Being forced to choose a number of bad options. It is not like we have a good thing or bad thing. Those choices were made a long time ago. It is between good and good. Needed and needed. Best structure to balance readiness and modernization is a tough thing. What elements of the structure recommendould you retaining if you have the Budget Authority to do so . Is a mission of great concern. What others have similarly impactful consequences . The greater shortfalls we have related to the requirements every year are isr and fighter squadrons. Those are the two things we cannot meet the demands on more frequently than anything else. In the isr category, i would include command control platforms. Isr is clearly the first category that i would maintain capability in. As we do best more, we will not meet them by a wider margin. We have to be careful about the vesting our fight too much because we are at a requirement today. We are going to go seven squadrons below the requirement with this budget. Anything further just pushes us farther away from what we have agreed added apartment is required to meet the standing command of our commanders. To a general ag few months ago and he was telling me he was a Wing Commander during desert storm i believe and how many planes we had. Another general anathema deplaned we could provide now if we had similar needs. It is drastic like 10 now compared to what we had then. Force isay the air getting smaller, think people need to understand it will be the smallest it has been since it had since its inception. Secretary, you made the comment of sequestration as a problem. It is a huge problem. It is the law of the land. While we have a short reprieve with this budget that was arrived at in december, it becomes back in full force in 2016. I think it is incumbent upon us to use those numbers because that until there is a change, that will be the law of the land and i think probably everybody on this committee realizes the dangers we are facing because of it. I think the American People need to know that the air force will be the smallest it has ever been. The navy is going back to the size it was in world war i. The army and the marines are going back to the smallest it been since world war ii. Downarines are going 175,000. That is the trajectory we are on right now. These are dire situations we are dealing with. I am not sure the American People really understand how serious it is. So much of the time but we talked about cutbacks, it has been we slow the growth rate. These are real cuts, yearoveryear over year. Thank you for the work you are doing. Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. I have two questions. The first is the secretary james , welcome back by the way. Maintaining the military flexibility to adequately size the Nuclear Force is crucial to ensure that we have an optimal nuclear deterrent. I hope you agree. I do. What is the impact of the air force not having started the impairment the empire mental assessment that will allow in the valuation of a reduction of silos as part of the military decision on optimal nuclear for structure for the neustar treaty. Does the air force plan to initiate that Environmental Assessment and if so, why or why not . Of the new treaty contains a variety of numbers that we have to hit in terms of our total Nuclear Capability over a certain. Of time. Period of time. There are choices that could be the bomber force or the submarine force or a combination. The department of defense has been looking at this for some time. I think within a couple of weeks, two or three weeks, we will have a better feeling of where this is headed. At the moment, we have not started an Environmental Assessment. We have gotten different bodies of law about what to do on that assessment. Within the department of defense, we have been in discussion about what to do about that. I think within the next few weeks we will have a better path forward and more information to share. If he could go back and work with your people and get some answers as you are you going to do it . When you think you will, etc. . I would appreciate it because that is one of the areas i watch. Given all the problems that we have had and what we really need to do, we really need to assess what is going on. We need to figure out what we really need in order to continue that deterrent that we are capable of having. About theestion is Space Launch Program which i mentioned earlier. The issue of rising costs and the air force continues to be of great concern to many of us. I have always believed that one of the ways to get more talent and get smarter about this and to get more competitive on this we have had a one source situation for a long time. Competition which is why in 2012, undersecretary of defense under the secretary of defense aggressively reintroduced a competitive environment. In 2012, the air force briefed my office and the subcommittee that it would be opening 14 opportunities for new entrants into the National Security space launces. The air force has indicated it plans to reduce this to only seven so it has cut it by 50 . No air force mission available for competition in fiscal year 2015. Why did you do this . Does itadicts contradicts the air forces commitment to reintroduce the competitive procurement ross s process . What will be the impact on sustaining competition . I am a californian. There are several companies who are working to compete against the sole source. You guys just issued another solesource to that company. I am not against that company but i believe with competition we can bring down the cost of these launches significantly. Maybe to 50 or 25 of what it is costing now. If you could please speak to that. Mentionedmy visits i that i have been out to Colorado Springs and i did spend some time with the Space Command out there. I agree with everything you said on competition. Im a big believer in competition. I suspect some of the same questions you have been asking and we all believe in competition, why does it take as long as it is taken . Here is how i would describe the current state of play on the program. Over time it has been a very successful program. Over time it has cost our country way more than any of us wouldve wish or dream. In recent years, costs have been coming down. The are becoming more under control. Even though we dont have that competition yet, i suspect the threat of competition has helped us to bring down these costs. Good news for the taxpayer and lets see if we can speed it up. Why does it take as long as it takes . These launches, there are a variety of satellites to get launched and it is technically complex. There are different degrees of happiness. Gheaheaviness. There are different payloads. Some have consequences if they do not go well. That is one type of satellite launch. There are other satellite launches which, although they are important and dont want anything to go wrong either, you can take a little more of a risk with new entrants and peoples web not quite demonstrated as much as the team has been doing it a long time. Is thes happened here launches that are going to go forward in the most immediate and years of the fiveyear plan, these are the really heavy duty militarily significant launches. That is the contract you talked about where those launches will be done by the original team of the ula. The other launches where we hope these new entrants will qualify those launches were deferred a bit. They will happen but later in the fiveyear plan. The reason for that is a bit of good news. Which areites referred to in the secondary launches and the existing satellites are doing better than we thought possible. The is a good news for taxpayer. We dont need to get those satellites up in orbit as quickly. That is why they got deferred. It was more that reason than money. They are going to happen and i do want those new entrants qualified as soon as possible for all the same reasons that you pointed out. This takes quite a bit of money to be a new entrant in that field. When you close down those it thosepieces, companies have a harder time to outlast what you are doing by deferring some of this. I hope you understand that when i look at the costs, you may think the numbers have come down with this original launch team but i can go back and show you on a graph of just how much of this has caused the taxpayer when i could see a French Company that does it for half the price. Not suggesting that this is not the core value that we should hold it here but we do that has proven and will continue to prove if we open up those possibilities. The more competition we have just by having two companies, will bring down that cost to the american taxpayers. I will continue with you on this thing. Can i clarify one thing . Years, there five are eight qualifying launches, newoon assuming we get entrants qualified. Several of those will be competing. 50 of what i was told just a year and a half ago. Thank you. Ms. Forbes. Thank you. General, it is my understanding from previous discussions we have had that these cuts in all of the budget uncertainty is taking a bit of a impact on your morale and durability for pretension. It is that accurate . Not really seen a problem with retention to this point. I am worried about a problem with retention over time, especially as the uncertainty continues. That is why we need a firm way forward. A number we can count on and then aimed towards the air force and make it the best they can be. I agree because all the bass all the platforms come down to personnel sometimes. Let metell you tell you an item that is major concern to me. We read this week that a cadet at the air force was forced to take a bible verse off a private whiteboard in his room. The facts that i have received from the air force these are not hypotheticals this cadet had no intention to offend anyone or any group. The private white wards have long been used to display items reflecting their personality and from which they draw personal inspiration. They have long been used for citing inspirational quotes. This is perhaps the most offensive, the air force said this was a teaching moment that the cadets action in putting the bible verse was an appropriate based on Leadership Principles. Otheradets family, the cadets who are putting up bible verses and verses from the koran, cannot stand in front of you today but i can. Can you tell me any other inspirational quotes that cadets have been forced to remove from the personal whiteboards other than verses from the bible . I want to point out this to you office,you come into my i chair the subcommittee. I have our national motto, in god we trust. The Ranking Member of this committee has the same motto over his door. Mr. Miller, who chairs the v. A. Committee has it up in his office. Mr. Conaway has it up in his office. Mr. Whitman who chairs the readiness subcommittee has it up in his office. Dr. Fleming has it in his office. The chairman of the Government Reform Committee has it in his office. The speaker of the house in his office. Here is the question i asked today give us that teaching moment of how that is any different than this cadet putting his own personal verse on his own personal whiteboard. Number two, how is that offensive to Leadership Principles . I will start. I read in the press and well and i did have a chance to talk to General Johnson yesterday to say what is going on with this. I want to share with you what she shared with me in terms of how this incident actually unfolded. I will get to that in a second. Worse, i want to read the policy of our air force about the religious freedoms. Leaders of all levels must balance constitutional protection for individuals three exercise of religion and other personal beliefs and its prohibition against governmental establishment of religion. They must avoid the apparent use of their position i only have one minute and 15 seconds. Can you answer the question for me what other quotes have cadets been forced to pull off of their whiteboards that were not bible forces verses. I dont know. Apparently, a cadet went to this other cadet and said this makes me uncomfortable. That cadet voluntarily took it down. That is not true. What your Liaison Officer has given me the entire air force chain of command in that particular situation that is what he said. Is whatforce commander, i am given by fax from your office, went to that cadet and then they say when all of them come to them, he voluntarily did it. Can you imagine a young cadet what he is forced with the entire chain of command coming in and telling him that is an appropriate . That is what your folks deciding to me that it was inappropriate days based on Leadership Principles. We need to stand up for these cadets rights too. Freedom of religion and their exercise of that whether they are getting it from the bible is to make sure no person on the planet is offended is to say that cadet onto have the right to put that verse up there. Or is all of us wrong . Come from General Johnson so i apologize. I have not seen the paper that you are looking at. What i explained is the way that the general i hope you guys will come back to us and for once, the airport start standing up to these cadets and their rights instead of just constantly allng, if anybody at opposes it, we are going to make them take these things down. May have briefly answer the question . I have been a commander at the air force academy. We remove hundreds of those clothes because they are in the hallway. They are used for professional and personal messaging. What you said is true. Every cadet has the right to free religious expression but if somebody else comes and says that it bothers them and they had that discussion, i would complement both of them. We have a get the facts straight. Time, ityou had extra is different if they have a oneonone discussion. That is not what happened. The chain of command came to this cadet. I am going by what your office has given the facts to me. The second thing is if you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you force people to have these quotes off yet this was voluntarily done. If you asked this cadet and the other cadet, they do not believe it was voluntarily done. I yield back. Mr. Larson. I am on theelsh, subcommittee and i imagine as we have the the last couple of years, we will have a debate about Nuclear Weapons in europe. Can you discuss some of the costs of the deployed Nuclear Weapons in europe and can you discuss what is the contingency plan if one or more nato countries do not Procure Nuclear aircraft after their own 2020s. Are retired in . It takes money to maintain and takes money to upgrade and keep secure and to provide security just like any other part of our nuclear enterprise. It is not an insignificant cost. The actual costs are classified. Nations, if they choose not to upgrade their own Nuclear Aircraft capabilities, than other nato nations that had that capability from an operational perspective will pick up the load. We do have the capacity to pick up the load. You discuss whether the request includes funds to make the 35 gfs capable . The department has been committed to making the app 35 capable. Can maket believe they that affordable for their own aircraft without our support to making the airplane cable. Capable. There is money in the fiveyear plan to move us in that direction. Which direction . To ensure the aircraft to me made dual capable when it needs to be. The 35 or nato countries . The f 35s. We may be say that called upon to paper other countries to upgrade their aircraft . I was referring to the other nato countries who fly or will fly the f35. They are responsible for paying the cost on their own. With regard to the kc10, im glad to see the pegasus is moving forward. We are pleased about that in washington state. On the 10, what other options would you have if congress either prohibited the retirement of that plane you might know we are famous for telling you what all the aircraft you cannot retire and then making you pay for that. Hopefully we can move beyond that this year. If Congress Prohibited retiring the plane, what options would you have to execute if we did prohibit that retirement . I will start but i know the tivo also jump in. I know the chief will also jump in. If we have to go to the sequestration level, it will be retired. The kc35s were looked at very closely. There wouldve been far too many of those to come out in order to come up with the same cost savings. A 2. 6 billion savings for us over the fiveyear plan if they were to come out. There are no good options. Every decision that we are making will hurt. Wherever we take that 2. 3 billion is going to come out of another Mission Capability like the ones we described. It will impact our capability capacity. One last question on this opportunity and growth initiative. What makesite sure it different than just putting dollars into to readiness account and not calling it the opportunity initiative. Can you help me understand the difference between this initiative and the funding of the air force . Inthis 26 billion fund which the air force would have 7 million is contingent upon coming up with some offset savings. The president s budget plan has proposals on how to do that. Not there,ets were the money could not be provided. Back. Nk you i yield mr. Wilson. Thank you for being here today. I want to join with congressman forbes. I hope you will make every effort to promote and preserve religious freedom for our service members. It is important to me. My dad served in the air force in india and china. I know of the capabilities and confidence of our military and i am grateful to be very grateful uncle of a person serving in the air force today. I just know of your capabilities. The primary u. S. National security launch of the satellites uses a russianmade engine. Reported that this engine is rumored that russia could cut off supplying it to the u. S. In response the economic sanctions. I understand we have a twoyear stockpile on these engines, but i also know the air force is committed to a fiveyear procurement of the vehicle. There are at least three american launch vehicles that utilize americanmade engines that offer the full range of capabilities without rel