“Historic fiscal challenges and the devastating prospect of a trillion dollars in defense cuts have only bolstered our argument that such a move would not just be strategically unnecessary, but also fiscally irresponsible,” said Rep. Randy ForbesRandy ForbesWhy there's only one choice for Trump's Navy secretary Trump likely to tap business executive to head Navy: report Congress asserts itself MORE (R-Va.), in a statement with state colleagues Reps. Rob WittmanRob WittmanA guide to the committees: House Five races to watch in 2017 VA Dems jockey for Kaine's seat MORE (R) and Scott RigellScott RigellGOP rushes to embrace Trump GOP lawmaker appears in Gary Johnson ad Some in GOP say Trump has gone too far MORE (R).
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) said the Navy’s decision “affirms the strategic and fiscal logic behind it.”
While the Virginia delegation said the move was now cancelled, Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), whose district includes Mayport Naval Station, said that the project has only been delayed. He said he’s been “assured by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) that the Navy remains committed” to moving the carrier to Mayport.
“This makes no sense,” Crenshaw said in a statement. “We are already three years into making Mayport nuclear capable. Further delay will only drive costs higher.”
The Pentagon has planned to move one carrier out of Norfolk because it did not want all its East Coast nuclear carriers stationed in the same place.
The brawl over the move has occurred in large part because of the economic impact and jobs associated with wherever the carrier is located.