On the recordMay 24, 2016
As with the chairman of the subcommittee, I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment. I like its intent, but not the means by which the able gentleman from Florida (Mr. Clawson) gets to his bottom line. I think our major objection on this side is cutting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. While I do support the Corps' construction account-- and, just for the Record, the account that we have proposed for construction is $855 million over the 2017 budget request and $83.3 million over what is being expended this time. But we have a $60 billion backlog, $60 billion for what we need to do in the Corps throughout this country. So we have a problem there; so, I would therefore oppose the amendment and recommend a ``no'' vote. But maybe, in working with the gentleman, we can find ways in future years to increase the overall account again. But I truly appreciate his leadership and his efforts on this important issue. I thank the chairman for yielding.
