives are forever changed--family, friends, and
    colleagues. It is also a loss for the Air Force. Too often, it leaves
    people wondering what they could have done, or how they failed to see
    the pain of someone close.
        While the Air Force is committed to suicide prevention, and has a
    number of initiatives underway to address it, I am unfamiliar with the
    effectiveness or deployment of these efforts. If confirmed, I will be
    fully briefed on these programs to evaluate what else should be done.
        Sadly, as a university president, the challenges of depression and
    other mental health issues and suicide prevention are not unfamiliar to
    me. Suicide among the under 25 age group is a major issue in society at
    large.
        Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in shaping suicide
    prevention programs and policies for the Department of the Air Force to
    prevent suicides and increase the resiliency of airmen and their
    families?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support the continued development and
    support of effective suicide prevention strategies by the command
    leadership and the Surgeon General.
                  senior military and civilian accountability
        Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
    DOD, reports of abuses of rank and authority by senior military and
    civilian leaders and failures to perform up to accepted standards are
    frequently received. Whistleblowers and victims of such abuses often
    report that they felt that no one would pay attention to or believe
    their complaints. Accusations of unduly lenient treatment of senior
    officers and senior officials against whom accusations have been
    substantiated are also frequently heard.
        What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
    accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
    Department?
        Answer. I expect senior leaders to lead by example and uphold the
    high standards of behavior we expect of every airmen. Allegations of
    inappropriate behavior by senior leaders will be taken seriously,
    investigated fairly and dealt with appropriately.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    senior leaders of the Air Force are held accountable for their actions
    and performance?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to ensure that allegations
    are investigated and that substantiated allegations are referred for
    appropriate command action.
                         base closure and realignments
        Question. The Department of Defense has repeatedly requested a Base
    Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.
        Do you believe another BRAC round is necessary? If so, why?
        Answer. I understand the Air Force believes it has significant
    excess infrastructure. I have not yet reached the same conclusion based
    on the information I have seen. If confirmed, I will review the
    supporting analysis carefully.
        Question. If you are confirmed, and if Congress were to authorize
    another BRAC round, how would you set priorities for infrastructure
    reduction and consolidation within the Department of the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, and Congress were to authorize a DOD BRAC
    round, I would direct the Department to evaluate the operational needs
    of the Air Force to accomplish the missions that the nation expects of
    us. I believe threat drives strategy, strategy drives force structure
    and force structure drives infrastructure needs. I would also direct an
    assessment of projected needs taking into account new and emerging
    technologies including increasing numbers of remotely piloted vehicles,
    high performance fighters, joint operations training, and new weapons
    systems on the distant horizon that may require different training and
    basing options than we have today.
        Question. What is your understanding of the responsibilities of the
    Air Force in working with local communities with respect to property
    disposal if Congress were to authorize another BRAC round?
        Answer. In the wake of previous closures, the Air Force worked with
    local communities so that base closure could result in redevelopments
    into trade ports, industrial, recreational, and residential areas. This
    effort to redevelop was successful in some communities and less
    successful in others. The Air Force must also address any environmental
    cleanup responsibilities associated with base closure.
        Question. It has been noted repeatedly that the 2005 BRAC round
    resulted in major and unanticipated implementation costs and saved far
    less money than originally estimated.
        What is your understanding of why such cost growth and lower
    realized savings occurred?
        Answer. I was skeptical of cost saving estimates while serving in
    the House of Representatives before the 2005 BRAC round. At that time,
    the Defense Department could not provide a clear explanation of the
    basis for their cost estimates or a clear accounting of what savings
    had been realized from the previous round of BRAC.
        Question. How do you believe such issues could be addressed in a
    future BRAC round?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to improve the quality of
    analysis done on this issue so that the Defense Department and the
    Congress can make good decisions informed by rigorous analysis and
    validated data. In that way, we can make better decisions to support
    the mission at the lowest cost for the taxpayer.
                               operational energy
        Question. In his responses to the advance policy questions from
    this committee, Secretary Mattis talked about his time in Iraq, and how
    he called upon the Department to ``unleash us from the tether of
    fuel.'' He stated that ``units would be faced with unacceptable
    limitations because of their dependence on fuel'' and resupply efforts
    ``made us vulnerable in ways that were exploited by the enemy.''
        Do you believe this issue remains a challenge for the Department of
    Defense?
        Answer. Yes. Supporting forward deployed troops and bases with fuel
    and water is a very expensive Air Force mission.
        Question. If you are confirmed, what specific steps will you take
    to unleash the Air Force from the tether of fuel?
        Answer. I will support the continued research, development and
    deployment of technologies that reduce fuel use and turn waste into
    fuel and water at forward locations. I must recuse myself from
    particular matters involving the research being done at the South
    Dakota School of Mines.
        Question. If you are confirmed, what priorities would you establish
    for defense investments in and deployment of operational energy
    technologies to increase the combat capabilities of warfighters, reduce
    logistical burdens, and enhance mission assurance on our installations?
        Answer. If confirmed I would continue to support a range of energy
    initiatives, particularly related to reducing the logistical burdens of
    energy supply at forward locations through advanced research and
    development.
        On our installations, I would expect the Air Force to continue to
    enhance energy assurance by reducing reliance on single external
    sources of supply and improving energy efficiency in ways that save
    money. Efforts that provide the Air Force with the ability to continue
    operations, recover from energy interruptions, and sustain the mission
    are priorities.
        Question. If you are confirmed, how will you consider operational
    forces' energy needs and vulnerabilities during training exercises,
    operational plans, and wargames?
        Answer. I understand that war games and studies have concluded that
    while U.S. Forces are considerably more lethal than in the mid-1990s,
    they consume more fuel. Adversary attacks on fuel storage and resupply
    systems should be factored into training exercises, operational plans,
    and wargames.
                             energy and acquisition
        Question. How can our acquisition systems better incorporate the
    use of energy in military platforms, and how, if at all, are
    assessments of future requirements taking into account energy needs as
    a key performance parameter?
        Answer. When we buy systems, energy use should be a consideration.
                  energy resiliency in the fight against isil
        Question. Back in July after a coup attempt, the Turkish Government
    cut off power to Incirlik Air Base, which is the primary platform for
    launching coalition airstrikes in the fight against ISIL. For roughly a
    week, deployed units had to operate relying backup generators, which is
    expensive and is certainly not the preferred method of operation given
    the demanding tempo of sorties against ISIL. Just last month, the Air
    Force described an incident in the past (via open source) in which a
    RPA mission based in the U.S. was flying a targeting mission overseas.
    Because of a power outage stateside, the RPA feed temporarily lost
    visual and the target was able to get ``away and is able to continue
    plotting against the U.S. and our allies.''
        If you are confirmed, how will you specifically address and make
    energy resiliency and mission assurance a priority for the Air Force,
    to including acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable energy
    assets to improve combat capability for deployed units on our military
    installations and forward operating bases?
        Answer. Ensuring the Air Force has the energy it requires where and
    when it needs it is critical to the mission. I am aware that recently
    the Air Force issued its overarching policy for energy projects. One of
    the priorities is to make sure critical missions and capabilities
    continue to have the energy to function. If confirmed, I will continue
    to support this effort.
        Question. Do you support the J-4's enforcement of the energy
    supportability key performance parameter in the requirements process?
        Answer. The energy key performance parameter is mandated by statute
    and Defense Department directive for all new acquisition programs that
    have an operational energy impact. The Air Force will comply with the
    requirement.
        Question. Section 2805 of the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA gave the
    Department new authority to plan and fund military construction
    projects directly related to energy resiliency and mission assurance,
    to help address and mitigate against incidents like Incirlik, not to
    mention secure micro-grids to help prevent cyber-attacks.
        If you are confirmed, will you commit to use section 2805 to
    support mission critical functions, and address known energy
    vulnerabilities with projects that are resilient and renewable?
        Answer. Yes.
                                  environment
        Question. If confirmed, will you comply with environmental
    regulations, laws and guidance from the Environmental Protection
    Agency?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If confirmed, will you make the same level of investment
    for DOD's Environmental Research Programs?
        Answer. I understand that the 5 year defense program plans level
    funding for environmental research. While I am not familiar with the
    focus and results of the environmental research program, in general, it
    is my perception that the Air Force should increase its research and
    development efforts.
        Question. If confirmed, will you work with the Department of
    Interior and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to find cooperative ways
    to ensure military readiness and protect the environment on and around
    U.S. military installations?
        Answer. Yes.
        management and development of the senior executive service (ses)
        Question. What is your vision for the management and development of
    the Air Force senior executive workforce, especially in the critically
    important areas of acquisition, financial management, and the
    scientific and technical fields?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the current Senior Executive
    Talent Management and Development processes and ensure our executives
    are equipped to lead and manage the Air Force. In particular, I will
    focus on the acquisition, financial management, and the scientific and
    technical fields.
        Question. Do you believe that the Air Force has the number of
    senior executives it needs, with the proper skills to manage the
    Department into the future?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate if the Air Force has the
    right number of Senior Executives and if they have the skills required
    to successfully lead the Air Force.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
    appropriate committees of the Congress are able to receive testimony,
    briefings, and other communications of information.
        Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
    this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
    Committee, or designated members of this Committee, and provide
    information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
    with respect to your responsibilities as the Secretary of the Air
    Force?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings and
    other communications of information are provided to this Committee and
    its staff and other appropriate Committees?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
    electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
    a duly constituted Committee, or to consult with the Committee
    regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
    such documents?
        Answer. Yes.
                             Supplemental Question
                            abusive on-line conduct
        Question. Recently, the Committee considered testimony on reports
    that certain members of an unofficial Marine Corps Facebook group were
    found to be posting degrading comments and sharing nude photos of
    female servicemembers. Members of the group included a number of Active
    Duty servicemembers, former military members, and military retirees.
        What is the current Air Force policy for use of social media by
    airmen?
        Answer. Specific to social media, I understand that the Air Force
    has testified that its social media policy does not tolerate bullying,
    hazing, or any instance where an airman inflicts any form of physical
    or psychological abuse that degrades, insults, dehumanizes, or injures
    another airman regardless of the method of communication. The Air Force
    expects airmen to sustain a culture of trust, dignity and respect.
        Question. In your view, is this policy adequate to address abuses
    such as what occurred in the Marines United incident?
        Answer. I am not in a position to make that determination at this
    time. I understand that the Air Force is currently reviewing its
    policy, practice, and legal authorities in this area. If confirmed, I
    will consider the analysis and recommendations that result from the Air
    Force review.
        Question. If confirmed, what action would you take to ensure that
    members of the Air Force are not subjected to abusive on-line conduct?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Air Force has policy, legal
    authority and training to prevent and to respond to abuses. I will
    expect leaders at all levels to reinforce the expectation that everyone
    is to be treated with dignity and respect.
        Question. What legislative authorities, if any, do you believe are
    necessary to address this problem?
        Answer. At this time, I do not have any recommendation for
    additional legislative authority. I am aware the Department of Defense
    and the Air Force are reviewing current law and may recommend
    additional authority. If confirmed, I will participate in this review.
                                    ------

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
                 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
        1. Senator Wicker. Dr. Wilson, earlier this week, General Curtis M.
    Scaparrotti, USA, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, testified before
    our House counterparts that--relative to Russia--United States European
    Command (EUCOM) has prioritized ``ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance] collection platforms'' to improve timely threat
    information. He went on to say he needed ISR platforms in ``greater
    numbers than he has now''.
        In the past few years, this committee has heard very similar and
    specific refrains from other combatant commanders (COCOMs),
    specifically from United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), United
    States Africa Command (AFRICOM), and United States Pacific Command
    (PACOM). Some of those requests infer need for capacity, some
    capability. Either way, the consistent theme is a greater need for ISR,
    and in many cases, the theatre of operations at issue can make meeting
    those needs quite costly.
        The Air Force is a significant provider to the COCOMS of ISR
    platforms, primarily through unmanned aerial systems. What is your
    approach to the Air Force ISR platform inventory?
        Dr. Wilson. As more and higher quality intelligence, surveillance
    and reconnaissance capabilities have become available, the demand for
    them has increased geometrically. Information that, in the Gulf War 26
    years ago, might have been available to a two-star air commander in a
    headquarters, is now available to captains in tactical fights.
        If confirmed, I will focus my efforts in two areas. First, cost-
    effective expansion of ISR capabilities. Second, effective systems for
    tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination so that the
    military gets maximum value out of ISR platforms and the information we
    gather from them.
        As with other aircraft, the shortage of remotely piloted aircraft
    pilots is also an issue we will have to address. I do support the
    recruitment and training of enlisted remotely piloted vehicle pilots.

        2. Senator Wicker. Dr. Wilson, what assurances can you provide that
    you will thoroughly investigate all options in development for
    affordable, ultra-long endurance ISR platforms to better serve the
    strong demands of our combatant commanders for additional ISR?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will continue to evaluate cost-
    effective options to meet requirements for future intelligence,
    surveillance and reconnaissance platforms.
        ISR is an area where we need to think about ``endurance'' applied
    to the architecture and not just individual systems or nodes. What
    matters is timely information from the ISR system to the warfighter,
    not what ``bird'' the information comes from.
        This is an area where experimentation, close cooperation with
    industry, and system integration could get a lot more help to the
    warfighter at a more modest cost. If confirmed, I look forward to
    learning more about how the Air Force is analyzing these possibilities
    and supporting efforts to consider ``outside the box'' solutions.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
             future joint pacific alaska range complex investments
        3. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, you testified about the importance
    of readiness in order to best counter near-peer threats. One of the
    best way to do this is with realistic training, like in Alaska's Joint
    Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). There is at lease $100-150
    million in threat upgrades that would improve the JPARC's threat
    density to better replicate Integrated Air Defense System (IADS) of
    today and tomorrow. What are your thoughts on increasing the threat
    density in the JPARC, when do you think that might occur, and can I get
    your commitment to look at making this critical investment in the
    JPARC?
        Dr. Wilson. Investment in operational training infrastructure is
    vital to readiness. The JPARC is one essential component of that
    infrastructure.
        It is my understanding that there are plans to add ``Joint Threat
    Emitters'' followed by variants of our newest and most capable high
    fidelity threat emitters, the Advanced Radar Threat System to the
    JPARC.
        I also understand the Air Force is systematically upgrading many of
    the legacy threat systems currently in place at JPARC to more capable
    and reliable digital systems.
                                  oconus kc-46
        4. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, General Stephen M. Goldfein, USAF,
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force, has committed to take a hard look at
    Alaska for Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) basing of the
    KC-46. The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
    outlines criteria that the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) should
    consider when basing the OCONUS KC-46. What is your opinion on the need
    to modernize the Northern Air Bridge, and can I get your commitment to
    take a hard look at Alaska for the OCONUS basing of the KC-46 and to
    strongly consider those factors in the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, I believe Alaska should be considered when the Air
    Force executes its strategic basing process for the next beddown of
    OCONUS K-46 aircraft as the Northern Air Bridge is extremely important
    to global operations. Alaska will get a hard look.
        As I mentioned in answers to questions during my hearing, when it
    comes to basing decisions, I support the strategic basing process that
    evaluates locations based on an objective assessment of what the
    warfighter needs. I will support a process that is fair and impartial
    and I know that, for every state that is happy with a basing decision,
    there will likely be 49 states that are not happy.
                  168th air refueling wing active association
        5. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, the Fiscal Year 2015 NDAA directed
    the Air Force to conduct a business case analysis on converting the
    168th Air Refueling Wing (ARW) to an Active association. What is your
    opinion on this conversion and can I get your commitment to work with
    the Alaska National Guard on potentially forming this association?
        Dr. Wilson. Although I have not had an opportunity to review the
    analysis, my understanding is that the intent was to find a way to meet
    all Alaskan area air refueling requirements. If confirmed, I look
    forward to making sure Air Mobility Command works with the Alaska
    National Guard and others to understand the requirements and ensure we
    are meeting them in the most effective and efficient manner possible.
    Certainly, consideration should be given to an association if it makes
    the most sense.
                        f-35a to eielson air force base
        6. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, will you continue to
    support strategic basing decisions and the record of decisions of your
    predecessors, including the beddown of the F-35s at Eielson Air Force
    Base, and will you also work to--assuming funding is made available--to
    keep the current beddown timeline for Eielson Air Force Base?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                          national guard associations
        7. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, the Air Force is currently looking
    at unit associations with the Alaska National Guard for three separate
    units--the 168th ARW, the Alaska Guard combat rescue triad (210th,
    211th, and the 212th), and the future F-35A beddown. If confirmed, will
    you commit to taking a close and detailed look at each of these
    associations, which I believe will significantly benefit both Active
    and Guard forces?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I look forward to exploring opportunities
    like this that can increase effectiveness and efficiency. I appreciate
    the strategic importance of basing in Alaska for both local rescue
    capabilities and western looking contingencies.
                           small business contracting
        8. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, in March 2015, the Department of
    Defense (DOD) issued a report to Congress, the ``Assessment of
    Justification and Approval Requirements Implemented Under Section 811
    of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
    (``section 811'').'' The report found that in fiscal year 2014 no 8(a)
    sole-source contracts were awarded that required an 8(a) justification
    and approval (J&A). DOD stated it could not determine the cause for
    this decline. There have been numerous reports from 8(a) firms that the
    decline in awards is due to tougher J&A standards for and scrutiny on
    the firms themselves, not the sole-source contracts that could be
    awarded to these firms. If confirmed, how would you encourage DOD to
    work more effectively with Native community-owned contractors,
    particularly regarding 8(a) sole-source contracts?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the
    status of the 8(a) program and removing barriers to small and medium
    sized businesses generally. If confirmed, I would expect the Air Force
    Small Business and Acquisition Program Offices to work together to
    identify and fix inappropriate policy barriers and seek contract
    opportunities that fit the 8(a) program requirements.

        9. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, section 811 does not prohibit
    direct awards greater than $22 million (adjusted from $20 million due
    to inflation), it has encouraged greater--if not excessive--levels of
    approval for comparatively small contracts. This unnecessarily high
    level of approval then led to zero contract awards above $22 million to
    8(a) corporations, according to a 2014 Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) report. How would you encourage such awards above $22 million,
    when appropriate, to Native community-owned contractors given the
    additional scrutiny experienced by these firms?
        Dr. Wilson. I would expect that Air Force Small Business and
    Acquisition Program Offices to work together to explore policy and
    opportunities that fit the 8(a) program requirements.

        10. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, do you agree that section 811,
    similar to the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), allows for the
    approval of a justification for an 8(a) sole-source to be approved by
    someone other than the Head of Agency and can the Head of Agency have
    the legal ability to delegate the approval authority for an 8(a)
    justification?
        Dr. Wilson. It is my understanding that section 811 established
    statutory limits and any existing delegations to approval authority
    still exist.

        11. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, shouldn't the level of agency
    approval by the appropriate agency official be tied to the dollar value
    of the contracts, as is done under CICA?
        Dr. Wilson. It is my understanding that current approval levels as
    established remain and are still followed within the Agency. If
    confirmed, I don't come to this position with a predetermined view of
    what the approval levels should be for this program.

        12. Senator Sullivan. Dr. Wilson, while section 811 does not
    require a ``Head of Agency'' approval for sole source contracts over
    $22 million, DOD--to include the Air Force--has interpreted it to
    require that level of approval. In addition, current law establishes
    higher levels of approval commensurate with higher contract values. If
    confirmed and given the authority of the Secretary, do you commit to
    streamline the approval of contracts above the $22 million threshold to
    below the ``Head of Agency'' level and to the approval levels that are
    already matched to the contract risk incurred by the Air Force? If so,
    will you also issue a memo to contracting officers within the Air Force
    informing them of your decision to establish that authority at levels
    that are appropriate to the size and risk of the contracts in question,
    consistent with what is already in law?
        Dr. Wilson. It is my understanding that current approval levels, as
    established, remain and are still followed within the Air Force. If
    confirmed, I would expect that Air Force Small Business and Acquisition
    Program Offices would work together to continuously evaluate policies
    and procedures to improve results consistent with the law.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator David Perdue
            joint surveillance and target attack radar system recap
        13. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, under the current Air Force plan,
    the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) fleet is
    facing at least a year-long capability gap, and there will be nearly a
    decade with a fleet below 10 aircraft, which means tiered readiness and
    degradation of primary flight training. What do you plan to do to avoid
    a capability gap?
        Dr. Wilson. Based on my understanding, you are correct that there
    will likely be a capability gap as the E-8C JSTARS are retired. The
    demand for this capability will likely not decline. If confirmed, I
    will consider whether there are options to minimize this potential gap.

        14. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, given the operational demand for
    these platforms and the cost of keeping the legacy airframes flying,
    assuming Congress provides the resources, can you assure me the Air
    Force will make a decision and move this program forward by making a
    contract award in fiscal year 2017?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed I will look into the plan for contract
    award.

        15. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, is the JSTARS Recap one of the
    crucial Air Force programs that could be delayed by failure to pass a
    full-year Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2017?
        Dr. Wilson. My understanding is that failure to pass a full-year
    Defense Appropriations bill will affect the JSTARS Recapitalization
    Radar Risk Reduction effort and put Initial Operational Capability in
    fiscal year 2024 at risk.

        16. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, could the Air Force accelerate the
    program once a decision has been made on the winning bid?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will look into options for potential
    acceleration.

        17. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, is there an annual cost related to
    delay in executing the Air Force acquisition strategy?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will look into the program details and
    can identify any cost related to delay at that time.

        18. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, are there cost savings associated
    with acceleration?
        Dr. Wilson. It is my understanding that the outcome of source
    selection will provide insight into potential cost saving
    opportunities.

        19. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, do you agree that the JSTARS Recap
    must remain a top modernization priority to meet combatant commander
    requirements and that further delay has a negative impact on meeting
    those requirements?
        Dr. Wilson. JSTARS Recapitalization is an Air Force modernization
    priority. With support from Congress, the Air Force will continue to
    execute the JSTARS program in order to meet combatant commander
    requirements.
                               depot maintenance
        20. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, the Air Force has maintained a
    three-depot strategy for some time now. Will you continue to support a
    requirement for three depots?
        Dr. Wilson. It is my understanding that the three depots are
    integrated and give the country capacity irrespective of what is
    available in the private sector. While these requirements can change
    over time, if confirmed, I come with no predisposition to change the
    three-depot structure.
                                a-10 replacement
        21. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, due to budget pressure and
    sequestration, the Air Force decided to prematurely retire the A-10, a
    platform that performs close air support to the warfighter. The Air
    Force is still in need of a suitable replacement for the light attack
    fleet. Can you talk about your plan for replacing the A-10 fleet and
    ensuring we have the right platform to perform the vital close air
    support mission?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force has made the commitment to keep the A-10
    through 2021 and I support that decision. I am aware that the Air Force
    is also interested in an experiment to evaluate light attack aircraft
    for uncontested environments. If confirmed, I will review the Air Force
    plan on the future of the A-10.
                national airborne operations center replacement
        22. Senator Perdue. Dr. Wilson, I was fortunate to recently tour
    the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC), the E4-B. In case of
    national emergency or destruction of ground command and control
    centers, this aircraft provides a highly survivable command, control,
    and communications center to direct U.S. Forces, execute emergency war
    orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. This is a unique
    and very vital asset, and there is concern that a possible split of
    missions of the NAOC amongst separate future aircraft could cause a
    loss of functionality and interplay between the E-4B's current mission
    sets. What are your views on the E4-B replacement program, and will you
    ensure that any replacement program ensures that the Air Force will
    retain the ability to perform the full E-4B mission set?
        Dr. Wilson. I understand that the Air Force is conducting an
    analysis of alternatives for the replacement of the National Airborne
    Operations Center. The analysis is due in fiscal year 2018. If
    confirmed, I will keep the committee informed on the results of this
    review.
                                   __________
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz
            status of forces/fiscal year 2017 appropriations request
        23. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, last week, Major General Martin
    briefed my staff on the Air Force's portion of the $30 billion fiscal
    year 2017 request for additional appropriations. When compared with
    where things stood in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm, he said that
    the Air Force today has 59 percent fewer fighter squadrons, 30 percent
    fewer people, and 37 percent fewer aircraft. He also noted that current
    aircrew readiness is at near all-time lows. These numbers are striking
    and paint a stark picture of our current ability to project power. Can
    you describe for us how the fiscal year 2017 budget amendment will fill
    current readiness challenges?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force is the smallest, oldest, and least
    prepared in its history. Since the enactment of the Budget Control Act
    in 2011, the size of the Air Force has decreased further and the demand
    for air and space power has increased.
        The fiscal year 2017 budget amendment will increase Air Force
    topline by $7.4 billion ($6.8 billion base/$.6 billion Overseas
    Contingency Operations). Combined with the fiscal year 2017
    Appropriations Bill, it will help readiness recovery, fill critical
    gaps and improve future lethality.
        The funding will allow the Air Force to sustain end strength growth
    to address manpower shortfalls in maintenance, pilots, ISR, cyber and
    Battlefield Airmen. The Air Force will add needed funding for weapon
    system sustainment, and upgrades to multiple platforms to keep our
    current fleet viable. Space and cyber operational shortfalls will be
    addressed and we will invest in infrastructure that directly impacts
    readiness and training. Funds will also be used to address threats to
    base resiliency and cyber communications, as well as improvements to
    the nuclear enterprise.
        My major concern is that, if we have a continuing resolution for
    fiscal year 2017 rather than an appropriations bill with only five
    months remaining in the fiscal year, the Air Force would likely have to
    suspend non-combat flying hours, freeze civilian hiring, slow filling
    critical career fields, slow or stop depot level maintenance, and
    suspend starting new programs. The pilot shortage that is already a
    problem would become worse, as would readiness levels.
        We won't get out of this in a year. If confirmed, I will work with
    the Secretary of Defense and the Congress to get beyond the Budget
    Control Act and restore the force.

        24. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, why is it so vital to fund this
    amendment and increase the Air Force budget, regardless of spending
    increases in other areas of the Government?
        Dr. Wilson. A primary responsibility of the Federal Government is
    to provide for the common defense. Without security, it is not possible
    to enjoy our liberties.
        Today's Air Force is the smallest, oldest and least ready in our
    history.
        This comes at a time when we are a leader in the global response
    against ISIS and facing a resurgent Russia, rising China, destabilizing
    Iran and unpredictable North Korea. The Joint Force requires airpower
    to be successful and demand exceeds our ability to support the fight.
    Our Air Force is too small for what the nation expects of us.
        As competitors continue to close the capability gap, we must
    recover readiness and invest in future capabilities that allow our
    Airmen to win decisively. Passing the Fiscal Year 2017 Appropriations
    Bill and supporting the budget amendment is a first step to provide the
    Air Force that our Joint Force requires and that our nation expects.

        25. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, the Senate Armed Services Committee
    has received several briefings that highlighted the efforts our near-
    peer adversaries are taking to close the military capabilities gap we
    have long held; their efforts are deeply concerning. What are the Air
    Force's plans to strike a balance between current readiness and future
    modernization in order to reestablish a capabilities gap?
        Dr. Wilson. I share Secretary Mattis' priorities: improving
    warfighter readiness, and building a larger and more lethal force. If
    confirmed, I will work with him to ensure we appropriately balance the
    needs of today and the demands of tomorrow.

        26. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, how will you envision making that
    happen while also ensuring that existing commitments to airmen and
    their families are upheld?
        Dr. Wilson. As a leader, I am values driven, mission focused and
    people oriented. People are the strength of the Air Force. If
    confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress to ensure we balance
    our priorities while always keeping Airmen and their families in mind.
                            anti-access/area denial
        27. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD)
    challenge is not confined to the South China Sea, as evidenced by
    Russia's attempts to expand its influence in its near abroad with
    interventions in Georgia and Ukraine, and contentious behavior in and
    around the Baltic Sea.
        Operating in an A2/AD environment will require superior technology,
    well-trained personnel, and the combined military efforts of the
    Services. What is the Air Force's role if it were necessary to conduct
    combat operations in a well-defined A2/AD theatre?
        Dr. Wilson. You are correct in your assessment of air space
    challenges beyond just the China Sea. In any combat operation, the Air
    Force must gain and maintain air superiority. The establishment of air
    superiority then allows ground and other forces to achieve tactical,
    operational, and strategic objectives.
        As I mentioned in my confirmation hearing, we sometimes take air
    superiority for granted. The last time an American ground troop was
    killed by enemy aircraft was April 15, 1953--in the Korean War. With
    adversaries modernizing and our readiness to fight a near-peer
    competitor at a low, we cannot take this for granted.

        28. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, can you describe the capability and
    discriminators that 5th generation aircraft, such as the F-35, have
    over the current legacy fleets and what impact they will have on future
    air superiority?
        Dr. Wilson. Fifth generation fighter aircraft are more survivable
    and more lethal than fourth generation aircraft. Discriminating
    attributes include stealth, maneuverability, advanced integrated
    avionics, and networked interoperability between aircraft and other
    systems.

        29. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, do you believe that current fourth
    generation aircraft will be as survivable in the robust A2/AD
    environments that are being established?
        Dr. Wilson. No. Adversaries are modernizing their defenses in ways
    that will make current fighter aircraft more vulnerable.

        30. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, do you believe that the United States
    has sufficient capacity to fight in more than one theatre if a crisis
    were to erupt today and, if not, what force levels are necessary to
    operate in more than one theatre?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force's ability to fight in more than one
    theater depends on the size and scope of the operations and the
    theaters in question.

        31. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, how does the A2/AD threat in Europe
    compare to that of the South China Sea?
        Dr. Wilson. There are similarities and differences. Both involve
    adversaries that employ modern weapons technology designed to defeat US
    airpower and deny or degrade forward air bases. In each theater,
    potential adversaries also possess highly capable, long range and
    layered integrated air defense networks to deny entry into their
    airspace.
        The biggest difference is geography. Europe has numerous partner
    airbases which lie a relatively short distance from the likely area of
    any conflict. By contrast, in the South China Sea, there are few
    airbases and they are hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from
    each other. Air superiority is more fragile because we don't have lots
    of basing options and air bases are increasingly vulnerable to long-
    range attack systems currently being modernized by our adversaries.
                            nuclear deterrence-space
        32. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, a strong nuclear deterrent is
    arguably a foundational requirement of our national security. Our near-
    peer adversaries continue to modernize their nuclear capabilities,
    highlighting that a robust deterrence posture will be necessary for
    decades to come. General Paul J. Selva, USAF, Vice Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in front of the House Armed Services
    Committee that ``the nuclear deterrent is the joint force modernization
    priority, and . . . is bigger than just the bombers, ICBMs
    [intercontinental ballistic missiles] and submarines, it is command and
    control, it's space, it's tankers and it's a much bigger enterprise
    than just the three legs of the Triad.'' Given Russian and Chinese
    development of capabilities that place our space assets at risk,
    Congress must view nuclear modernization holistically. What specific
    steps should we take to both modernize and protect our space-based
    assets from kinetic and passive attacks?
        Dr. Wilson. Space is no longer a sanctuary. In any conflict, it
    will be a contested environment.
        If confirmed, I look forward to my responsibilities as principal
    DOD space advisor and chairing the Defense Space Council. The Air Force
    is responsible for over 90 percent of the Defense Department's space
    assets in orbit and the nation is heavily dependent on space
    capabilities for navigation, communication, command and control,
    intelligence, and precision targeting.
        I will seek to lead Department efforts to deepen our understanding
    of the growing threat to our space assets, refine our strategy for
    space control, and organize and equip the Air Force to meet the threat.
    In addressing these issues, I will work closely with the other services
    and Federal agencies to align efforts where needed.

        33. Senator Cruz. Dr. Wilson, in the Fiscal Year 2016 National
    Defense Authorization Act, I requested a feasibility study from the
    Missile Defense Agency on space-based interceptors to complement our
    terrestrial-based missile defense assets. How would the presence of
    space-based interceptors or increased sensors impact our ability to
    identify, track, and intercept ballistic missiles earlier in flight?
        Dr. Wilson. I'm not yet briefed on this matter. If confirmed, I
    will become more deeply involved in matters related to space and space
    control.
                                   __________
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                       sandia contract purchase agreement
        34. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, in June 2013, the Department of
    Energy Inspector General (IG) issued a report on the contracting
    irregularities associated with consulting agreements awarded to Heather
    Wilson and Company, LLC (HWC). The report noted that HWC entered into a
    consulting agreement in January 2009 with Sandia National Laboratories.
    This agreement was subsequently converted into a Contract Purchase
    Agreement (CPA) that would be executed via monthly task orders at a
    cost of $10,000 per month.
        In response to a lack of requirements for deliverable work
    products, the CPA was further modified in April 2010 to include the
    following language: ``Task Orders shall contain a requirement for a
    deliverable such as a Progress Report or statement of completion of
    work for the task order, and indication of which tasks are ongoing, and
    what progress has been made on the ongoing tasks.''
        Did you sign the modified April 2010 Contract Purchase Agreement?
        Dr. Wilson. Task Orders were drafted by Sandia monthly. I do not
    recall that they ever contained any requirement for a written progress
    report. There were written work products created when they could be
    produced at the unclassified level, such as memoranda, briefing slides,
    and other written work products. In general, Sandia was more interested
    in my engagement with their people in reviews, meetings and working
    groups than in using my time to write progress reports about those
    meetings, which would not have been useful for them.
        I cannot confirm whether this CPA document was concluded in this
    form.

        35. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, were you aware that the modified
    April 2010 Contract Purchase Agreement required a deliverable product
    detailing the work you performed?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes, with the ``deliverable product'' defined by the
    monthly Task Orders which were written by Sandia monthly. The work was
    done and the task orders were complied with.

        36. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, the 2013 Inspector General report
    noted that the task orders from Sandia issued under the modified April
    2010 Contract Purchase Agreement did not incorporate the language
    requiring deliverable products. During your confirmation hearing I
    asked you if you were aware of the requirements to provide evidence
    supporting the work you performed under the contract. You stated ``I
    did the work. I complied with the contract.'' I further asked if you
    reviewed the final contract before you signed the agreement and you
    replied that you did.
        While the Task Orders did not include the requirement for
    deliverable products, the modified Contract Purchase Agreement did
    include the requirement. If you reviewed the contracts before you
    signed them, per your testimony before the Committee, why did you not
    fulfill the requirement to provide Sandia with deliverable work
    products in support of your monthly consulting payments?
        Dr. Wilson. I did fulfill the requirement, as defined by Sandia in
    its Task Orders. The agreement you quote above says task orders shall
    include product ``such as'' progress reports. Sandia established the
    task orders monthly and requested written materials or reports when the
    entities asking for my help wanted written materials or reports. It was
    more common for them to request my presence working and engaging with
    their teams on a problem, plan or process, most often in classified
    settings.
        I believed then and now the labs wanted my timely input and
    participation at the appropriate level about ongoing, frequently
    classified matters. Paying me to write after-the-fact reports regarding
    the same would have given the labs and the government no added value
    for money spent.
                         sandia contract strategy team
        37. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, according to the November 2014
    Special Inquiry report by the Department of Energy, Sandia National
    Laboratories formed an in-house Contract Strategy Team that was focused
    on securing ``a noncompetitive extension of the Sandia Corporation
    contract with the Department.'' The IG investigation further found that
    ``the plan developed by the SNL [Sandia National Laboratory] Contract
    Strategy Team represented an apparent violation of 31 U.S.C. Sec.
    1352, Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain
    Federal contracting and financial transactions. In this case,
    appropriated funds were used to pay the recipients of a Federal
    contract, both SNL employees and consultants, salaries and fees for
    developing a plan intended to result in influencing or attempting to
    influence an officer or employee of the Department or a member of
    Congress in connection with the extension of the SNL contract.''
        Were you a member of the SNL Contract Strategy Team?
        Dr. Wilson. No.

        38. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, did you consult with the Contract
    Strategy Team regarding Federal contracts?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
                        los alamos consulting agreement
        39. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, in June 2013, the Department of
    Energy IG issued a report on the contracting irregularities associated
    with consulting agreements awarded to Heather Wilson and Company, LLC
    (HWC). In August 2009, HWC entered into a consulting agreement in
    August 2009 with Los Alamos National Laboratory to perform 50 hours of
    work per month at a cost of $10,000 per month.
        Per the IG report, the draft statement of work for the contract
    included requirements to deliver work products to support the monthly
    consulting payments to HWC. The report further found that the language
    was ``deleted from the final task order even though a Los Alamos
    contracting official informed the NNSA [National Nuclear Security
    Administration] Contracting Officer that deliverables would be
    established in individual task assignments.'' However, when the IG
    asked for documentation of these task assignments ``Los Alamos was not
    able to provide any documentation showing what tasks and activities HWC
    was directed or scheduled to perform on a monthly basis.''
        During your confirmation hearing I asked you if ``there was a
    negotiation about what would be in the contract and what would not be
    in the contract.'' You responded that there was a negotiation ``mostly
    with respect to the statement of work.'' Did you negotiate to exclude
    the requirement for deliverable work products in the final statement of
    work for the Los Alamos agreement?
        Dr. Wilson. In general, lab leaders wanted my active engagement
    with them and their teams, often in classified settings, rather than
    written reports. There were some occasions where written products
    including memos, briefings, and analytical products were requested and
    provided. I believe that the editing and negotiation referred to above
    appears to relate to a draft exchanged between Los Alamos Lab and the
    local National Nuclear Security Agency office. I do not recall seeing
    any statement of work that included a requirement for monthly written
    reports, nor would I have likely objected to preparing monthly work
    products if that is what Los Alamos Lab wanted. Paying me to write
    after-the-fact reports regarding meetings in which we were actively
    engaged as a team would have been unlikely to give the labs and the
    government added value for money spent.

        40. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, regardless of whether or not the
    contract included a requirement to provide deliverable works products,
    did it occur to you that the Federal Government deserved a more
    detailed accounting of the services you performed given the unusual
    nature and your consulting agreement with Los Alamos and the large sums
    of money you received on a monthly basis?
        Dr. Wilson. As a consultant, I was responsive to the desires and
    instructions of the client. I did the work asked of me to a high
    standard in the way that was useful for my clients and complied with
    the contracts.

        41. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, the Federal Acquisition Regulation
    (FAR) (FAR 31.205-33, Section F) explicitly states ``evidence necessary
    to determine that work performed is proper and does not violate law or
    regulation shall include--
          (2) Invoices or billings submitted by consultants,
    including sufficient detail as to the time expended and nature of the
    actual services provided; and
          (3) Consultants' work products and related documents,
    such as trip reports indicating persons visited and subjects discussed,
    minutes of meetings, and collateral memoranda and reports.
        Were you aware of this specific provision in the FAR that requires
    consultants to submit invoices with detailed information to
    substantiate the work performed for payment?
        Dr. Wilson. In the case of the Nevada Test Site, the work performed
    was verified by the President of the Nevada Test Site and the Assistant
    to the President sitting in the room at the time of each of the day-
    long quarterly advisory board meetings for which I was compensated. The
    meetings were generally conducted at the Top Secret-Q or Special
    Compartmented Information level for nuclear weapons or intelligence
    discussions. No trip reports were requested of any member of the
    President's Advisory Board.
        In the case of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, all members of the
    Intelligence Advisory Board were paid the same amount for attendance at
    the advisory board meetings. The meetings took place in the secure
    facility at Oak Ridge and were conducted at the Top Secret--Special
    Compartmented Information level. Oak Ridge did not want trip reports
    from Intelligence Advisory Board members. Oak Ridge maintained that the
    contracts were appropriate and the DOE site office in Oak Ridge
    concurred with the lab. Oak Ridge did not reimburse the government.
        With respect to Sandia and Los Alamos, the time expended was as
    agreed in the contracts and was certified to every month with the
    submission of invoices. The nature of the services provided were
    consulting services. The invoices for Sandia and Los Alamos were
    approved by the contract managers at each laboratory. They were
    satisfied with the work I was doing and they did not indicate that they
    needed or desired further detail on invoices.

        42. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, the 2103 Inspector General report
    also noted the irregularities of the invoices that were submitted by
    HWC for payment. During the period of the Los Alamos contract, 19
    invoices were issued by HWC for payment. Every invoice lacked
    sufficient detail on the services that were provided. According to the
    IG report, the Los Alamos agreement stated that:
            ``the Subcontractor may submit monthly billings for the
            services performed. A breakdown of the specific activities
            performed for [Los Alamos] must be included on or with each
            invoice. [Los Alamos] shall pay the Subcontractor, upon
            submission of acceptable invoices or vouchers, the prices
            stipulated in this subcontract for work delivered or rendered,
            less any deductions provided in this subcontract.''
        However, the invoices submitted by HWC did not include a breakdown
    of services.
        Your company failed to comply with the requirement to submit
    invoices that included specific activities performed during the month
    services were provided, and yet, you accepted payment for those
    invoices. Can you justify your actions?
        Dr. Wilson. I provided consulting services to Los Alamos. No other
    services besides consulting services (e.g. equipment, materials, lab
    testing, custodial services, construction) were provided to Los Alamos.
    Travel reimbursement was itemized and receipts for travel were
    provided. Los Alamos accepted the invoices and did not request changes
    or greater description of the matters on which I consulted to be listed
    on the invoices.
        The work was done and the contract was complied with. The invoices
    specified that consulting services were provided and the labs accepted
    and approved the invoices.

        43. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, while the IG found that Los Alamos
    failed to enforce the requirement for detailed invoices to substantiate
    payments, do you also bear any responsibility for disregarding the
    requirement for detailed invoices? If not, why not?
        Dr. Wilson. The contract did not require ``detailed'' invoices. It
    required specific activities performed. The activity that I performed
    was consulting services.
        I did the work, complied with the contract, and completed invoices
    that were accepted for payment by Los Alamos. Los Alamos never
    requested further detail than that which was provided.
                        repayments and settlement costs
        44. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, from January 2009 through part of
    2011, Heather Wilson and Company, LLC (HWC) received $464,000 in
    payments from four NNSA laboratories for consulting services. These
    laboratories included Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National
    Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Nevada National
    Security Site. Due to the lack of evidence to substantiate the work
    that was provided, the Department of Energy Inspector General
    investigated the contracts. As a result, the contractors who operated
    the laboratories on behalf of the Government paid back at least
    $442,877 to the Department of Energy with respect to payments made to
    HWC. Furthermore, Lockheed Martin, which operated Sandia National
    Laboratories, agreed to an overall settlement of $4.7 million for their
    management failures.
        While you were not found guilty of any actual wrongdoing, do you
    agree that this arrangement gives the perception of wrongdoing?
        Dr. Wilson. No. The quality of my work resulted in Sandia
    recruiting me and offering me a full time senior leadership position
    responsible for the division of the laboratory with which I worked most
    frequently--Vice President for non-nuclear defense and intelligence
    programs. I declined their offer in order to run for the U.S. Senate.
        While three of the four labs negotiated and settled this matter,
    all of them appear to have disagreed with the auditors and none of them
    admitted wrongdoing.

        45. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, did Heather Wilson and Company, LLC
    reimburse the Government for any of these expenditures? If not, why
    not?
        Dr. Wilson. No. I did the work, complied with the contracts, was
    not found at fault, and I was never even interviewed by the auditors.
                       negotiating for future employment
        46. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, the 2008 edition of the House Ethics
    Manual states that Members must disclose ``any job negotiations made
    with a private employer while the individual is still employed by the
    House, as well as any recusal from official matters that is
    necessitated by those negotiations.'' The ethics manual further states
    that ``Members and employees should be particularly careful in
    negotiating for future employment, especially when negotiating with any
    individual or entity that could be substantially affected by the
    performance of official duties.''
        Per the House Ethics Manual, and House Rule 27, Members must notify
    the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within three (3)
    business days ``after the commencement of any negotiation or agreement
    for future employment or compensation with a private entity.''
        Your tenure in the House of Representatives ended on January 3,
    2009. An invoice submitted to Sandia National Laboratories for
    consulting work indicated you began consulting work for the lab on
    January 4, 2009--the day following your departure from Congress.
        Based on these dates, did you start negotiations with Sandia during
    your tenure in the House of Representatives?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
        HW Note: There have been subsequent changes to the House Ethics
    Manual and the 2008 edition is not available to me. Some of the rules
    have changed since then, particularly timelines for types of reporting
    about post-government employment planning. I sought advice from the
    committee staff and complied with their guidance and the rules in place
    at the time.

        47. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, if you did start negotiations with
    Sandia during your House tenure, did you notify the Ethics committee of
    these negotiations? If not, why not?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        48. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, furthermore, the House Rule states
    that any Member subject to the notification requirement must recuse
    themselves, in writing, from ``any matter in which there is a conflict
    of interest or an appearance of a conflict for that Member.''
        During your tenure, you were a member of the House Committee on
    Energy and Commerce during the 110th Congress (2007-2008). The
    Committee had jurisdiction over the Department of Energy, including
    Sandia National Laboratories. Did you recuse yourself from any matters
    that would have impacted Sandia as you negotiated this contract? If
    not, why not?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes. There were no matters that would have impacted
    Sandia during the time I made post-federal employment plans. I was
    aware of the requirement to recuse in the event that any matters came
    up and would have done so, based on guidance from the House ethics
    office.
          contacts with u.s. attorney for u.s. attorney for new mexico
        49. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, according to a September 2008 joint
    report by the Department of Justice Inspector General and the
    Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, you called
    David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, on October 16, 2006,
    to express concern that he was delaying prosecution of certain public
    corruption cases. At the time you made the call, your opponent in the
    2006 election was the New Mexico Attorney General who did not prosecute
    ``the courthouse'' cases. As such, Mr. Iglesias' actions were directly
    related to positions your opponent took. The Department of Justice
    concluded in their report on the dismissal of Mr. Iglesias that ``[t]he
    evidence we have developed so far shows that Wilson and Domenici in
    fact called Iglesias shortly before the election, and that the
    substance of the call led Iglesias to believe he was being pressured to
    indict the courthouse case before the upcoming election.'' As a result
    of his actions, Senator Pete Domenici was admonished by the Senate
    Ethics Committee.
        The House Ethics Manual in effect at the time provided that a
    request for background information or a status report ``may in effect
    be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of
    the proceedings,'' and it further states that the best way to
    communicate is in writing and make it part of the proceedings.
        In your testimony before the Committee, you stated that you called
    Mr. Iglesias because ``an individual or constituent with knowledge of
    ongoing investigations told me that the U.S. attorney was intentionally
    delaying corruption prosecutions and I felt as though I had to address
    that allegation in some appropriate way.''
        Who suggested that you call you call Mr. Iglesias?
        Dr. Wilson. No one.
        HW Note: There was no connection between my opponent and ``the
    courthouse'' cases. Our campaign advertisements in July, August and
    September 2006 concerned a case involving my opponent's failure to
    prosecute State Treasurer Vigil and large campaign contributions my
    opponent received from entities and individuals with business pending
    in her office. The federal Vigil trial ended on September 30, 2006.
    From on or about October 4, 2006 through the election, the subjects of
    our advertising related to my opponent were on national security
    matters, her handling of a child abuse case, and her competence. We had
    no information connecting my opponent to ``the courthouse cases'' and I
    am aware of no information that has ever connected her to those cases.

        50. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, did you discuss your call with Mr.
    Iglesias with anyone before or after you made the call?
        Dr. Wilson. No, not until after Mr. Iglesias made his public
    allegations in February or March 2007.

        51. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, during our meeting prior to your
    confirmation hearing, you explicitly stated that you did not talk
    directly to any Member of the New Mexico delegation, including Senator
    Domenici, about this matter. Did you have any contact with Senator
    Domenici's staff about this matter?
        Dr. Wilson. I did not have any contact with Senator Domenici or his
    staff about the allegation communicated to me or my telephone call to
    Mr. Iglesias until after Mr. Iglesias made his public allegations in
    late February or early March 2007. I was also not aware that Senator
    Domenici had contacted Mr. Iglesias in October 2006 until after Mr.
    Iglesias made his public allegations in February or early March 2007.

        52. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, during your confirmation hearing
    before the Committee you agreed to cooperate with this Committee in
    response to congressional requests. If you refuse to answer these
    questions, what legal provision gives you the privileged right to
    refuse to answer a question from the Committee regarding your
    suitability for confirmation?
        Dr. Wilson. This is an ethical question, not a question of
    privilege. As I said in my confirmation hearing, a constituent trusted
    me with information of concern to them. I did not betray them then, and
    I will not betray them now.

        53. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, do you truly believe it is
    ``appropriate'' to contact a U.S. attorney in this manner which is
    clearly contrary to the ethics rules that govern the conduct of Members
    of the House of Representatives?
        Dr. Wilson. It was not contrary to the ethics rules. In fact, the
    Ethics Committee, under the Chairmanship of Congresswoman Stephanie
    Tubbs Jones (D-OH) did a preliminary review including interviewing Mr.
    Iglesias and decided not to initiate an investigation of this matter.

        54. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, why didn't you communicate in writing
    in accordance with the House Ethics Rules?
        Dr. Wilson. My actions were in accordance with the House rules. My
    inquiry was not a status report or request for information about any
    particular case or person. This matter was reviewed by the House Ethics
    Committee under the Chairmanship of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones
    (D-OH) after Mr. Iglesias made public accusations. The committee
    interviewed Mr. Iglesias and decided not to initiate an investigation
    of this matter.

        55. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, claiming a sitting U.S. attorney is
    ``intentionally delaying corruption prosecutions'' is a serious
    allegation. If you believed the allegation had merit, why didn't you
    raise your concerns through proper channels to ensure the allegation
    would be investigated officially?
        Dr. Wilson. There are a variety of ways to appropriately address an
    allegation of impropriety. In this circumstance, I had been informed of
    the perception of one person, but nothing more. The allegation was
    deeply troubling to me, but not substantiated by any further
    information or corroboration, and people can have different perceptions
    of the same set of facts.
        One appropriate way to address an allegation of this kind is to
    confront the individual involved and ask them about it. That is the
    course I chose. Mr. Iglesias denied delaying prosecutions. I told him
    that I would take him at his word, and I did.

        56. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, do you think you demonstrated the
    best judgement in this situation, and if so, please explain?
        Dr. Wilson. Acting ethically is important. While I felt strongly
    that I could not ignore the allegation, and potentially tolerate the
    behavior if the allegation was true, I also was aware that it was a
    perception of a single individual.
        The matter had to be resolved. I did so in a way that was entirely
    appropriate.
                           responsiveness to congress
        57. Senator Reed. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed as Secretary of the Air
    Force, do you agree to respond in a timely manner to letters and
    inquiries from individual Senators and Representatives?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                three-dimensional expeditionary long-range radar
        58. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Wilson, in October 2009, the Air Force
    initiated a competition to design a replacement for its antiquated
    surveillance radar, which has been in service since 1968. The new
    Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar (3DELRR) will become
    the principal Air Force long-range, ground-based sensor for detecting,
    identifying, tracking and reporting aircraft and missiles in real-time
    under a wide variety of conditions. The program's initial Request for
    Proposal (RFP) for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)
    phase and Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) was issued in November
    2013, and its first major contract was awarded in October 2014. The
    award set off a 2-year long series of protests and legal challenges by
    competing applicants. As you may be aware, the Government is
    considering auctioning off radio frequency spectrum in the 1300-1350
    MHz sub-band. Of concern, one of the competitors for the contract award
    is offering a solution in the radio frequency that potentially will be
    sold and no longer available to the Government.
        As Secretary of the Air Force you will be responsible for making
    important acquisition decisions and a steward of taxpayer dollars. If
    confirmed, will you commit to review the Government's potential sale of
    radio frequency spectrum that will directly impact the 3DELLR program
    and render one of the offered solutions inoperable--costing the
    taxpayer to reengineer the radar?
        Dr. Wilson. Sale of radio frequencies is outside the direct
    authority of the Air Force. During my time serving on the House
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications I was aware of the pressure on the
    military to give up spectrum for commercial purposes. I am not aware of
    whether a final decision has been made on auctioning this spectrum.
        If confirmed, I would be willing to work with you on this specific
    issue to see if a resolution can be found.
                               energy efficiency
        59. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Wilson, earlier this year, the Air Force
    introduced a new Energy Flight Plan identifying a long-term vision to
    enhance mission assurance through energy assurance. The Air Force is
    also pursuing projects to provide cost-effective, cleaner energy
    solutions to ensure continuous operations in spite of potential energy
    supply interruptions. What challenges do you see in continuing to
    advance these energy efficiency initiatives across the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. I primarily see opportunity. Congress has provided a
    tool box including enhanced use leases, power purchase agreements,
    performance contracts and more that allows the Air Force to leverage
    third-party financing for power production, energy efficiency and
    resiliency. In some cases, appropriations will be required for things
    like microgrids.

        60. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, will you commit to
    pursuing cost savings through energy efficiency and alternative
    resources?
        Dr. Wilson. Mission assurance and reduced operating cost are
    driving the Air Force's energy efforts. In many cases, efficiency and
    alternative energy sources can both contribute to mission assurance and
    provide cost savings. If confirmed, I will be interested in research
    and development that reduces energy and water demand at forward
    locations to reduce the cost of supply and free up airlift resources
    for other missions.
     small business innovation research/small business technology transfer
        61. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Wilson, the Small Business Innovation
    Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR) programs invest
    a small percentage of research and development funding at DOD and other
    agencies into small businesses that are working on innovative solutions
    to our national security challenges. There is strong bipartisan support
    for these public-private partnerships because they work and provide a
    good return on the investment. One of the most well-known SBIR success
    stories is the development of Lasik Eye Surgery. Originally developed
    for Air Force pilots, today millions have taken advantage of this
    technology.
        The SBIR and STTR programs also help diversify our industrial base,
    attracting new suppliers--a third of participants in SBIR each year are
    new companies. Last year, Congress reauthorized the SBIR and STTR for 5
    years as part of the Defense Authorization bill.
        What role do the SBIR and STTR programs play in meeting the DOD
    mission?
        Dr. Wilson. The SBIR and STTR programs provide innovative
    technology solutions for the Air Force and meet the needs of the
    warfighter. I am familiar with the programs and I will support them, if
    confirmed.
        62. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Wilson, what recommendations do you have
    to improve the acquisition process to support small businesses working
    on innovative technologies?
        Dr. Wilson. Too many companies will not supply the Defense
    Department or other federal agencies because it is too hard to do
    business with the government. With private sector research and
    development exceeding that done in the military, we have to be able to
    buy capabilities developed in the commercial sector. If confirmed, I
    will work with the Air Force Acquisition Office to identify more and
    better ways to buy commercial products and services that are a good
    value for the Air Force.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
                                     cyber
        63. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, I view the National Guard as
    uniquely positioned to train cyber warriors capable of responding to
    needs at the state and federal levels. In New York and many other
    States, skilled private sector technology employees could bolster our
    capabilities to prevent and react to cyber threats. What role do you
    see for the National Guard in countering cyber aggression and
    responding in the event of a mass cyber-attack?
        Dr. Wilson. As I mentioned in my testimony before the committee, I
    think it makes sense to explore whether the Air Force should rely more
    heavily on National Guard units for cyber capability so that the Air
    Force could leverage talent from the private sector and the private
    sector could benefit from Air Force training. The National Guard's
    ability to operate in either state or federal status could also be
    beneficial, depending on the nature of a crisis.
        The Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act allows and
    encourages the services to experiment with direct commissioning
    programs. Cyber may be an area where we should try something new.

        64. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, I believe the success of U.S.
    Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and DOD's cyber initiatives will be determined
    by our ability to attract and retain the highest caliber individuals to
    join the ranks of our cyber warriors. How will you lead the Air Force
    in recruiting, training, and retaining the best cyber warriors?
        Dr. Wilson. Computer scientists and computer information
    technologists are in very high demand; we will not be able to compete
    on salary alone.
        In this area, we may need to be very creative in our approaches to
    recruitment, retention and organization of the force. While the call to
    service and the opportunity to engage in activities that are prohibited
    outside of the military have appeal, we may need to do more. If
    confirmed, I would be interested in reviewing the recruitment model the
    Navy uses for nuclear engineers, which I have watched be very
    successful on my university campus at a relatively low cost compared to
    ROTC. As mentioned above, we may need to review the mix of Active,
    Reserve and Guard Forces, and I'm interested in tasking the Air Force
    to look at the possibility of direct commissioning.

                               combat integration
        65. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, I am closely following the
    efforts of all the Services to integrate women into combat rules. The
    Air Force was in a unique position, as most positions were already open
    to women when Secretary Carter ordered the Services to open all
    positions to women. Yet, I understand that the Air Force has identified
    outreach about career opportunities as a challenge in the process. What
    can the Air Force do to improve outreach and education about the
    positions that are now open to women?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will ensure our outreach, recruiting
    and marketing efforts are reviewed and kept up to date.
        Women have been flying in the Air Force since 1976 and virtually
    all pilot positions were opened to women in 1991 when the Congress
    repealed the 1948 law that prohibited women from flying in combat. With
    the exception of very few positions, the Air Force has been fully
    integrated for over 25 years.
        Unlike the Army and the Marine Corps, which opened a very large
    number of direct combat positions, the final few career fields in the
    Air Force that opened to women in 2016 have very small numbers of
    people assigned to them and are very exclusive. The right recruiting
    approach may be more personalized and targeted.

        66. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, what other challenges do you
    think might be impacting the rates of women entering and completing
    pipeline training in these careers fields and how might you address
    these challenges?
        Dr. Wilson. With respect to positions newly open to women in the
    Air Force, the most significant difference is likely physical strength,
    particularly upper body strength. Combat rescue and pararescue career
    fields are physically demanding and the standards are high--as they
    should be.
        The career field is small to begin with; a smaller percentage of
    women than men are likely to be qualified for consideration; and women
    are a smaller percentage of the force. As a result, and as expected
    when the Defense Department made the decision to open these fields to
    women, there will be a disparity in participation.
        It has been a long time since I participated in Air Force physical
    training and intercollegiate sports, but I have been made aware of
    significant advancements in sports medicine and data driven injury
    prevention through my participation as a university president in the
    NCAA and college sports. The science of strength and conditioning has
    advanced significantly and there are some differences between men and
    women in injury prevention and physical training of which the Air Force
    may already be aware.
        The important point to me is that these positions are open to
    qualified women and that the Air Force may use the talents and
    abilities of every airman to defend the nation.

                                military justice
        67. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, I am sure you are as appalled
    as I am by the recent reports of cyber stalking, harassment, and
    exploitation of female servicemembers by fellow male servicemembers. I
    understand that the Air Force has formed a task force to address the
    issue. What do you plan to do to ensure this scourge is eradicated from
    the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will ensure the Air Force has policy,
    legal authority and training to prevent and to respond to abuses. I
    will expect leaders at all levels to reinforce the expectation that
    everyone is to be treated with dignity and respect.

        68. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, the 2016 Sexual Assault Gender
    Survey found that almost half of female Air Force cadets experienced
    sexual harassment. Military research has consistently identified a
    strong positive correlation between the occurrence of sexual harassment
    in a military unit and the occurrence of sexual assault within the
    unit. What can we do to ensure all Air Force cadets are free from
    sexual harassment?
        Dr. Wilson. While I experienced what I believed to be
    discrimination based on gender when I was a cadet, I did not personally
    know anyone who was sexually harassed or assaulted in the 4 years I
    spent at the Air Force Academy. In some ways, perhaps, because having
    women at the Academy was so new and the scrutiny so intense, we may
    have been protected from some of the corrosive cultural phenomenon that
    may have arisen in later years.
        Focusing on leadership excellence at the squadron level is intended
    to positively influence the culture and climate in the Air Force,
    including the Air Force Academy.

        69. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, have you spoken with the
    prospective commandant of cadets about this issue? If so, what is the
    plan to combat this issue at the academy?
        Dr. Wilson. No.
                                 national guard
        70. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, as you know, the Arctic is
    becoming more and more important to our national security policy. New
    York is home to the only ski-equipped C-130s in the world. These LC-130
    ``skibirds'' perform vital missions on behalf of the National Science
    Foundation in Antarctica, as well as training in Greenland. They have
    also been part of joint training missions with Canada. However, these
    planes are aging, and are in need of modernization in order to continue
    their amazing work. What role do you see the Air Force playing in
    Arctic operations?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force plays and will continue to play a
    significant role in Arctic operations. The Northern Air Bridge,
    exceptional Artic training areas, strategically important natural
    resources and the build-up of Russian forces in the Artic are all
    factors that draw our attention. I am currently unfamiliar with the LC-
    130 and its missions, and, hence, uncertain about how renewed focus on
    the Artic might impact the unit.

        71. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, do I have your commitment to
    include funding for modernization of these vital aircraft in the
    upcoming budget?
        Dr. Wilson. I can't commit to modernization of these specific
    aircraft at this time as decisions about the budget have not been made
    and I have not been privy to individual items and the trade-offs within
    it.
        It is my understanding that the Air Force has a modernization plan
    for the C-130H aircraft, that would, I believe, include the LC-130s.

        72. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, I was so pleased that the 914th
    at Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station was chosen to convert to a KC-135
    mission. I was there last year and was pleased with the progress. The
    one thing we need now is a KC-135 flight simulator, to serve both the
    914th and other units. We currently have an empty building on the base,
    built to hold a C-130 simulator, making the basing of one that much
    easier for the Air Force. If confirmed, do I have your commitment to
    work with me on basing a simulator at Niagara Falls?
        Dr. Wilson. I appreciate your concern for training for our airman.
    I understand that Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station is in consideration
    for a KC-135 simulator. Air Mobility Command will work with Guard units
    and Guard headquarters as it relocates our KC-135 simulators to meet
    demand. While it would be great to have a simulator at every base with
    KC-135 aircraft, that may not make sense if the simulator isn't used
    sufficiently to justify the cost. If confirmed, it is my view that a
    regional approach is likely the right way to go to meet the training
    needs of the tanker force, and I believe that is the plan being pursued
    by Air Mobility Command.

        73. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, as you know, the Air Force
    remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operators contribute critical
    capabilities to our national defense. In New York, we have two Air
    Guard units actively engaged in the intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) mission--the 107th in Niagara Falls, and the 174th
    in Syracuse, which is also one of the only training units for MQ-9s. I
    am concerned about the Air Force's challenge in recruiting, training,
    and retaining our talented uniformed RPA workforce. What can lawmakers
    do to assist the Air Force in keeping up with the considerable
    operational demand generated by the need for RPA capabilities?
        Dr. Wilson. I understand that the Air Force is finalizing two new
    Active-Associate squadrons for MQ-9 operations, one of which will be
    located in Syracuse with the 174th. I also understand that
    Congressional support for getting to a normal pace of operations for
    remotely piloted aircraft would help increase pilot retention. If we
    have a year-long continuing resolution rather than a budget for fiscal
    year 2017, I would expect the pilot retention problem will worsen.

        74. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, last year's National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) included a provision to shift a significant
    portion of the MQ-9 pilots to enlisted airmen. I worked with the
    Committee to clarify that this might not work for the National Guard,
    which cannot simply move pilots to different jobs, and I hope that the
    Air Force is interpreting the legislation with that understanding. Do I
    have your commitment to look at whether the National Guard may be
    treated differently in this transition?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        75. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, as you know, the 106th Air
    Rescue Wing in Gabreski flies the Combat Rescue Helicopter. I am deeply
    concerned by the Air Force's decision to modernize the Active
    component's helicopters first, and not start on the Air Guard's
    aircraft until the last 3 years of the project. Our airmen regularly go
    out on rescue missions, and they should not be forced to use the oldest
    helicopters for years to come--this goes against the Air Force's usual
    focus on concurrent and proportional fielding, and I will continue to
    push back against it. What are your thoughts on modernization of the
    combat rescue helicopter fleet? Will we have your support?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will receive more information on Air
    Force plans for delivering the Combat Rescue Helicopter.

        76. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, as you know, there have been
    concerns raised by the National Guard over the role and staffing of
    title 32 military technician positions. These positions have different
    benefits afforded to them compared to their Active Guard Reserve (AGR)
    counterparts, which is part of the reason the airlines are so
    successful at hiring away our pilots. Do I have your commitment to work
    with me on addressing the concerns of our TAGs [The Adjutant General]
    and military technicians?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                                  lgbt rights
        77. Senator Gillibrand. Dr. Wilson, during the hearing, I asked you
    a question about your views on LGBT [Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and
    Transgendered] individuals and you responded that it is not your
    intention to change any of the policies in place with regard to sexual
    orientation. Will you also support retention of existing inclusive
    policies for transgender troops?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I have no intent to alter any policies
    established by my predecessors concerning transgender troops. I am
    aware that the Office of the Secretary of Defense is monitoring the
    implementation of this DOD policy.
                                   __________
               Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
                               diversity of force
        78. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, will you respect and uphold
    recent DOD efforts already in place that strengthen and diversify our
    force--including combat integration, the repeal of Don't Ask Don't
    Tell, and permitting transgender servicemembers to serve openly?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I have no intention of changing the
    policies in place and will treat all servicemembers with dignity and
    respect.

        79. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, will you commit to equally
    protecting and upholding the rights of all members of the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                                      f-35
        80. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, I would ask that you look for
    ways to invest in F-35 capacity, capability, and production ramp to
    reach full rate production (80 aircraft per year) by 2021. If
    confirmed, will you commit to this committee that the Air Force will
    not back down from their planned procurement of this 5th generation
    aircraft?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will fully support the review of the F-
    35 program as directed by Secretary Mattis so that the Air Force has
    the capability it needs to protect our vital national interests against
    threats now and in the future.

        81. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, from an acquisition standpoint,
    the F-35 international partners and foreign military sales countries
    have played a critical role in both the development and production of
    the F-35 program. It is my understanding that the international
    investment in the program has allowed the United States to reduce its
    cost per jet by more than $10 million per aircraft in addition to the
    benefits of interoperability and nation building that this program has
    and will continue to play for decades to come. How will you continue to
    build these relationships with our international partners and foreign
    military sales countries to enhance the role they play in this program?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will guide the Air Force to continue to
    engage partners and foreign military sales customers to ensure
    interoperability is maintained with our allies and keep costs down.

        82. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, do you support an expansion of
    this program?
        Dr. Wilson. I support working closely with our allies where it
    enhances collective self-defense and keeps costs down. If there are
    ways to expand that effort, I am open to them.

        83. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, how does this align with the
    current administration's focus on turning inward rather than building
    relationships with our allies and partner nations?
        Dr. Wilson. America is stronger when we align ourselves with allies
    who share our interests and values. If confirmed, I will support
    Defense Department policy in this area.
                                huey replacement
        84. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, do you agree that to protect
    our national security, the UH-1N helicopters need to be replaced as
    soon as possible?
        Dr. Wilson. I understand that the Air Force is proceeding with a
    full and open competition to replace the UH-1N helicopters. If
    confirmed, I will work with the Chief of Staff to ensure that the
    requirements are validated and stable so that the UH-1N replacement is
    delivered on time and within budget.

        85. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, will you commit to prioritizing
    this acquisition program is moved forward as soon as possible, if
    confirmed?
        Dr. Wilson. I will seek to guide this program forward as authorized
    by the Congress, getting the capability needed within schedule and
    budget. If the fiscal year 2017 budget becomes a year-long continuing
    resolution 7 months into the year, this and other programs may be
    affected.

        86. Senator Blumenthal. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, will you fully
    review all procurement options to meet the mission set, including
    production ready, mature aircraft, as the Air Force requested last
    year?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will ensure the Air Force remains
    committed to delivering a UH-1N replacement with needed capabilities on
    schedule and within budget.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Donnelly
                     department of defense weather mission
        87. Senator Donnelly. Dr. Wilson, as you know, military and
    intelligence operations depend upon accurate and timely weather data
    for their success. In addition to the projected near-term gap in polar
    weather data as the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program comes to
    an end, the Department of Defense also lacks a long-term solution to
    the need for persistent weather coverage over the Indian Ocean and the
    U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations. I understand the Air
    Force may include funding in the fiscal year 2018 budget request to
    address this imminent gap by moving an aging Geostationary Operational
    Environment Satellite (GOES), such as GOES 14, to the Indian Ocean.
    GOES 14 was launched in 2009 and is approaching the end of its expected
    service life. The Air Force must allocate resources toward a U.S.-
    owned, long-term solution to our need for weather imagery to support
    CENTCOM operations. It is my understanding that this need can be met
    without a large, expensive satellite, but rather through more flexible
    approaches like launching an appropriate instrument as a hosted
    payload. I do believe it is critical that this sensor capability is
    provided by a U.S.-controlled asset. Will you commit to ensuring
    adequate funding in the fiscal year 2018 budget request for defense
    weather capabilities, if confirmed--including funds to begin building a
    weather imager?
        Dr. Wilson. Weather is a critical capability. I understand that the
    Air Force has examined a host of innovative short term options as well
    as multiple options to meet the longer term need. If confirmed, I will
    ensure that the Air Force examines all options available to meet the
    need in the short term and the long term.

                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
                              focus on the pacific
        88. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, a strong presence in the Asia-
    Pacific plays a significant role in promoting the security and
    stability of the region. As an area of strategic importance to the
    United States, how is the Air Force positioned to meet its requirements
    in the region?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force has continuous presence with assigned
    forces in South Korea, Japan, Guam, Alaska, Hawaii, and other
    locations. The Air Force also sends units forward and makes its
    presence known routinely throughout the theater.

        89. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, what if any additional resources
    would you recommend for the Air Force in the region?
        Dr. Wilson. None at this time. The ability to deploy Air Forces on
    short notice demonstrates resolve in support of our regional allies and
    partners.
                               civilian workforce
        90. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, how do you view the role of the
    civilian workforce in terms of achieving improved Air Force readiness
    and force structure growth?
        Dr. Wilson. Air Force civilians are serving in many critical areas
    that directly contribute to readiness. From maintainers and depot
    workers who keep the aging fleets mission ready, to highly-valued
    child-care workers providing peace of mind for Airmen so they can focus
    on the mission at hand. As such, the Air Force relies heavily on its
    civilian employees when it comes to improving readiness.

        91. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, do you believe that the civilian
    workforce is a critical force multiplier when it comes to the Air
    Force's capability, capacity, and lethality and accomplishing its
    mission objectives?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        92. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, do you agree with the President
    that the Federal civilian workforce, to include the Department of Air
    Force, needs to be reduced across the board?
        Dr. Wilson. We need to use every dollar taxpayers give us to get
    the most lethal force possible. The Air Force should always be
    reviewing mission requirements to ensure that we have the right people
    with the right skills to accomplish the mission.

        93. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, do you believe attrition based
    workforce shaping, replacing every three departing employees with one
    new one, is an effective means to manage a workforce?
        Dr. Wilson. I believe the Air Force should retain the flexibility
    to propose in our budget request the numbers of people and the talent
    needed to ensure mission success.

        94. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, what will you do to
    control contracted services costs and make sure that we do not
    needlessly or carelessly spend taxpayer dollars on contracted labor
    because of hiring freezes or reductions to civilian employees?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, the Air Force will continue to comply
    with the President's guidance that contractors will not be used to
    circumvent the hiring freeze.

                        attracting future skilled airmen
        95. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, this committee has received
    testimony from all of the Services on the need to modernize and adjust
    the overall military posture to combat emerging threats like China and
    Russia with advancing technologies in addition to rogue nations and
    terrorist threats. If confirmed, what modifications, if any, would you
    recommend in the recruiting and retention of uniformed and civilian
    personnel to attract new technical skillsets?
        Dr. Wilson. I understand that the Air Force is meeting its
    recruiting targets and that the biggest challenge is retention. I am
    interested in how the Air Force might use new authorities given to us
    by the Congress for direct commissioning programs for highly technical
    fields like cyber. I'm also interested over the long term in how we
    might meet needs and retain talent with technically oriented positions
    and units in the Guard and Reserve.
                                   diversity
        96. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, recently, 33 retired general and
    flag officers released a statement saying: ``More than half a century
    of history and research has made clear that an inclusive military that
    prioritizes talent and ability over social judgment and personal
    prejudice is an essential ingredient of an effective fighting force.
    This is especially true in a diverse Nation like ours, which molds
    millions of individuals from countless different backgrounds into a
    unified whole capable of defending our nation and its interests.'' Do
    you agree that our military should be inclusive and that servicemembers
    should be judged on the basis of individual merit?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        97. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, former Secretary of the Air Force
    Deborah Lee James said, ``I feel anyone who's qualified should be able
    to serve'' in the Air Force. Do you agree?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        98. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, do you support the existing DOD
    policies, directives, and implementation guidelines regarding open
    service by LGBT troops? If so, will you fully embrace them as the
    senior leader of the Air Force setting the example for those you lead?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I do not intend to change the policies
    currently in place in the military. I will treat all servicemembers
    with dignity and respect.

        99. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, do you agree with Secretary Mattis'
    affirmation before this Committee that women and LGBT troops are part
    of our lethal fighting force?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                               energy resilience
        100. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, military commanders and
    strategists have long discussed the role energy consumption plays in
    national defense. How would you recommend the military utilize
    operational energy improvements in conjunction with other force shaping
    tools?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I would continue to support a range of
    energy initiatives, particularly related to reducing the logistical
    burdens of energy supply at forward locations through advanced research
    and development.

        101. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, over the last several years, the
    Air Force has taken important steps to address its energy security. In
    February 2016, the Air Force established the Office of Energy Assurance
    which is tasked with taking an enterprise-wide approach to energy
    projects that provide resilient, cost-effective, and cleaner energy to
    Air Force installations around the country. The Air Force is now
    operating a 19-megawatt solar array in Nevada and a 16.5-megawatt solar
    array in New Jersey. In January 2017, the Air Force issued a new Energy
    Flight Plan which is the Air Force's long-term vision for enhancing
    mission assurance through improved energy resilience. If confirmed,
    will you commit to the committee to maintain the effort already
    underway by the Air Force to enhance its energy resilience posture?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will continue to support Air Force
    efforts to develop resilient energy systems that allow it to continue
    to perform its missions in the face of increased cyber, physical and
    natural threats to bases, installations, and the nation's electric
    infrastructure that powers these bases and installations.

        102. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, the use of energy savings
    performance contracts (ESPC) by the Air Force present an opportunity to
    partner with energy service companies to reduce the Air Forces' energy
    bills with improvements guaranteed by the companies. This can lead to
    saving taxpayer money. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Air Force
    continues to pursue, where appropriate, ESPCs that prevent the
    Government cost savings while improving energy efficiency for Air Force
    installations?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        103. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, emergency power generation systems
    used by military installations can often be unreliable and have high
    operation and maintenance costs. The NDAA directed the Secretary of
    Defense to develop a comprehensive plan to improve emergency power
    generation readiness while expanding fuel flexibility and reducing
    maintenance costs. If confirmed, will you commit to working with the
    Committee to ensure emergency power generation systems maintained at
    Air Force installations are reliable and operated in a cost effective
    way?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will continue the Air Force's focus on
    mission assurance through energy assurance to develop resilient, cost-
    effective back-up systems of all types.
                              space and technology
        104. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, the Maui Space Surveillance Site
    is an invaluable asset for this Nation where Air Force space
    professionals have for decades provided vital information for our space
    and national security establishments. With the rise in the importance
    of space, it will undoubtedly become more valuable. If confirmed, will
    you do what you can to visit the site to see the outstanding
    capabilities and to recognize the great uniform and civilian team
    charged with the operations?
        Dr. Wilson. As much as I would love to visit the site, it will be
    difficult to get to for reasons you well understand--primarily time and
    distance. If possible, I will come to Maui, but it is more likely that
    I will have an opportunity at some point to visit operations on Oahu.

        105. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, we are seeing a rapid growth in
    the space in both the commercial and government sector. What is your
    perspective on how the Air Force can leverage the growth of the
    commercial sector in space?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I look forward to my responsibilities as
    principal DOD space advisor and chairing the Defense Space Council. The
    Air Force is responsible for over 90 percent of the Defense
    Department's space assets in orbit and the nation is heavily dependent
    on space capabilities for navigation, communication, command and
    control, intelligence, and precision targeting.
        With respect to launch services, I believe competition can result
    in cost savings for the government. At the same time, commercial launch
    providers may not be able to meet launch requirements for national
    security space payloads as those requirements are currently crafted.
        I also believe that it is very difficult for commercial launch
    providers to supply government customers at competitive prices because
    of the constraints imposed by federal acquisition rules. If these rules
    are the best way to serve the Air Force and the taxpayer well over the
    long term, their use is justifiable. But if our processes and
    regulations are impeding the accomplishment of the mission, we should
    review our processes and improve them.
        If confirmed, I will be interested to learn more about how the Air
    Force is currently considering commercial space capabilities, beyond
    just launch, as it develops America's space strategy.

        106. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, how can space be leveraged to
    support of the Air Force's needs for improved resiliency and
    responsiveness?
        Dr. Wilson. The Air Force provides space-based capabilities to
    civilians and warfighters including navigation, communication, command
    and control, intelligence, weather, and precision targeting.
        In any future conflict, space will be a contested domain and we
    need to think of air, near-space and space as a continuum that the
    United States must protect through all phases of potential conflict.
    Thinking in this way is likely to make our systems more resilient and
    robust.
                           post government employment
        107. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, after leaving the House of
    Representatives, you signed contracts to consult for Los Alamos
    National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Oak Ridge National
    Laboratory, and the Nevada National Security Site. What was in the
    statement of work for these contracts and how was progress measured to
    authorize payments?
        Dr. Wilson. I no longer have copies of the statements of work.
        At Oak Ridge National Laboratory I served on the Intelligence
    Advisory Board of about 20 people. This board would meet about 4 times
    a year to receive briefings, ask questions and provide advice at the
    Top Secret/Special Compartmented Information level on intelligence
    related programs. The meetings were generally a day long and each
    Advisory board member was paid a flat fee for attending. The Vice
    President responsible for Global Security was always present and
    authorized payment.
        At the Nevada Test Site I served on the Presidential Advisory Board
    of about 10 people. The Board met 4 times a year for a day, or a day
    and a half. The agenda was set by the President of the Test Site and
    included discussions of major challenges or problems, review of
    programs, presentations and discussions of programs underway at the
    test site. Discussions were usually at the Top Secret level. On one
    occasion, I was also asked to come to the test site a day early to
    review several special access programs. The President and his assistant
    were in the room and authorized payment.
        At Los Alamos, I primarily reviewed and advised programs under the
    Vice President for Global Security and the Field Intelligence Element,
    in addition to the President and some other program offices related to
    nuclear materials. I met quarterly with the President of the Laboratory
    to discuss matters including stockpile certification, nuclear weapons
    policy and any other matters of interest to the President.
        At Sandia, I served on the Intelligence Advisory Board and the Non-
    Proliferation Advisory Board. I also did extensive work with the
    division responsible for intelligence and non-nuclear defense programs,
    including cyber security, space assets and special access programs. I
    assisted with strategic planning, program reviews and assisted the
    laboratory with the reestablishment of their distinguished speakers'
    series. I was available to provide insight on matters related to
    pending legislation, advice on national security policy matters or
    congressional operations. I was available to all Vice Presidents as
    well as the President of the laboratory and program managers who sought
    my advice or assistance. I was in frequent contact with the Sandia
    contract manager about the work that I was doing, often multiple times
    a week. The contract manager monitored progress and satisfaction with
    the work being done.

        108. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, reflecting back on the issues
    which came out of your post-House of Representatives consulting
    contracts with Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge and the Nevada National
    Security Site, given what you know now, presented with the same
    opportunities again, would you do anything differently in terms of your
    work with the four entities before, during and after the period of
    performance of the contracts? If yes, please describe what you would
    change.
        Dr. Wilson. The work I did was viewed positively by the labs and I
    am glad I made contributions to national security that mattered.
                        potential conflicts of interest
        109. Senator Hirono. Dr. Wilson, President Trump recently issued an
    executive order barring his appointees from working on matters related
    to former employers or clients for 2 years. What, if any, impact will
    this executive order have on your work as Secretary of the Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. In accordance with the ethics letter I submitted, I
    will recuse myself from matters related to the South Dakota School of
    Mines and Raven Industries as well as a number of non-profit entities
    for the time periods specified in the letter. I don't expect this
    executive order will impact my work as Secretary of the Air Force.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
                       research, development and testing
        110. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, the recent emphasis by the
    military on readiness has come at the expense of research and
    development (R&D), which is critical to our continued and future
    readiness.
        For example, the Department has significantly reduced R&D dedicated
    to space systems, dropping from $5 billion to less than $1 billion over
    the past 6 years (fiscal years 2009 to 2016). How will you prioritize
    R&D in the Air Force, and will you grant Air Force Research Labs with
    the authorities to hire, take risks, and modernize its facilities?
        Dr. Wilson. As I mentioned in my testimony before the committee,
    the Secretary and the relevant committees of the Congress, have a
    particular responsibility to take the long view. If confirmed, I will
    review and further develop Air Force research and development
    priorities to ensure we are investing in basic and applied research
    that will keep the Air Force ahead of adversaries for the long term.
                               speed of contracts
        111. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, one of the frustrations I hear
    from both businesses and Air Force units is the amount of time it takes
    to get through the contracting process to an award. Yet, it is more
    important than ever that the Air Force respond quickly to ever-changing
    threat environments. As Secretary, how can we further accelerate
    contracting authority, particularly as it applies to space systems?
        Dr. Wilson. I share your concern. Too many companies will not
    supply the Defense Department or other Federal agencies because it is
    too hard to do business with the government, and we have to get
    capabilities from the drawing board to the flight line faster.
        If confirmed, I will work with the Air Force Acquisition Office to
    identify more and better ways to buy products and services that are a
    good value for the Air Force in a way that is simple for Air Force
    units and the businesses that want to cost-effectively support the
    military.

        112. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, will you encourage the
    utilization of contracting authorities that make it easier to leverage
    commercial-off-the-shelf technologies (COTS) and industry talent?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                               space acquisition
        113. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, Air Force Space Command's
    General Hyten set forth the Space Enterprise Vision last year, which
    called for a more responsive and resilient approach to space. Industry
    has made great strides in technologies that may address these
    challenges, including small satellites and inexpensive launch vehicles.
    How will the Air Force make the most of existing industry investments
    in the small satellite market?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will chair the Defense Space Council
    and deepen Air Force partnerships with industry to find innovative ways
    to leverage commercial capability in ways that make sense for the
    military.

        114. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, what role do you envision
    Operationally Responsive Space continuing to play in executing this
    vision?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I would expect the members of the Defense
    Space Council and Space Command to consider how the Operationally
    Responsive Space Office can best address the urgent needs of combatant
    commanders and what role it plays in the larger shift in thinking about
    space as a contested environment in any future conflict.
                       kirtland air force base fuel spill
        115. Senator Heinrich. Dr. Wilson, in 2015, I was able to join the
    Secretary of the Air Force to celebrate the installation of the first
    pump-and-treat well to address the fuel plume at Kirtland Air Force
    Base. As of this week, extraction wells have now pumped more than 159
    million gallons of groundwater for treatment by the new system, which
    removes all fuel-related contaminants from the water. Under your
    leadership, will the Air Force continue its financial commitment to
    completely protect and clean-up Albuquerque's water?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes. If confirmed, I will stand by the Air Force's
    commitment to ensure contaminated water does not reach drinking water
    wells, reduce and eliminate the contamination plume, and meet
    regulatory standards.
        I am also interested in whether we can learn things from Air Force
    remediation efforts at this and other sites that lead to new techniques
    and technologies to reduce the cost of water purification or improve
    clean-up of ground water contamination.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
                               civilian personnel
        116. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, how do you view the role of the
    civilian workforce in terms of achieving improved Air Force readiness
    and force structure growth?
        Dr. Wilson. Air Force civilians are serving in many critical areas
    that directly contribute to readiness. As such, the Air Force relies
    heavily on its civilian employees, as it does every member of the team,
    when it comes to improving readiness.
        As I mentioned in my hearing, almost half of the Air Force are
    civilians. They are very important members of the team.

        117. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you agree with the President
    that the Federal civilian workforce, to include the Department of Air
    Force, needs to be reduced across the board?
        Dr. Wilson. We need to use every dollar taxpayers give us to get
    the most lethal force possible. The Air Force should always be
    reviewing mission requirements to ensure that we have the right people
    with the right skills in the right places to accomplish the mission.

        118. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you believe attrition based
    workforce shaping, replacing every three departing employees with one
    new one, is an effective means to manage your workforce?
        Dr. Wilson. I believe the Air Force should retain the flexibility
    to propose in our budget request the numbers of people and the talent
    needed to ensure mission success.

        119. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, what will you do to
    control contracted services costs and make sure that we do not
    needlessly or carelessly spend taxpayer dollars on contracted labor
    because of freezes or reductions to civilian employees?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, the Air Force will continue to comply
    with the President's guidance that contractors will not be used to
    circumvent the hiring freeze.
                             diversity of the force
        120. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you agree with Secretary Mattis
    that women and LGBT troops are equally valuable parts of our lethal
    fighting force?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        121. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you support the existing DOD
    policies, directives, and implementation guidelines regarding open
    service by LGBT troops?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        122. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if you decide to modify in any way
    the policies, directives, and guidelines regarding open service by LGBT
    troops, will you first provide members of the Committee with a written
    explanation as to how such a modification would enhance readiness,
    cohesion, and morale?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will to the extent that there are
    policies specific to the Air Force (rather than DOD).

        123. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you support the existing DOD
    policies, directives, and implementation guidelines regarding women in
    combat?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        124. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if you decide to modify in any way
    the policies, directives, and guidelines regarding women in combat,
    will you first provide members of the Committee with a written
    explanation as to how such a modification would enhance readiness,
    cohesion, and morale?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                               sexual harassment
        125. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed as Secretary of the
    Air Force, will you be committed to a zero-tolerance approach to
    harassment or similar behavior?
        Dr. Wilson. I support Air Force policy that proscribes sexual
    harassment in either of its recognized forms, encourages and supports
    reporting of sexual harassment, investigates allegations of sexual
    harassment fairly, takes appropriate action up to and including
    termination, and prohibits retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.
    I believe any violation of the policy merits a consequence.

        126. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed, what actions will
    you take to prevent something like Marines United from happening in the
    Air Force?
        Dr. Wilson. Specific to social media, I understand that the Air
    Force has testified that its social media policy does not tolerate
    bullying, hazing, or any instance where an Airman inflicts any form of
    physical or psychological abuse that degrades, insults, dehumanizes, or
    injures another airman regardless of the method of communication. The
    Air Force expects airmen to sustain a culture of trust, dignity and
    respect.
        I understand that the Air Force is currently reviewing its policy,
    practice, and legal authorities in this area. If confirmed, I will
    consider the analysis and recommendations that result from the Air
    Force review.
        If confirmed, I will ensure the Air Force has policy, legal
    authority and training to prevent and to respond to abuses. I will
    expect leaders at all levels to reinforce the expectation that everyone
    is to be treated with dignity and respect.
                      defense innovation unit experimental
        127. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, commercial technology is moving
    faster than ever before, and the defense acquisition system has
    struggled to keep up. The Defense Innovation Unit Experimental, or
    DIUx, has partnered with the Air Force on several rapid prototyping
    demonstrations. Do you believe that missions such as DIUx enable us to
    capture commercial innovation quicker and more efficiently?
        Dr. Wilson. I believe DIUx and other efforts like it can provide a
    means to quickly capture commercial technology and innovation. As I
    mentioned in my hearing, we also have to make sure that innovations can
    be integrated, operated, and sustained by capable young people in high
    stress combat situations far away from the innovators who developed the
    systems.
        I am also interested in how the lessons learned at DIUx can be
    incorporated more broadly in Air Force acquisition so that capabilities
    get from the drawing board to the flight line faster.

        128. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, if confirmed as Secretary of the
    Air Force, will you support DIUx?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.
                  nuclear command, control, and communication
        129. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, General John E. Hyten, USAF,
    Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, recently said that Nuclear Command,
    Control, and Communication (NC3) was his highest priority for nuclear
    recapitalization. He said that ``any delay, deferment, or cancellation
    of NC3 modernization will create a capability gap potentially degrading
    the President's ability to respond appropriately to a strategic
    threat.'' Do you agree?
        Dr. Wilson. While I have not been briefed recently on classified
    nuclear command, control and communications modernization efforts, I
    have no reason to question General Hyten's assessment.
        The greatest risk we face with this and other systems is budget
    uncertainty and the potential for a year-long continuing resolution 7
    months into the fiscal year. We have to get beyond the Budget Control
    Act and re-establish greater normalcy in budgeting and appropriations
    to avoid delay and deferment of important modernization programs.

        130. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, our track record at executing
    modernization programs without delay, deferment, or cancellation has
    not been great in recent years. How do you think the Air Force should
    mitigate risk to the NC3 system from delays or deferments to the
    program of record?
        Dr. Wilson. Clear and achievable requirements, reasonable
    timelines, empowered and accountable program managers, and predictable
    funding are keys to successful modernization programs.
                                  prior record
        131. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, after leaving Congress in 2009,
    you received contracts from four Department of Energy (DOE)-owned and
    contractor-operated research centers. Did you negotiate any of these
    contracts while you were still a Member of Congress?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        132. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, did you consult with the Ethics
    Committee about your ongoing negotiations and subsequent contracts?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes

        133. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, according to internal documents
    obtained from the DOE investigation into your contracts with these four
    laboratories, a Los Alamos National Laboratory official stated that you
    refused his request to provide an accounting of your time and work. Is
    this accurate, and if so, can you explain your decision not to do so?
        Dr. Wilson. No. I do not believe it is accurate.

        134. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, the DOE IG also found that the
    original agreement you signed ``specifically prohibited activity
    related to `business development.''' Did you know that the agreement
    you signed prohibited activity related to business development?
        Dr. Wilson. Yes.

        135. Senator Warren. Dr. Wilson, do you consider your efforts to
    obtain a no-bid contract extension for Sandia to be business
    development?
        Dr. Wilson. My advice to the Lockheed-Martin contract manager was
    what I thought Lockheed-Martin should do, not Sandia.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Gary C. Peters
                  cyber and remotely piloted aircraft training
        136. Senator Peters. Dr. Wilson, the 110th Attack Wing in Battle
    Creek has two critical missions that will be important to the Air Force
    for years to come: flying remotely piloted aircraft and a cyber
    operations squadron. It's important that these missions are resourced
    properly given the demand from combatant commanders and the competition
    from the private sector for airmen with these skills. If confirmed,
    will you commit to ensuring there are adequate training slots for
    Guardsmen to prepare for the RPA and cyber operations missions?
        Dr. Wilson. Based on what I know, I don't see a reason why this
    should be a problem. Both the remotely piloted aircraft and cyber
    missions are vital and appropriate missions for the Guard. Training is
    the key to readiness and mission success, and we are short of operators
    in both of these fields. They need to be trained.
                                 rpa resources
        137. Senator Peters. Dr. Wilson, the 110th Attack Wing has only one
    RPA console despite having space for two more. Given the demand for
    RPAs to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance as well
    as strike capability, it's important that this mission is fully
    resourced. Will you commit to reviewing resourcing of the RPA mission
    at places like the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base?
        Dr. Wilson. If confirmed, I will review this high-demand program to
    ensure we are using the resources we have to accomplish the missions
    expected of us cost effectively.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of the Honorable Heather A.
    Wilson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of the Honorable Heather A.
    Wilson, which was transmitted to the Committee at the time the
    nomination was referred, follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by the Honorable
    Heather A. Wilson in connection with her nomination follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the committee's executive files.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nomination of the Honorable Heather A. Wilson was
    reported to the Senate by Chairman McCain on April 5, 2017,
    with the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
    nomination was confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 2017.]

                                     [all]