Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Dr. Heather A. Wilson to be the Secretary of the Air Force.

The Secretary of the Air Force is an important and influential position within our national security structure.  As the head of a Military Department, the Secretary of the Air Force oversees the recruiting, organizing, training, and equipping of the force.  The next Air Force Secretary will oversee the Defense Department’s most complex and costly acquisition programs in history.  The Secretary will also lead 495,000 active duty, guard and reserve members through the challenges of rebuilding long term sustainable readiness, while contending with ongoing operational demands around the globe. 

Dr. Wilson has the knowledge and expertise to serve as Secretary.  She is a graduate of the United States Air Force Academy and a Rhodes Scholar.  She served in the House of Representatives and on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  Currently, Dr. Wilson is the President of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. 

Without question, Dr. Wilson has notable credentials, however, I have significant concerns about certain past actions of Dr. Wilson.

First, Heather Wilson & Company, LLC, founded by Dr. Wilson following her tenure in Congress, had contracts with four National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) laboratories – Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the 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 Inspector General conducted two investigations into this matter.  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 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 their 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.  As such, during her confirmation hearing, I asked Dr. Wilson about these contracts and the allegations of impropriety.  Unfortunately, I did not receive a satisfactory response.  Dr. Wilson deflected any suggestion that she bore any responsibility for these contracting irregularities. 

As concerning as these allegations are, there was another incident which I found even more problematic as we reviewed Dr. Wilson’s qualifications to serve as the Secretary of the Air Force. 

In October 2006, while serving as a Member of the House of Representatives, Dr. Wilson contacted a sitting U.S. Attorney, David C. Iglesias, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, regarding the status of federal corruption cases in New Mexico.  This action was highly unusual and contrary to guidance in effect at the time from the House Ethics Committee.  In fact, the House Ethics Manual provided that a request for background information or a status report from a U.S. Attorney “may in effect be an indirect or subtle effort to influence the substantive outcome of the proceedings.”  The guidance provided by the manual stated that the best way to communicate any inquiry or question was in writing in order to make it part of the proceedings.

As a former Member of the House myself, I have deep 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.

A September 2008 joint report by the Department of Justice Inspector General and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the removal of nine U.S. Attorneys, including Mr. Iglesias, concluded that the “[t]he evidence we have developed so far shows that Wilson . . . 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.”

During her nomination hearing, Dr. Wilson testified that she 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.”  However, as I previously mentioned, contacting a U.S. attorney in this manner was clearly contrary to the ethics rules that govern the conduct of Members of the House of Representatives.

Perhaps Dr. Wilson deserves the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe her intention when she called Mr. Iglesias was not to pressure him.  However, when I asked Dr. Wilson the name of the individual that made the allegation about Mr. Iglesias intentionally delaying corruption prosecutions, she refused to provide the person’s name. Dr. Wilson argued that she has an obligation not to reveal who it was that made a highly politicized and unusual charge against Mr. Iglesias. 

I think providing the name of the person is important because it helps us understand the purpose of Dr. Wilson’s call to Mr. Iglesias.  It is one thing if a concerned constituent with no ties or interests in corruption cases under investigation innocuously contacted Dr. Wilson -- perhaps her subsequent call to Mr. Iglesias could be excused.  But because we do not have the name, we have no way to verify their motive.  And it remains very possible that the person who contacted Dr. Wilson wanted to pressure Mr. Iglesias to move forward with these pending corruption cases.  If that is the case, it casts Dr. Wilson’s call to Mr. Iglesias in a much different light.  Unfortunately, without further information from Dr. Wilson, I will not be able to resolve my concerns about this incident. 

Mr. President, the two issues that I have just discussed have reluctantly led me to the conclusion that while Dr. Wilson has excellent academic and professional qualifications, I must vote against her nomination before the full Senate. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor.