On the recordJuly 13, 2017
I join with Chairman Wittman in expressing opposition to this amendment. As he has indicated, the Navy has no indication that they have a military requirement for icebreakers. Right now we are trying to reverse the effects of sequestration. We are fighting against budget cuts. When you use money for something other than what it was intended for, it is a budget cut, and that is what this would be. No one is talking about raising the top line of the overall defense budget, but they are talking about using the funds otherwise for something that is not defense. I want to join with everyone who is speaking on this issue of the importance of the Coast Guard and certainly its impact and certainly the issues of icebreaking, but shipbuilding for the Navy and for our military should be concentrated on our military. Certainly the funds that we are appropriating to the Department of Defense should remain in the Department of Defense, and, therefore, I rise with Chairman Wittman in support of the opposition. {time} 1545 Mr. Chair, in closing, I want to say that--going to Admiral Richardson's words--Admiral Richardson clearly states that the mission of icebreaking is a Coast Guard mission. There is not a disagreement there, but the disagreement is using resources that are within the Defense budget in order to do that.…





