I thought you made a wonderful point, Ms. Lubbers, about the tightrope basically between efforts to reduce costs and maintain quality.

Is it not fair to assume that we would be pushing around a problem, that we may very well solve the inland waterways problem with an additional $180 million a year, or at least be on a path to solving it?

One of the mantras of this committee over the last 18 months has been that we need to do more with less.

If we move as Chairman Ryan's budget proposes to turn off the sequester on defense and load all the sequester onto non-defense discretionary, that presumably would take that 9 percent and make it 18 percent.

I am worried about the President's budget that would propose a $291 million cut in the Clean Water SRF and a $67 million cut in the Drinking Water SRF.

While I agree the deficit reduction is critical, I also feel strongly that the American economy needs jobs, and this Congress has a responsibility to support programs that create jobs.

There is no question that the Federal Government faces difficult decisions as we seek to reduce our deficit and promote the growth of the economy and jobs at the same time.

We have a system that is outdated, needs to be fixed, and I think we all agree we have got to fix it.

It is clear that we need to reinvest in our country's water infrastructure in a way that will allow our country to provide for our citizens and to protect our investments in our waterways, harbors and dams.

It is very clear we have a broken system here.

Without this oversight, the Corps priorities, focus, and resulting budgets are not put through the rigorous review that the American public expects us to perform.

This is alarming.

Is it not reasonable to assume that this backlog of projects that we have now that is some $60 billion--is it not reasonable to assume that backlog is only going to grow if we are cutting available funding by 18.5 percent?

I am concerned about the President's budget request, very frankly. I am even more concerned about the budget proposal that we are going to vote on later this week, which in many ways will drive the conversation going forward, and I am…

I want to take a somewhat broader view right now. The mantra of this committee has been 'Do more with less.' I think that looks great on a bumper sticker. When you translate it into action, I think it becomes a little more difficult.

I am 100 percent behind the idea of fully spending down the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

I am hopeful that on this issue of meeting our long-term water infrastructure challenges, we can find agreement and move forward with one voice.

I want to explore how we can target Federal resources to those who will benefit from it most, our local communities.

Investing in our water infrastructure not only improves the pipes and pumps, the investment creates much-needed construction and engineering jobs.

I am encouraged today that both sides of the aisle seem to be advocating for a renewed commitment to meeting our Nation's wastewater infrastructure challenges.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding today's hearing on the importance of investing in our Nation's crumbling wastewater infrastructure.

One of the basic tenets of the Clean Water Act is to prevent the discharge of raw sewage and pollutants into the Nation's waters.

The benefits of clean water... can't be shouldered by individual communities.

Some regulations are grounded in science and in good sense, and in prudent public policy.

Do you not see Pennsylvania as a model for the rest of the country?