Jim Inhofe

Admiral Locklear, does PACOM have the resources to maintain a sufficient level of presence in its Area of Responsibility?

I think that aircraft carriers are probably best suited for the types of missions that we do in the Asia-Pacific today.

Assuming sequestration remains the law, what are the key impacts to readiness, our ability to deter, and our ability to execute combat operations in PACOM and on the Korean Peninsula?

China is engaged in a rapid military modernization deliberately designed to counteract or thwart American military strengths.

I hope, for the sake of these young people's lives that we are training now, that we at least have a policy decision as to whether we're going to protect them, or not.

This vital trade agreement will open new opportunities for trade and level the playing field for American businesses and workers.

The United States must continue to sustain a favorable military balance in the region.

Many of the African leaders have talked to me about that, but the current assessment by the Secretary of Defense is to continue to leave it where it is for the foreseeable future.

If the 21st century is to be another American century, the United States must remain an Asia-Pacific power.

I would say that that would also be something of a disincentive for recruitment.

A return to sequestration-level spending would be a major setback to U.S. cyber forces that are steadily maturing.

What happens if our allies that rely on the US nuclear umbrella no longer believe it is viable?

Stable funding at a modest fraction of the overall DOD budget remains my top concern and priority.

Recapitalizing our sea-based strategic deterrence force is my top priority.

We cannot afford to delay or reduce planned modernization for these programs any further and must provide stable, sufficient funding in fiscal year 2016 and beyond.

Today's complex and dangerous global security environment demands we properly sustain and modernize our strategic capabilities.

If implemented, sequestration would force major changes to our National Strategic and Military Strategies.

Failure to pass the fiscal year 2016 President's Budget will negatively impact our ability to maintain and improve force readiness

The President's Budget, albeit with some risk, provides the funding necessary to maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent force

I think it was--General Stewart was here last week or the week before, and he warned us that, in Iran, they're continuing to develop the nuclear weapons and could soon test a space-launch vehicle that could double as a long-range missile.

But, the discussion at that time was where to put the headquarters. And we were all promoting the idea that it should actually be in Africa.

But, they know it needs more funding. That puts you in a different situation than anybody else is in.

The 'foreseeable future' is beyond us now from when they first put this thing together.

It puts into question our ability to deter and compel multiple adversaries simultaneously.

The President's fiscal year 2016 Budget represents the bare minimum needed for us to carry out our missions.