The Senate Armed Services Committee recently held a hearing on former Congresswoman Heather Wilson’s nomination to be Air Force Secretary.

As is standard practice with this type of hearing several questions were asked and answered (well sort of) in writing before the hearing. Also not surprising was that several were of interest to taxpayers. Unfortunately, many of her answers suggest Ms. Wilson has little concern for how much money the Air Force will end up wasting. Given her former role as a consultant to major defense contractors, this too shouldn’t be a surprise.

She was asked about an email she sent to a major defense contractor client that advised the company to argue “competition is not in the best interest of the government.” Ms. Wilson’s written response: “In my opinion, it was unlikely that DOE would have saved money or improved lab performance through re-competition of the management of this federal facility at that time.” The next, blunter question was, “If confirmed, will you advocate for competition of Air Force contracts?” Ms. Wilson’s response? “Yes, if it’s in the best interests of the government.”

Hmm. Not much consideration there for either federal contract laws or for the taxpayers’ wallets. Competition routinely gets a better price for government.

When questioned about alternatives to the monstrously expensive F-35 fighter program, Ms. Wilson’s response started well by noting no soldiers or marines have been killed by enemy aircraft since the Korean War, illustrating the long-term superiority of U.S. combat aircraft. But, then the nominee doubled-down on the need for newer aircraft.

“While current aircraft like the F-16, and F-15 can be effective in lower threat environments, against well defended targets and new aircraft being developed and deployed by our adversaries, they are likely not good enough.”

That assessment can’t be terribly encouraging to the F-15 and F-16 pilots currently serving in the Air Force. But Ms. Wilson then pivoted from that gloomy assessment to a pitch for another, even more expensive fighter platform:

“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.”

Come again? Thought this questions was about the F-35!  The nominee would be well served to remember that F-22 acquisition costs spiraled so far out of control that Congress capped the total production costs, essentially telling the Air Force: get what you can, but taxpayers aren’t shelling out any more than a set amount. We cut our losses. But everything old is new again in this Administration, so expect another old chestnut of an idea to be re-roasted.

There was an attempt to peel back the veil of secrecy around the total value of the B-21 bomber contract. Chairman McCain (R-AZ) has ridiculed this position in the recent past and we couldn’t agree more. The Secretary-nominee was asked “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?” Ms. Wilson’s answer: “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.”

That is a non-answer. The Senate Armed Services Committee obviously has access to the classified information. The question was not whether she would keep the committee informed, but rather keep the public informed about the total cost of this likely very expensive acquisition. The question is: why are the costs being kept secret at all? This isn’t protecting the airmen who will eventually fly the B-21, and it isn’t protecting any of us as taxpayers. The only people helped by this secrecy is the contractor and Air Force leadership when the inevitable cost overruns begin like they have in virtually every major aircraft acquisition run by the Air Force in the last 30 years. We gave this position our Golden Fleece award.

Finally, a question on the potential for another round of base closure. For several years the Pentagon has asked for another base closure commission or “BRAC,“ documenting Army and Air Force significant excess infrastructure. But Congress’ approach to base closure isn’t about what’s right or efficient, it’s always about local politics. So we’re encouraged by a portion of Ms. Wilson’s reply, “I believe threat drives strategy, strategy drives force structure and force structure drives infrastructure needs.”

At TCS we couldn’t agree more. Here’s hoping that common sense takes hold in the Congress and that, if the Trump Administration proposes a future round of BRAC, the Congress will get out of the way and allow strategy and force structure to direct the size of the military’s physical infrastructure.