Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates and justification for fiscal year 2027 for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Okay, folks, this hearing of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee will come to order.

While I'm thinking about what I'm going to say, because I don't know, I've got a lot on my mind, I'm going to ask the ranking member, member who's generally better organized than I am. And here. And she's here. And the vice chairman of the entire committee to, to hold forth. Well, thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today, because your agencies really do critical work to support our economies and our families back home. And if we neglect those investments, it puts our communities and our nation in serious danger from threats like droughts and floods and power outages and a lot more. Just looking at the Howard Hanson Dam in my state, last year during historic flooding, it stored record amounts of water, stopping about 5 feet of flooding in Auburn and protected communities in Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and elsewhere. When the Green River levee breached on December 15th, the Corps was there to reduce the dam flows within hours and deployed personnel and resources alongside our King County crews and managed the careful return to normal operations.

That is exactly the kind of rapid, coordinated technical response that only the Corps can provide. But Trump wants to slash funding for the Corps in this budget and zero out funding for work on Howard Hanson. Now, fortunately, in our last funding bill, Chair Kennedy and I worked together to reject those cuts and others and made strong investments in the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation. Howard Hanson got the funding it needed to keep moving forward, as did the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, which is really crucial to securing reliable water access for a lot of our farmers and our communities in my state. But we've got a lot more work to do on those projects and others.

And unfortunately, unfortunately, we now have more cuts to reject because this budget shows Trump didn't learn his lesson. He has proposed reckless cuts all so he can blow an extra $500 billion on war. His budget would slash the Bureau of Rec by a fifth, a fifth. And that's without considering the fact that the infrastructure cliff we are barreling towards this fall. Over the past 5 years, funding from that bipartisan infrastructure law provided nearly half of all Reclamation funding, and that well is drying up.

And if we don't act, crucial water resources will dry up next, along with funding for a lot more— so much else. Meanwhile, Trump's budget would also slash funding for the Army Corps by more than a third. The construction account would get chopped almost in half. We are talking about an enormous backlog of Army Corps projects Deferred construction, critical repairs that these cuts would abandon. Work we cannot delay without rolling the dice and leaving communities facing unacceptable risks, deadly floods, harsh droughts.

And that is not hypothetical. This is the 4th year in a row we've had a drought in Washington State, and we are not alone. The Colorado River Basin is 26 years into a mega drought and maybe, and just maybe, having its worst year on record right now. In Texas, Corpus Christi is staring down a full-on water crisis, and this is not the time to slash water projects. In addition to the threat of Trump's proposed cuts, the Army Corps has been rocked by Trump's staffing cuts.

He has decimated the Corps workforce, a 12% loss since 2024, and meanwhile, uh, hiring has been frozen. You just can't keep up, let alone accelerate projects, while sending engineers and project managers packing. And if funding cuts and staffing shortages weren't bad enough, there's also the rampant, blatant political sabotage. After zeroing out funding for blue states like mine last May, the Trump administration paused over $11 billion for Army Corps projects in blue states and cities in October. Communities got frozen out simply because of who they voted for.

And incredibly, we have yet to receive any communication on whether those projects are going to now be moving forward. We need transparency and we need basic fairness. But we are all getting— all we're getting right now is a runaround from all of you in the Pentagon. And I have to mention the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Trump wants to shortchange that fund by over $1.8 billion and shortchange donor and energy transfer ports like we have in Washington State.

So I want you all to know I'm going to make sure we do fully fund the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and make sure that states like mine get their fair share. That goes for the rest of the budget, too. We cannot let Trump open the floodgates for defense contractors, or while our families and our farmers barely get anything. I will not let him zero out projects like the Howard Hanson Dam that is so critical to keep— keeping people safe. Instead, I hope we toss Trump's budget in the trash can where it belongs and then work in this committee in a bipartisan way to write a bill that addresses these critical challenges and helps our families back home.

And by the way, that does need to include addressing the infrastructure cliff that's fast approaching when the bipartisan infrastructure law expires very fast coming up this fall. So with that, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, Mr. Secretary General, I think it'd be fair to say that, that I've been very supportive of the Corps, and I understand what you go through. You serve, you serve many masters.

Um, I'll be blunt. I know this isn't your budget. Uh, it was crafted for you to a large extent. I get that. Um, nothing unusual or wrong about that.

Uh, most presidents, uh, put together a budget and they do it with the OMB as a quarterback. And, uh, obviously you have input, but you don't have the final say. And then the budgets come to us. And we hardly ever, never, in my judgment, or to my memory, have just adopted what a presidential budget has suggested. So I get all that.

Nonetheless, what is in your budget is, it's not dispositive, but it's persuasive. I mean, it tells us what the president's priorities are. I want to talk about a number of things today. I want to talk about— and maybe in answering questions you can include what's on my mind in your answers, but we've got to do something about cost overruns. We've just got to, folks.

We've got to do better. Number 2, I know you're going to want to talk because I've talked to Secretary about this. You've got a new idea on district salaries. And expenses. You want to talk about that?

I want to talk as well about what Senator Murray talked about, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. Now, now, folks, people pay taxes. The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund contains money that, that people pay directly to use our ports. And it's supposed to be there to help our ports and help with draining drainage. And I get that, that it helps to take some of that money to spend in other parts of the budget.

And if we were pursuing a balanced budget, I might could live with that. But we don't have a balanced budget. And so instead of trying to take money out of the harbor maintenance Trust Fund to balance the budget. You're not doing that. You're taking money out of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to spend on something else.

And, and we, we need to have a prayer session about that. Um, I've got some questions, but I'm going to save them.

Why don't we move to your statements?

If you have a written text, I appreciate that, but try to read it fast. I'd rather you just talk to us, okay, rather than read a written statement. But that's up to you. Madam Secretary, I'll start with you.

Great. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, and members of the subcommittee. I'll probably just read a little bit and then highlight some things.

Okay. But thanks for the opportunity to testify. In support of President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project, and discuss the president's vision to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous through the delivery of water and power. Of course, as you've mentioned, Bureau of Reclamation manages and delivers water for agriculture, municipal, and industrial uses, supports flood control and recreation, and produces hydropower across the western United States. Reclamation's projects and programs serve as the backbone of the West's water and power infrastructure and a driver of economic activity across hundreds of river basins.

Reclamation's activities support economic output valued at approximately $34.1 billion annually and sustain more than 450,000 jobs. So as it relates to what we're looking for, for the FY '27 Reclamation request is $1.2 billion in gross discretionary appropriations. Of this total, $1.1 billion is requested for the Water and Related Resource Account, $64 million for the Policy and Administration Account, and $32 million for the California Bay Delta account. The request also includes $66.9 million in the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund. In addition, as we're looking at CUPCA, the FY 2027 budget requests $17 million for the Central Utah Project Completion Act, really focused on construction of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin and Delivery System, which is the final component of the project.

The funding supports construction of the Spanish Fork Pipeline and design of the Mona Pipeline. I also wanted to highlight with the FY 2027 budget, and that Reclamation continues to utilize those existing resources to support its water supply management and conservation activities. In addition, we had the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law by President Trump, that provided $1 billion to Reclamation for construction of water storage and conveyance facilities. And to date, Reclamation has allocated $889 million of that to support modernizing Western water infrastructure and improving storage capacity, which includes $540 million for California, $100 million in Utah, $30 million for Idaho, and also looking at storage opportunities with Lake Shasta, and at the same time some projects in South Dakota and North Dakota. Also, we're very focused on Colorado River and the drought, so looking for— continue to look for those conservation activities and trying to make sure that we protect Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

So with that, we continue to work on applying funding towards infrastructure projects that address the deferred maintenance, improve water delivery reliability, enhance dam safety, and strengthen system performance. So we've been working on hundreds of projects nationwide and implementing and establishing the program authorities. So with that, thank you for the opportunity to speak on President's FY 2027 budget request for the Department of Interior and CUPCA. I look forward to the questions. Questions today.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Chairman Kennedy, Vice Chair Murray, uh, I'm here today to talk about the President's FY27 Army Civil Works budget. Uh, this budget is focused on our core missions, and if you ask yourself what are the core missions of the Corps of Engineers, we think of it in 3 ways. Uh, we enable commercial navigation, uh, we protect Americans from flood risk, and we restore aquatic ecosystems. I'll hit on a couple of those.

Sir, if you think about Waterborne commerce, something that's important to both of your states. This is the most efficient form of transportation that humanity has ever devised. And if we don't build, operate, and maintain that system, we can't compete globally. You think about flood risk. The Corps of Engineers builds, operates, and maintains world-class flood risk reduction infrastructure.

Uh, it's something that the Corps of Engineers has done well. Throughout most of its history and at times has come up short. This budget focuses on that. We can't compete globally if we're underwater. And just to highlight a couple projects that are included in this budget, the big ones under the category of navigation, the budget includes $133.76 million for the completion of a new Montgomery Lock near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on the Ohio River.

It includes $931 million, uh, for flood risk, including $420 million for Proto Dam in California, which is our most at-risk dam across our inventory. The budget also includes $410 million for aquatic ecosystem restoration, which is a sufficient amount to totally restore the Everglades in Florida 5 years ahead of schedule. Tell me about that Everglades again. There's sufficient funding in the budget to stay on track to fully restore the Everglades 5 years ahead of schedule. This is one of the biggest projects that's happening in the United States of America right now.

That's new money? That's new money that's requested, and it's going to be in addition to other money that's been provided, and of course future needs that we will come to you in future fiscal years about. Right. Okay. Sorry to interrupt.

Yes, sir. No problem. Most importantly, and Chairman Kennedy mentioned this, the budget includes a new way to delineate how we budget for district salaries. If you think about the Corps of Engineers, we have 39 civil works districts across the country. These are our— unlike most agencies, 98% of our workforce is outside the Beltway in these districts in all of your states.

And the way that you appropriate, the way that we budget currently includes within project amounts that you appropriate, about 33 cents on the dollar goes to pay the salaries of the employees in those districts. Those are great employees. We need them. They're doing amazing work. But this budget seeks to separate out those salaries and expenses from the project costs for two reasons.

One, it increases transparency. You need to know what you're buying when you appropriate money for a project. In my view, we can all make better decisions if we know what's underneath those numbers. And the second reason is incentives. I had a district commander come to me early on and say, sir, I like what you're doing here.

As a district commander, I'm torn every day between delivering infrastructure. I meet with my infrastructure delivery team on Monday. And we're excited about delivery, and on Tuesday, I meet with my resource team and my HR team, and we say, "Sir, the project that we thought was going to be completed this year is actually extending into next year. This fills our district's budget hole." And that commander told me, "I'm not so mad on Tuesday that that project's being extended. I'm not as mad as I should be." This budget fixes that.

This takes our commanders out of that tension between delivering infrastructure and maintaining their district. Delivering infrastructure is what this is about. This budget fix is part of our Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative, a 28-point plan we unveiled in February. This is a key part of it. And so my request today is that the subcommittee will join us in that effort.

I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions. Well, we'll talk about it in a second. It's hard for me to believe, Mr. Secretary, that an accounting measure is going to solve our problems at the core. But we can talk about it. General.

Chairman Kennedy, Ranking Member Murray, thank you for the opportunity to talk today, and I'll just have a discussion with you for the time I've got. Please. First, Senator Murray, thanks for highlighting Howard A. Hanson Dam. I was out there right after the water managers and Colonel Sanborn and her team did an amazing job working hand in hand with the state and King County to manage the floods coming in the southern part of the city of Seattle. Record pools on the Green River.

Tremendous work. What Colonel Sanborn and her team are doing right now, which I want to highlight, is working to repair all those levees before the next atmospheric rivers hit. So really proud of that team out there for using the funds that this committee's provided in FCC&E to get those levees repaired as fast as possible with our state and our local partners. Senator Kennedy, turning to the costs. When I was last in front of this committee, we absolutely acknowledged that we've got to improve our delivery.

And that starts with 3 basic things. First and foremost, we've got to get the engineering right. We've got to do that before we ask the authorizing committees to authorize a project and before we ask this committee to appropriate funds for that. We've too often come in and said, hey, this is how much this project would cost, when we really didn't have that project well defined. I'll put it— hey, Congress, we need to build a house as an, you know, as an example, when we should have advanced the engineering to say we need a 4-bedroom house with a 2-car garage on a quarter-acre plot of land that has drainage issues.

We have not done that. And so that is our commitment to you, that we're— I am not going to sign any Chief's Report unless we have advanced the engineering to the point where we actually know what we're asking Congress. To authorize and appropriate for. Second thing we've got to do is we've got to get the project management right. And what that is, is putting good, realistic schedules together.

Where we could use help is stable, predictable funding allows us to most efficiently deliver these projects. And it is one of their priorities to finish what we start. And, and that is our commitment to you. The third thing we have to do is make sure we get the team right. We've— the Secretary has granted us almost 3,000 ability to hire 3,000 new folks, and we've got about two-thirds of onboard right now, to include 1,000 folks that aren't just moving a lower-ranking person to a high-ranking position, but it is actually bringing in external hires, talent from the civilian workforce.

So that's our commitment to you, is doing everything we can to get the engineering right, get the project management right, and get the team right. And I thank you and look forward to answering your questions.

Okay. All right, generally, thank you, thank you, uh, lady and gentlemen. I usually, I'm, I reserve questions, and I am most of my time. I, I just got one right quick. Um, Secretary Tell, you, you just moved $1.4 billion out of other fund, out of other projects to the Everglades?

Who told you to do that? Chairman Kennedy, thank you for the question. The law that included that, from, for which those funds were derived, gave the Army the flexibility to reallocate funds. And in many cases, those, these projects were appropriated. Who told you to do that?

The law gives, gave us flexibility. You did that on your own? That's your testimony? We followed the notification procedures that were required under that law. Yeah, but you Did you— you made that decision?

Yes, sir, I did. And nobody told you to do it? No, sir. Okay. Where did you get that $1.4 billion?

And you're asking for more money now for the Everglades, is that right? Well, Senator, there's $46 billion. Are you asking for more money now? The president's budget includes $446 million for restoration. That's correct, sir.

In addition to the $1.4 billion that you just took out of other projects. Yes, sir. That's the current year. Okay. What projects did you take that $1.4 billion for the Everglades out of?

Senator, I'd have to get back to you on the sources. You don't remember? There's multiple. It's— there are multiple sources, but the sources were—. Which ones?

They were from past, past acts like the Infrastructure and Job Creation Act, the BBA 18, and DERSA. You took it out of the Westshore project in Louisiana, didn't you? No, sir. You took it out of the Lake Pontchartrain project in Louisiana, didn't you? No, sir.

That, that project is underway. You took it out of the Colmette project in Louisiana, didn't you? No, sir, I did not. You took it out of a project in East Baton Rouge Parish, didn't you? No, sir.

How about the Grand Isle project? No, sir. That project—. You're telling me you didn't take any money out of these at anybody's instruction to spend on the Everglades while you're asking for even more out of Everglades? Everglades money in the current budget.

Senator, the projects that you just listed in Louisiana are all on track. Those are great projects. I've been working to— we've been working to deliver those. So your testimony is that you on your own, nobody told you to do it. You took money out of these projects, but they're still on course to spend extra money in the Everglades.

Is that your testimony, Mr. Secretary? No, sir, that is not my testimony. Okay. Tell me what your testimony is then. There are aged funds throughout the $46 billion total in aged funds, some of them more than 10 years old.

This is a disgrace. I mean, we have $46 billion that Congress has provided to us that we haven't found the ability to execute. There are other projects that do have the ability to execute. And when we have aged funds that can be applied to something that will save lives and protect critical ecosystem restoration projects, those are things that we— where we use the funds that have been provided. I'm going to come back to this, but I'm— You know, God gave me the right to remain silent, but not the ability.

You know, I have protected you and the Corps every step of the way up here. I have defended the Corps when some of my colleagues wanted to dog cuss you and change you and And I have defended you.

But I don't know. I don't understand this moving money to the Everglades.

And we're going to have to have a prayer session about that. You want to talk about how best to make the Corps efficient?

Tell us the truth.

I don't believe you did this alone, Mr. Secretary. I think somebody told you to do it. Mr. Chairman, we'll be happy to wait a minute. Mr. Secretary, I'm talking. I want to know who it was, and I want to know why you did it.

And I don't believe you that this money didn't come out of somebody's hide. Okay.

You can't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

That's how I feel.

Those are my questions for now, but I have others. Madam Vice Chair, do you have some? I do. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Assistant Secretary Tell, we talked about this recently, but I hear constantly from ports and harbors back home in Washington about how much they rely on the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.

And despite the importance of this funding, your budget request is just as insufficiency last year. Your proposal would mean a cut of nearly $2 billion from what we just enacted, and it would provide zero funding for donor and energy transfer ports. That is just not acceptable. Will you commit to us today that donor ports like Seattle and Tacoma will receive their full fair share of HMTF dollars as Congress intended for FY26? Yes, ma'am.

In fiscal year '26, the Energy and Water Appropriations Act provided what amounted to 13%, uh, for those donor and energy transfer ports, and we are on track with that FY '26 funding. And you will commit to us that you will get that out as we intended? Senator, we will absolutely follow the law. Okay. Well, these, these ports are a gateway to the world.

Um, they are major economic engines for our state and for our country, and I will not sit by and watch my state get shortchanged. No, we're watching. Assistant Secretary Travnik, thank you for being here. You know that the West is in the midst of a really historic drought. More than 70% of the West is currently experiencing drought conditions.

And because of those serious challenges we are facing, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act both provided billions in critical funding to the Bureau of Rec. To help with projects like fixing aging canals and dams and building new water storage and improving water efficiency. So important. Recycling, desalination, helping our farmers and helping our rural communities. That funding has made a huge difference.

But this administration has slowed down money getting out the door, and that needs to change. We are now staring down a cliff of $1.66 billion in funding each year for water projects when the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding comes to an end this October, and tens of billions more across key programs elsewhere. But your budget proposes nothing to address that massive shortfall. So I wanted to ask you today, is it this administration's view that we should make massive cuts to drought funding so we can have more money for defense contractors, which is how the budget appears to me?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. As you mentioned, yes, we are seeing drought across the western states. And we are working really hard to continue to get those previous dollars out the door. So as it relates to those aging infrastructure dollars, they're moving. We were able even to get some more moving this week.

You mentioned, too, where we have the one big beautiful bill. So for water storage, water conveyance. So that is where we are focused on making sure that we are trying to get infrastructure dollars taking care of some of the projects that have been out there. And then of course, looking ahead with the budget that we do have, trying to make sure that we're operating, maintaining, and making sure that we're modernizing the infrastructure that we do have. And then at the same time, working with our various partners.

So in order to make those dollars go farther, right, it's working with the different partners, the different states, the different districts. So it's going to take all of us working together to make sure that we can, you know, work towards solving the drought the best we can. Well, just so this committee and everybody understands, this funding is a huge cliff in October, and that means drastic cuts to all of these programs that all of our states rely on. And we need to work within this committee to make sure we don't face a huge disaster with all of that. Assistant Secretary Tell, let me go back to you.

This committee relies on timely factual information from the Army core districts to do our job. Last October, the Department of Defense issued a gag order requiring all congressional communication to be routed through the legislative affairs at the Pentagon. We are now seeing major project decisions like the release of the updated SPIN plans or the transfer of projects announced before us, before Congress, and sometimes even our local partners are notified. I can't stress enough that our local partners are not mere spectators to this. They are our partners and they're major financial stakeholders in core projects.

And we are all aware of the blatantly political announcement made by OMB Director Russ Vought during last fall's shutdown that the administration would pause or cancel $11 billion in essential core projects. That is why our FY26 bill was very clear. The Corps has to execute funding as Congress intended. It can't terminate or pause or alter the scope of a project without prior written justification from this committee. As we talked about, I have heard about multiple instances where you have terminated studies, including those funded with Congressional directed spending, without any prior notification.

I want to ask you today, why did you ignore the law and fail to notify Congress? Vice Chair Murray, thank you for the question. As we discussed in your office, uh, no projects as you've described them have been terminated. There have been instances where district commanders have made recommendations up the chain to terminate projects that they believe are at a dead end. Uh, those projects have not reached General Graham's desk, to my knowledge.

They haven't reached my desk, as we discussed. It is important for our districts to communicate with non-federal sponsors. There have been no terminations that— and in fact, I would say that the letter that you referenced in our previous meeting is an example of why it's important for the left hand and the right hand to know what's going on in an organization. This is why it's important to coordinate. Well, I don't know who this left hand and right hand is, but I will submit for the record a list of terminated projects.

And we wrote into our bill very specifically that we would be notified, and we're not. So I will submit that for the record. Without objection. And again, Secretary Tell, as we discussed last week, Washington State has a lot of ongoing projects with the Army Corps. We— Howard Hanson, we just talked about.

Dukka Bush, deepening Seattle and Tacoma harbors. Those are just a few. So I can't underscore in strong enough terms how important these projects are, not just to my state, to our entire nation. And we talked about Howard Hanson Dam, and thank you for being out there. This is addressing dam safety issues.

It's providing water supply. We need it for flooding before we have a complete disaster out there. And it is important for our critical salmon habitat. So many important reasons. And I had to fight tooth and nail, as the chairman will remember, and I appreciate your help, sir.

To get secure funding for that project, about $500 million, because that project was ripped out of the '25 budget. So I'm going to ask you today, do you commit to execute every dollar of congressionally appropriated funding exactly as has been directed for those projects? Yes, ma'am. We executed the contract on the Howard Hanson Dam within the timeframe that this committee provided in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act of fit for fiscal year '26. Well, thank you.

We will be watching very carefully to make sure that's followed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, ma'am. Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

And welcome those of you willing to testify and take on this job. And it's good to see you there, Mr. Secretary. I can't think of anybody better to run the Army Corps Civil Works. And we've worked together a long time on many issues. And I think you are Fit for this position, no doubt.

I want to cover 3 topics today. First being the Yazoo backwater pumps that I've worked on for a long time, and I know you're very, very familiar with that. And then the Arcabutla Dam repairs, it's very important that I know that you guys are familiar with. And the Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork initiative that I want to talk about. But to Secretary Tell and General Graham, the— I was just thrilled to see money in the budget for the funding for the actual construction of the Yazoo Backwater Area Project.

You know, we as Ag Commissioner in the state, we had 500,000 acres underwater for over 6 months that cannot be farmed. And it has been a major problem there. And I mean, it is so vital to save lives, the public infrastructure, but the billions of dollars of agriculture losses because of these flooding issues that for decades the taxpayers have been footing the bill through crop insurance. And it was really good when it was good, but boy, it was really bad when it was bad. But they've had to have the indemnity payments and several forms of disaster relief.

I can think of so many times of driving through there during that flood and people begging for so many months and years for help with that issue. But this, this project will give one of the most rural, underserved areas of the country, which has been devastated for years, this is going to give that little community an opportunity to flourish. I have never understood how we got to the many years that it should have been done and had not been done, so you can imagine how excited I am that this is in in the budget, but we've recently learned that the fiscal year 2027 total capability for this project has increased since the time the budget was prepared. So should Congress appropriate funding above the amount proposed in the budget, are you confident those additional funds can be put to good use, can be dispersed the way they should be, and make a major difference in the lives of all of those people down there in the South Delta in Mississippi. Senator Hyde-Smith, thank you for the question.

You're absolutely right. This project was authorized in 1941 as part of the Mississippi River and Tributary System. We're in May of 2026. We're in the 99th anniversary month of the Great Flood of 1927, and this project was in response to that event which affected Mississippi and Louisiana and so many other places. To your question, The president's budget includes $30 million for this project.

The technical assistance we provided to the committee indicates a capability of $100 million for this project in addition to that. I'm confident that the additional money included in that capability for mitigation— I'm confident all the money could be obligated in fiscal year '27. I'm confident that the additional money included in that amount for mitigation could be executed in fiscal year '27. The additional money is for design, and I'm less confident that that could be executed, all of that could be executed in FY '27. But certainly if additional funding is included, we will put it to good use.

General Graham, do you have any comments on that? Um, absolutely agree with Mr. Tell. Um, the mitigation banking, additional funding, we can certainly put that to work, uh, in, in the year of appropriations, and we'll do our best to put the design money to work wisely. Okay, and I still have a little time. The, uh, I was also very pleased to see that the robust funding for the Arkabutla Lake and Dam, which supports 57,200-acre flood control reservoir in North Mississippi.

And in 2023, the structural issues— that's when they were detected in the dam, putting at risk for severe potential failure at that time and now. But the results of a breach in a dam that size would obviously be catastrophic. Catastrophic homes, rural towns, and hundreds of thousands of acres downstream. So failure is not an option on that. Again, should Congress appropriate funding above the amount proposed, the budget for Arkabutla Dam repairs, can you tell me how that would flow out?

And are you confident that this could be handled to actually correct the problem that we have? Senator, you're correct. Arcabutla Dam, we rank— the engineers of the Corps of Engineers rank all of the dams in our inventory based on their safety level and our concerns. And Prado Dam, which I mentioned in my opening statement, in Los Angeles area of California, and Arcabutla Dam are number 1 and 2 in terms of the dams we're looking at nationwide in terms of safety concerns. The president's budget reflects this.

As you say, an additional capability has been reflected in technical assistance provided to the committee. Um, the good news story here is I was briefed earlier this week about this project. We had been looking, and I know your office had brought to our attention the idea that this might take 10 years or longer. Um, as we are right now, it looks like we actually are going to start construction in 2028, and construction is going to be complete within 5 years. So that's, uh, we're moving in the right direction on Archibald.

It's a critically important facility. Thank you for your advocacy for it. Thank you. And I'm out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Merkley.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And because of the work you all do across the country, we all have projects in our various states where we're concerned about. This is a chance for us to follow up on them and ask for your help. And Assistant Secretary Travnik, back in 2018, Congressman Walden and I set up the Climate Drought Response Agency. To assist the farmers in the Klamath Basin who had to idle their land for a season due to drought.

And since then, the Bureau of Reclamation has continued to support the agency in drought years. This year, the basin unfortunately is in severe drought, and there is some funding that's left over from FY '25 and '26 available to help out. Thankfully. But as we look to FY27, the president's budget doesn't contain funding for the Klamath Drought Response Agency. If we face another drought year in, in the summer of '27, can I get you to commit to helping us get that DRA assistance to the Klamath farmers?

Uh, thank you, Senator Merkley, for, for the question. As, and as you mentioned, yes, we're seeing drought situation up in the Klamath Basin as well. And as you mentioned, so we were able to put some funding towards that drought response agency this year with the $19.1 million. We were also able to so far give an initial allocation of 221,000 acre-feet and working really closely with the stakeholders within the area. I have a very small amount of time, and I'm well aware of everything you just said.

It's kind of just what I just said to you. The point is, look, there's nothing in the budget for next year. Can I get your help to make sure they're not left high and dry if we face drought next summer? So we'll continue to work with you on what that drought response might look like for this next year. Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that. I'm perceiving good intentions to be helpful. Very much so. Thank you. Thank you.

Second, Assistant Secretary Patel, Thank you for meeting with me last week. Hey, mate. And for facilitating a meeting between the Corps and Springfield. This is their 42nd Street levee project. And I had mentioned that the city had been told that the project was paused, and I had been told otherwise from the Corps that it's not paused.

But I do have with me the emails in which the Corps told the city that it was paused, and they were very, very specific about saying the administration was choosing not to forward funds to these programs and that therefore it's fun. But here's the thing. The, the city has done their copay. They've spent $400,000 in checks to the Corps. To get this study done.

The Corps has taken the checks and now just says, well, the whole thing's paused. How do we— how do we resolve this? I know you offered to help. Have you been able to facilitate some conversations, get this straightened out and get this— because without the study, they can't proceed. And we are talking about a levee that is 60 years old that protects 24,000 people.

And they're very concerned that they've got to complete the study and prepare to try to make sure this thing doesn't collapse.

Uh, Senator Merkley, thank you for the question. I don't believe that that project has been paused. I don't believe that information is accurate. I know we responded to your office earlier this week. General Graham has personally looked into this for us.

Um, Senator, it's not paused. There was some hiccups in getting the current year money released And that was just administrative work. I'm responsible for that. That got fixed yesterday. They are moving forward with $160,000 that they've got in their current accounts to keep this vital Cap 105 flood risk management project moving forward.

And we're happy to sit down with the city to make sure that there's no more miscommunication. I just want to make sure, Assistant Secretary Tell, I just want you to understand I'm just reading from the email from the Corps. It says the Springfield 42nd Street levee project, CAP project, flood risk CAP project has been stopped due to the pause of issuance of additional federal funds. Now, Lieutenant General, you're saying you've had conversations, it's back on track? Senator, that's correct.

Thank you. I just want you to know that I am not making this up? Because you kind of implied that you didn't believe that that was true. Well, Senator Merkley, no, that's not what I'm implying at all. What I will say, and this is a general— this is not specific to this project, but as a general matter, it is quite common for our project managers in the field as they manage the project to get the best result for the taxpayer, ensure that our non-federal sponsors and the federal government are seeing eye to eye to make sure cost shares are in line.

It is common practice for our practitioners in the field to put a project on pause. The check engine light comes over, they pull over to the side of the road. So I just want to make sure that you understand that from our perspective, there may be instances throughout how we conduct our business where a project may be paused for some good reason that's technical in nature. And so—. Thank you.

I accept that. Fine. I just wanted you to understand I'm not creating some fiction here. Who wrote the email? It is from the Portland District of of the Corps.

Wow. Yeah, yeah. I'll enter a copy of it into the record. Okay, great. Without objection.

Thank you. And but I understand discussions have proceeded. It's now proceeding forward because they're feeling very stranded. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. I really appreciate that. And can I borrow that email? No, I'm sorry, go ahead. I'll help you any way I can.

Thank you. You help Oregon projects, I'll help Louisiana projects. How about that? The Willamette Hydropower Study, this is a study in which there's 13 dams and people, the various owners wanted to all understand what is the significance of the different hydropower pieces, many of which play different mounts and roles. And we had a whole preceding project on the Klamath dams where the owner didn't, didn't want to refurbish the next 50-year lease.

I've asked now, this is the 6th time I've asked to get this study delivered, and I'm told that the only response we can get is it's in OMB and someday we may get told something about it. But this is in law from Werda 2022.

How do we actually— Assistant Secretary, how do we— when we put something into law, it doesn't seem right that the study is paid for, authorized, done, and then is sitting who knows what closet somewhere because somebody doesn't like what the study says. How do we get it out of that closet and delivered as the law expects? Answer that one and then we'll have to move on. But we'll—. Oh, okay.

Okay. Thank you. No, no, no, no. I want you to answer, if you would, please. Yes, sir.

Senator's question. Senator, we're in almost daily communication with the interagency about how we can move these things along. In this particular case, as you noted, this has— this spans multiple years, and it has to do with taking hydropower facilities offline and transferring them to a power marketing agency. This is a very complicated question that the interagency must deliberate on. I'm, uh, I'm interested in getting it to you as quickly as we possibly can, and I'm working towards that every single day.

I appreciate that, uh, because it may be interagency, but the study's been paid for, it's been done, it's in law. The point is At some point someone has to say, we are handing it over, and maybe put a preface on it and say you don't like the results or something, but for it to be buried forever is a waste of the taxpayers' money and really a violation of the spirit of the law. Thanks. Thank you, Senator. Senator Britt.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank all of you for being here today. Really appreciate the work that you do and look forward to an opportunity to talk about some important things. I want to start with Assistant Secretary Tell and General Graham. First, want to express my appreciation for what you've done for the Mobile Harbor project, um, and this year's work plan.

The newly deepened ship channel is truly transformative to the state of Alabama, to the entire Gulf Coast region, and ultimately to commerce. And, um, it's a critical gateway for our entire nation. I appreciate the Corps' attention to the dredging and material management techniques, um, that are being utilized there in Mobile Bay. So So thank you so much for being so intentional in that space. Maximizing the Corps' resources is important, but so is ensuring that we are good stewards of the bay's natural resources, especially when so many jobs and industries and local communities depend on the health and the beauty and the fruitfulness of the wildlife there in Mobile Bay.

So I appreciate your attention to that. I want to make sure that we do this the right way. Um, and that brings me to something I think we can all agree on, and that is the streamlining of the permitting process. So, with the Upper Mobile Bay Beneficial Use site is a major accomplishment made through, uh, possible through the collaboration, as you all know, of the Port of Mobile, local stakeholders, and the Corps. However, despite the broad support, the permitting process for that site took more than 5 years.

Um, General Graham or Assistant Secretary Tell, my question is, how does the Corps' broader initiative focused on reducing red tape and improving efficiencies help streamline overlapping permitting and environmental review processes between the Corps and the EPA so that critical infrastructure projects and beneficial use projects can move forward more quickly? Senator Britt, thank you for the question, and it's an important one. I think I've heard on a bipartisan basis frustrations with the permitting process at the federal level, and I will say that Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork and the actions taken by the Trump administration over the last year and a half have done a tremendous amount to streamline this process. In March of last year, in response to a Supreme Court decision that was relevant, we updated our guidance to the field about how to determine what is and what is not a water of the United States under, under current law. That was important to provide certainty to our regulators.

We're continuing that and we have a proposed final rule out there for comment and we hope to see that in the coming months to provide certainty across the board. When it comes to beneficial use, placement of dredge material is often the long pole in the tent in terms of our ability to dredge the harbors we need to dredge. If we don't have a place to put the material, in a cost-effective way, it makes it very difficult to keep our ports and harbors deep and maintained. And so we're— part of Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork is really about asking our partners at ports to think about this in advance, work with us to find these sites, and then when they come to us, making sure that the process is streamlined. In the case— you're talking about beneficial use of material in the Mobile Bay.

This is critically important. If we could use every grain of sand we have beneficial use, we would. Uh, it becomes cost prohibitive in many cases, but it's absolutely something we're committed to. Let's continue to work together to get it right. So thank you very much.

And actually, while I have you on the restructuring and what you're doing there as far as making things more efficient, there's been some back and forth about salaries and the changes to the budgeting process with regards to staff salaries. Can you talk a little bit about how that change would ultimately allow you to maybe better execute projects in the long term? Because I think there's definitely been some confusion around that and would love to hear from you on it. Certainly, Senator Britton. I think Senator— Chairman Kennedy said earlier that an accounting challenge— he's skeptical whether accounting change can fix all the problems at the Corps, and I agree with that.

It's one of 28 reforms that are all complementary to each other, but it's an important one. It's the one that is most relevant in my view to this subcommittee because it has to do with the account structure. I would argue that there is very little in the way that the subcommittee and the Congress appropriates in the energy and water bill that incentivizes our workforce to deliver. The project funding can be— is a— our employees bill to the project funding, and there's no limit currently on how much they bill to the project funding. So you would just be incentivized to keep it going?

That's correct, and I've actually heard that from our commanders, that they're in tension between delivery and maintaining the health of their district, and that's not the tension we should put them in. We should make decisions. This budget includes, for the first time ever, a split between project costs and salaries and expenses. This provides you with clarity about what you're buying, and it allows us to have a workforce that can count on their salaries whether or not they're tied to a project. We think delinking and decoupling and the commingling of these funds will result in a workforce whose incentives are more aligned with delivery, which I know is the intent of this bill.

I hope so. I hope we can deliver projects efficiently and effectively and reliably, and I hope that this will lead us to doing that. Last thing, Mr. Chairman, the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway, it's a critical piece of our nation's inland navigation network. As you know, we had a study that was authorized by WERTA, and I have worked with a subcommittee to help secure the funding to support that. Just given the importance of that corridor, both in Alabama and the country, I wanted to ask for your commitment to continue working with my office to ensure that we can move this study and project forward in the future.

Senator, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chairman. You're welcome. Folks in the Senate, and around the country have heard a lot about the Colorado River in the last couple of years. This is the other water crisis for those of us who are split between the Colorado Basin and the Rio Grande Basin. This is the Pueblo of Santa Ana, north of Albuquerque.

In a normal year, it— the river's between 3,000 and 4,000 CFS, cubic feet per second. Last year we thought it was an absolute emergency because it was at 600 cubic feet per second. This year it's at 200 right now. It's getting harder and harder to manage the Rio Grande in the current situation. Given that there's not enough water to go around, Assistant Secretary Travnichek, how is Reclamation making decisions about allocations right now on the Rio Grande?

Thank you for the question, Senator. Thank you for coming out to New Mexico last week. I appreciate you putting eyes on this yourself on the ground. Yeah, no, I was just going to mention that it was good to be out there. I was in El Paso on Friday and then took the time to get over and see some of the infrastructure that you have within the state of New Mexico.

And you're exactly right, drove over the Rio ground, and that's what it looks like right now in some areas for sure. So, yeah, so we're definitely, as it's working with the allocations that we work through, of And of course, it's related to whether it's a treaty that's in place, whether it's an agreement that's already in place, and then also trying to see if there's areas where we can think outside the box if we've got that ability to do so. So I think we're trying all the different tools in the toolbox, also open to any new thoughts and ideas. I mean, at the same time, we're having discussions related to desal, trying to see if there's areas for augmentation, water reuse. So we're looking at everything.

You know, one of the reasons why we're in such a tough spot right now on the Rio Grande is because one of our most significant storage facilities, El Vado Dam, is at— is basically offline right now, needs to be refurbished, has been a problem for a while. When will Reclamation complete its assessment of which alternative to pursue to restore El Vado Dam? Appreciate the question too. I know how important that dam is to the state and to the water users, recognizing the importance of the storage. So I was able to get a little bit of information of this too while I was on the road.

So the team that's working on it, the engineers. So where we're at in the process right now, we're doing a field exploration study, looking at where those impacts might be related to concerns on seepage. So we are gonna have to be doing some drilling, looking at the foundation. The goal is that the fieldwork will be going on this summer. I think what's slated right now is that May to September timeframe, but hopefully we can figure out what that preferred alternative is and then get that back up and running.

In this case, what I hope I don't see is a no-action alternative, because without El Vado, we're just like up a creek without a paddle. Poor metaphor for drought, but nonetheless. One of the tools you have to sort of let some of the stress out of the system in the current situation of shortage across basins in the West is WaterSMART grant funding. And, you know, Congress appropriated over $2 billion for WaterSMART in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. I believe about $1.3 billion of that has actually been spent so far.

Are you looking at that as a way to try to create new wet water in some of these systems, or at least let some of the stress out? Because we've had a particular grant that I believe is still tied up even though it had been approved. Thank you for the question. Can you tell me which one it is that's tied up? Uh, Chama Peak Land Alliance.

It was for forest thinning and trying to get the watershed to produce more into the system. Okay, I'll take that back to look at a little bit closer, but no, it's exactly right. We're looking to still maximize using those dollars that we have from previously, putting those to good use. We continue to not only look at the WaterSMART ones that still exist, but the other programs as well. Great.

But I'll take that back. Secretary Tell, for about a quarter century, Congress has directed the Army Corps and Reclamation to work with the National Academies of Science to identify durable integrated water resource solutions for the Rio Grande Basin. I understand the Bureau of Reclamation and the National Academies of Science are ready to start on that. They just need the Army Corps to fully participate. Is, is the Army Corps going to participate in that?

Senator, I'm showing in FY26 No specific funding for this, but I'll get back to you. I think General Graham has studied this one extensively. General, so, Senator, we certainly understand your intent here, and we do work collaboratively with the Bureau of Reclamation throughout the Rio Grande Valley. We don't believe that we have the authority nor funding to do the collaboration to send that funds to National Academy of Science, but our commitment to you is to come back to your staff to see if we can find a way forward on this. But we clearly understand your intent, and we'll see if we can put together a path that gets us there.

I appreciate your intent, General. There was a— I'm sure you know this, Senator, but there was a long piece. I think it was the Wall Street Journal about the Colorado River. Yeah, it's— we got a mess. So it's tough.

It's a 5-alarm fire. I mean, it's basically a problem of of snow, isn't it? It is, but it's also the, the entire watershed is producing less water than it used to. And we've known this for a couple of several decades, and we keep using more than comes in so that every year the storage gets lower. And at a certain point, the system doesn't even work if, if the water level in some of those reservoirs gets below the infrastructure was built to be able to manage the water.

Okay. Senator Hoeven. Senator Kent, you're right about that. I read the same article. Yeah, it's just a map.

It's a huge challenge. Secretary Travnik, good to see you. Know you're hard at work on that and many other things. Thank you for your help speaking of water. Thank you for your help on NDOS, Eastern North Dakota Alternative Water Supply Project.

Very important for the whole eastern half of North Dakota and parts of Minnesota as well. We made excellent progress on that in the last couple of years. About $158 million in funding, but also use of the McCluskey Canal, which frankly saves both the state of North Dakota and the federal government about $200 million because we're actually using it, as well as $4 million a year in operating costs. But we've got more to do on the federal share. The state is funding its share.

The state is stepping up and doing its part. Talk to me about how we're going to continue to provide additional funding to complete that vital project. Good to see you, Senator Hoeven, and you're exactly right how important that NDOS project is to the communities up there. I know how important that is to you and the constituents and how many communities that will be serving. So you mentioned we were able to get the one big beautiful bill, the $100 million for NDOS, and of course then continuing to look for other opportunities as well and recognize the importance savings that go into that by being able to use the McCluskey Canal.

Right. And also in the President's budget. So we have your full— I know I don't need to ask, but I will anyway for the record. We have your full support in making sure that we secure that funding to again match the state's efforts this year? Correct, Senator.

So as in the President's budget, yes. And we have your full support to make sure that is funded as well to match the state's efforts. We will continue to do that. Thank you. And, and again, thank you for your good work on this project and others.

Thank you. Uh, we really appreciate it. Um, Secretary Tell, thanks for being in Fargo last week. Um, great job on a great project. I guess I'll just start there.

I, I don't have an ask for you right now because you've been so proactive and so good on a 3-point $2.2 billion project that's coming in under budget, ahead of schedule, will provide flood protection for the same area, eastern North Dakota Red River Valley, as well as Minnesota, with a new public-private partnership. And you've stepped up, been a huge help. I don't have an ask. I just, I have a big thanks. And just any, anything that I wanted to again bring it up because you've been so good and so helpful.

Is there anything that you would want to offer on that? Well, Senator Hoeven, thank you for having me out in North Dakota, and I appreciate the thanks, but really I think you and former Governor Burgum and others— I think about the mayor of Fargo— deserve a lot of the credit for this. This is one of the more innovative flood risk mitigation projects that we've seen in recent years, and we turned the federal/non-federal cost share on its head. The federal government's only covering 35% of the cost of this because the local The locals, the states of North Dakota and Minnesota have stepped up in such an incredible way. And as I expressed to you when we were there, it's unfortunate that it took superheroes like Jon Hoven for us to do something innovative.

But what we learned out there are the same principles we've applied in building infrastructure, not paperwork. We want to take the same can-do attitude that our St. Paul district displayed in Fargo, and we want to spread it throughout the country and get innovative about delivering infrastructure, which is exactly what's happening in Fargo. I'm glad I asked for your comment. And would you say that that's even the kind of a project that could work in a place like Louisiana, in your opinion? Well, Senator, North Dakota in that area is very flat, as is Louisiana, and they both have challenges for sure.

But absolutely, the lessons learned in Fargo can benefit every state, and Louisiana is in particular need of the Corps of Engineers' help right away. The reality is that model is a good model for any state, right? Because it actually saves money, saves time, gets these projects working and saves taxpayer dollars, right? Yes, sir. And you and the, the mayor and the team there in Fargo, the can-do attitude, years of sandbagging, scar tissue from sandbagging over the years motivated everyone to get it done.

And luckily we had a St. Paul district that was willing to work creatively and deliver. I also want to thank for your, uh, your work to bring Dakota Access Pipeline to fruition. Any, anything you want other than, again, I want to put put on the record that you've been very helpful in that vital project, not just for the state, for the country. Um, 800,000— up to 800,000 barrels a day of the best light sweet crude that we produce out of North Dakota for the rest of the country. Any updates, thoughts, comments on that?

Well, Senator, this is a critically important piece of infrastructure. It's part of President Trump's energy dominance agenda. Energy is the key input to economic success and global influence. And I would say that it was unfortunate that this project was tied up in red tape for so many years. I expect a final record of decision imminently.

Yeah. And thanks. Thanks for your incredible work on it. And finally, General Graham, Lake Sakakawea, 100-mile-long man-made lake thanks to Garrison Dam on the Missouri River. Incredible asset in so many ways, whether it's for power production, water supply, you name it.

But it's also really important for recreation. So talk to me about your commitment to work with the local— and there's a lot of local groups up there putting money into boat ramps, access roads, and everything else— your commitment to work with them to make sure that those boat ramps, access roads, and other facilities are updated and, you know, available. So, Senator Hoeven, the Corps of Engineers gets more visitations than the National Park Service because our facilities are where the people are. 250 Million visitations a year is what we get. So, Senator, we want to wring every ounce of public value we can out of the facilities we steward in the public's name.

So you absolutely have our commitment. Again, thanks to all three of you. Appreciate it very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator.

You know, we, we in the Senate call Senator Hoeven by his nickname, Superhero 2.

But in high school, he was known as Scooter.

Senator, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome, Scooter.

Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. You need to catch your breath. I won't start the clock.

We're not paying attention to the clock anyway. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, member.

Thank you.

As will likely come as no surprise to the folks here today, I want to start today by talking about the Brandon Road Interbasin Project. You know, put simply, this project is our one and only hope of keeping carp from decimating the Great Lakes and really causing irreputable harm to our economy and way of life really throughout the the Great Lakes region. That's why I've been a long— it's been a long-time priority of mine, and I'm glad to see it was also a priority of the president as well, as was made clear in his Protecting the Great Lakes from Evasive Carp presidential memorandum. But to be clear, we don't just have to get this project done, we also have to get it done as soon as possible. Carp are not waiting for that project, and they're working aggressively trying to get into the Great Lakes watershed.

So, Assistant Secretary Tao, when we met last week, you outlined the fiscal year '27 funding capability for the Brandon Project at $235 million. That level of funding would help ensure the timely award of the increment to flushing dock and the right descending bank guide wall construction contracts, which, as you well know, is key to keeping this project on track. So I'm certainly laser-focused on securing this level of funding in the FY27 energy and water bill. My question for you, Assistant Secretary General Graham, and for those who may not be familiar with the stakes here, if both of you would let the committee know the importance of this project, how you've worked to get construction moving, and how vital it is— vital, again, stressing that it gets completed on time. Thank you, Senator Peters, and you've been a tremendous advocate for this project, as has the entire state of Michigan.

And I like to zoom out when I talk about this project because prior to the 20th century, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River system weren't connected. The Corps of Engineers during the last century connected them, which has been great for commerce. I like to say it connects New Orleans, Louisiana, to Buffalo, New York, which is a miracle by water, which is the most efficient form of transportation. The unfortunate byproduct of that is that Asian carp entered the Mississippi River system, and they're now threatening to enter the Great Lakes. And I've heard from you on a number of occasions and from those throughout the Great Lakes states about the impact this would have on your economy and the ecology of the Great Lakes, which are an absolute treasure for our nation.

Uh, the Brandon Road— the Brandon Road is a lock on that waterway that connects those two formerly unconnected bodies of water, and it is a choke point, the perfect choke point that we've identified to deter Asian carp and turn them around. It will include— General Graham likes to call it a fish disco, but it's bubble curtains, acoustics, electric shock, flushing, flushing locks, as you mentioned. All these are things that we've studied that will turn these Asian carp around and not allow them to enter the Great Lakes. This is an important project that, as you said, President Trump has been a champion for. He believes in that same cause.

You've been a tremendous advocate for it and a great partner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

This is all about momentum, and we've got great momentum right now. As you spoke to, Increment 1A is on the streets, and we're progressing forward on that. Moving forward with the second increment, the Flushing Lock, as you said, would be a great step forward to just maintain momentum on this project, deliver it efficiently, and protect the Great Lakes. Great, thank you. I appreciate it.

Uh, Sister Patel, on May 1st, you signed a request allowing for additional time and funding to complete the Southeast Michigan Flood Risk Management Study, which is, as you know, another top priority of mine. And for that, I'd like to just say thank you. Thank you. As we've discussed previously, this is going to help ensure that the study progresses to the point at which the, the Corps will be able to develop a thorough technical report to inform future infrastructure efforts to address what has become pretty regular regional flooding in the area. With this request signed, I'm hoping that we can now turn our attention to actually getting this study done in the coming fiscal year so that we can start delivering some tangible results for residents throughout Southeast Michigan.

By my count, the study needs another $800,000 in federal funding to allow for completion So that's what I'm going to be working to secure in FY27 energy and water bill. So my question for both of you gentlemen is, can I count on you to work with me to find a way to get this study done so we can finish it up in FY27? Senator Peters, thank you for the question. And if I might take 30 seconds, this is a result of building infrastructure, not paperwork. This success in Southeast Michigan, we had hesitancy in the past to make a decision and give a community the information that we had acquired and that they had helped fund about how best to protect themselves.

There may be a role for the federal government, there may be a role for the local community in some parts of the project, and that's what we did. We applied a new process as part of Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork called RAPID that's really about making decisions, getting everybody involved into a conference room and making decisions about how to proceed. And this project, instead of being studied forever, We are going to be able to deliver something to protect the citizens of that area of your state. Thank you, John. Senator, it's all about hustle and moving forward to exactly as Assistant Secretary Taylor spoke to, which is get that information where it can do the citizens good.

Yeah, great. Well, I appreciate both of you. Thank you for this effort and the other effort as well. And we're going to get all these done soon. I want to get them done real soon, certainly by the end of the year, for a lot of reasons.

Thank you.

We're waiting on Senator Murkowski. Senator Murray is going to have to go to another hearing. Do you have any other questions you wanted to ask? I do not. And if I don't make it back, I will just reiterate that I look forward to working with you.

We've got a tough challenge in front of us and appreciate your work. Thank you, Patty. Do we know if Senator Murkowski is on her way? Do we know? I'm sorry.

Oh, you've texted her? Oh, Senator Heinrich. Uh, I, uh, grabbed a copy of a letter that I shared, or that I sent to you, General. Uh, and the reason I did that is because with regard to, uh, the study that we were talking about, um, it's my understanding, and this is articulated in the letter, that there are 4 different, uh, public law authorizations for your ability to participate in that study. And I'll share that with you again.

But I, I think we have plenty of authorization. I think what we're asking for here is basically just technical assistance.

Senator, I did read your letter. I think we still have some disagreements amongst the staff. Happy to get everybody in some room and let's see if we can work this out. I think we need to do that.

Another question for you, Mr. Tell.

You mentioned in your, in your opening testimony the importance of transparency in the budget. Can you provide me with a list of the current Army Corps projects in the state of New Mexico and what their status are? Senator Heinrich, absolutely. The answer to your question is absolutely, absolutely. But it raises another point that I think is important for the whole committee to understand.

My first day on the job, I asked the team how many projects are authorized in the country, and they said, sir, we don't know. And I view this as something that is inappropriate. We ought to know which projects are on the books. General Graham has since hired someone to count all the projects and account for all the projects that have been authorized. I'll tell you, it's somewhere between, by our estimates, between 1,000 and 10,000, and that's about the level.

That's a big range. Yeah, that's a big range. And so This is something we hope to have in the coming weeks, but this is part of what we're doing to make sure that we clear out things that are aged and focus our effort on what's needed today. So, uh, what's a reasonable time frame for, for that, just for the state of New Mexico? Senator, we can get you, uh, the answer to that question by the end of the week for New Mexico.

That's if we find others while General Graham's person's counting, we will let you know. Thank you. Um, I'm told that the Corps no longer has the capability to participate in the Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program. Program that's been going for 25 years, because as we've had less and less water, we've had listings on the Rio Grande. That was a project that was started by Senator Pete Domenici to manage some of those conflicts and has worked really well.

Um, will you— can you provide me with an explanation for why the decision was made to pull out of that? I'll let General Graham correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the ESA issue was given a clean bill of health around 2018 on this project. And that's why, in other words, the challenge that we were facing has been addressed. So as Assistant Secretary Tell spoke to, Senator Heinrich, yes, our participation is no longer required under the 2017, I believe it was, biological opinion. But I know there's funds sitting on this, and we— my understanding sitting here today is that our researchers in the district are still putting labor towards that end.

I'll come back to your staff. And yeah, you can come back with—. And to me, I think we're still working on it. I think what we want to make sure is that we don't get ourselves back into the, the problem we had before. Yes, sir.

Thank you.

All right, I've got a couple more. I promised you folks that you could talk about your district salaries and expenses project. Give, give us a 30 or 40-second overview like you're talking to a 10th grader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way that the Corps of Engineers has received funds from Congress and budgeted has been by project year over year.

We have 39 civil works districts across the country. That's the large part of our staff. The headquarters footprint is very small. Our workforce is spread out. The way that we pay the salaries of those employees is by allowing them to bill to the project.

So every project has a labor cost, the cost that it— that of the people that are working on that project, and a delivery cost, like a contract to execute the project by—. I get it. How do you want to do it differently? The FY27 president's budget, uh, recommends separating, um, the labor costs from the project costs, both to give you transparency so that you understand what portion of each project is tied to labor, as well as to break the incentive that we believe exists between project— there's a tension between project delivery and district sustainment that we want to break. So you're doing it for transparency reasons, is that right?

That's correct, sir. That's one of the reasons. How is it going to be more transparent if you, if you just have a new entry that says salaries? Well, Senator, it's because—. Are you going to know what salary goes with what project?

Well, Senator, in the previous, uh, way that, that was budgeted and appropriated, there was no information about salaries. None, none whatsoever. It was just the project. And so it's more transparent, and then it pulls the salaries, uh, out of the projects that before it was just a project cost and there was no bifurcation. And so that's why it's more transparent, because it provides more information This is a rare case where the executive branch is excitedly sharing more information with the legislative branch.

Well, will you have internal data that shows how much salary is attributable to a particular project? Yes, Senator, we've published that information for fiscal year '26 work plan as well as the fiscal year '27 budget request. We've shared that information with your committee, and we've also briefed your committee staff on the backend accounting system that can track it over the course of time so that we can keep up with project costs. Have you shared that information with all the members of Congress about the projects in their districts? Senator, in sharing the FY27 budget request, we shared it, and we have published the split, and we shared it with every relevant committee in Congress and anyone who's asked.

Okay.

So as I understand it, Mr. Secretary, right now there's no column for salaries and expenses. That's correct, sir. It's attributable for the districts. That's correct. Right.

It's just included in each project. That's correct, sir. And now you're going to break it out. Yeah. Go ahead, General.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You're correct. It'll still be by project. So before there was one lump sum for each project.

Now it'll be for the project delivery, the contract, as Mr. Tell spoke to, and then the internal USACE labor. But it'll still be by project broken out that way. So each project you'll see what the in-house labor bill is. Okay. So for each project, labor and expenses will still be a line item, Senator, but in terms of the budget, Salaries and expenses will be— have its own category.

Is that right? Yes, sir, that's correct. How's that going to help the Corps with its overall missions? Senator, it's going to— it's going to help the Corps by incentivizing delivery. What I've heard from commanders in the field is that they're—.

How does that incentivize delivery? I'm not doubting you. I just don't understand how. Well, today It is, as I said in my opening statement, when a commander sees that a project that's a cash cow for that district is going to continue next year, it solves a lot of that district commander's management challenges with his staff, because the funding continues and continues, and if the funding expires, quite often Congress will appropriate additional funding, and so projects become lines of revenue for districts, and someone has to make the business decisions about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing for the district, So that tension, if we eliminate, if we take that off the table, that idea that we need to keep projects alive to keep the district healthy, it will solely focus our commanders and our workforce on delivery. That's how it incentivizes delivery.

Today there's an incentive for projects to be extended or to pull projects off the shelf. It may not—. But, Mr. Secretary, you've got that data right now, don't you? Yes, sir, we do. So you can tell, can you not, when a district manager's gaming the system?

Certainly we, in theory, we could and we will going forward. But this question had never been asked before. What question is that? The question about how much, at scale, the question about how much of our project budgets were going towards salaries.

I, I just don't understand how coming up with a new line item for salaries and expenses Is going to make our lives better if you already have the data anyway, Senator, it's not listed in the budget. You're absolutely— in many ways you're correct. We have the ability administratively, even if you appropriate the way that you've previously appropriated, we have the ability administrative— administratively to build what I would call a cardboard firewall between salaries and expenses and project costs. What we're asking the committee to do is help us build a brick firewall so that we're, you know, the demonstration throughout the leadership in Washington is that we're serious about making sure we account for project costs and labor costs and we can make rational decisions on each side. Right now, you know, that commingling, if we don't go all the way with the Appropriations Committee, our partners here, in my view, that commingling will still ultimately find its way through that cardboard firewall.

All right.

I'll be glad to read anything you want to send me. I just don't get it. Sounds to me like it's a distinction without a difference. Um, but maybe that's my shortcoming. Senator Murkowski, thank you.

Nice to see you. Nice to see you. And I'm sorry to keep you waiting, but that's quite all right. You dove into a meaty subject there. So good.

Good. I want to be brief. We had an opportunity to visit, and I appreciate your good work, Mr. Tell.

We've talked a lot about the situation in Juneau with Mendenhall Glacier and the Youghioghtep. I've talked to you about the expertise that the mining community brings to the table in drilling and operating work in their tunnels. They think that they've got some good ideas. If local miners in the area can demonstrate to you that they're able to help with a long-term solution in a way that saves time and money, is the Corps willing to look into working with them in pursuing some kind of a public-private partnership? Senator Murkowski, absolutely.

I think the situation in Juneau is unlike any we face within our portfolio. It's an uncommon situation that's going to require an uncommon solution. We've talked about that extensively. You shared a technical paper that the miners in Juneau provided to us. I think you got it on the airplane.

Yeah. And General Kelly, who works for General Graham, is taking a look at that technical paper from a technical engineering perspective, and we owe you an answer, and we're going to get it to you as soon as possible. I would say nothing's off the table when it comes to doing our best to protect Juneau in the short, medium, and long term. Well, I appreciate that and recognizing that it's going to require some collaborative thinking, let's put it that way. I want to go to our next— well, another favorite topic, which of course is the Port of Nome.

Everyone is seemingly in agreement that the Port of Nome is just strategic value for the homeland, for economic security, for national security. Every time I bring it up with someone in the Corps, they reassure me the Port-a-Nome project is priority, and yet you look at the budget and it's like, where is it? Usually your priorities are reflected in your budget. And then when you don't see meaningful investment in a project, it just sends the wrong message. So we're seeing what our adversaries are doing over on the Russian side.

They're not afraid to be building things up over there. You have committed to me before, but I just need you to state clearly on the record in front of the committee today, um, a direct answer to this question: is the Port of Nome a priority for the U.S. Army Corps? Senator Murkowski, absolutely. It would be our nation's only Arctic port. I've been there.

Um, you get it. It's a priority for me. So absolutely. Yeah. So we all know that the project is expensive.

We get it. But look, Building up in the Arctic is expensive, and it's just always going to be expensive. Um, these projects are the end of the supply chain. You got short construction seasons. You have all kinds of reasons.

Maybe they're excuses, but it's the reality, and it's just the reality. So, um, this project is just getting more expensive because it's just being drawn out longer. Um, And I don't know the extent to which the Corps has actually explored some kind of regulatory relief, if there is any, or any other ways to lessen the burden. When you have short construction seasons, you've got the logistical challenges where you've got to move everything up by ship, and that's limited because you can't do that 365 days a year. When you have non-contiguous states like Alaska, Hawaii, but I mean, our challenge is different because we just don't have 365 days to work.

Again, like Juneau, we've got to be thinking a little bit differently about a major project like this. And so I'm going to task you and your team to really engage with perhaps some alternatives that we might be able to look to where we're talking about some kind of regulatory relief. Senator Murkowski, this is a critical project. We've got to get it done. We've got to get it done ahead of schedule, and I think we have to get it done under budget.

Yeah, that's music to my ears. And I think we can't— I think we, just like in the situation with Juneau and the Mendenhall Valley, I think building infrastructure, not paperwork, and many of the tools in our toolkit that are there now is going to enable us to think in new ways about how to cut through these challenges. And you're absolutely right, building in Alaska is more difficult than most places in the United States of America. And so we're going to have to be creative, and you've got my commitment to do that. Well, and I appreciate that, and I recognize your team, that it's not just you, you got good folks around you.

But I'm also concerned about the teams that are working on some of these projects. I've heard some concerns from folks back home about the Corps' staffing levels. We've heard that the Alaska District has lost about 130 staff, or one-third of its authorized staffing levels, over the course of the past 2 years. And so I worry. We have, we have a big, big, big opportunity in front of us.

The president has singled out Alaska with this Day One Executive Order, Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential. That's the name of it. But with everything that is identified in that, we've got to have some level of core engagement and involvement. And so if we're really talking about a staff that is one-third down from where we were, I'm not sure how you, you can do what the president has tasked you all to do. So I'm worried that we're going to see project timelines slip.

You said you want Nome to come in ahead of schedule and on budget or even better, but I'm worried that we're going to see timelines slip or we're going to be turning away projects as a result of staff capacity that is left. Less than adequate. Senator Murkowski, we will let— you'll be the first to know if the staffing situation in Alaska does anything to affect delivery of our projects. I would share with you a piece of information I got from our Southwest Division, which covers Oklahoma, Arkansas, and parts of Texas. They shared a stat with me that said their workforce division-wide is down 13%, but they're hitting their milestones 37% better than they were prior to that decline in their workforce, and so I would just say that a larger staff doesn't always mean better delivery, but we certainly have to keep our eye on ball in Alaska, which is a unique place in terms of recruiting and retention, and so I think it's all different, I think we're gonna have to rely on our commanders to make sure we're getting that right, but delivery is the center of the focus, and we've gotta deliver in Alaska.

Well, we do, and if you really are 1/3 down, I just, I can't imagine the workload that folks are under, and we push them hard, and they, they do amazing things, and you should be proud of your, your folks and your team. But we got to recognize that maybe they actually have a family that they want to see. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your indulgence and the opportunity to keep the hearing open. Appreciate it. Thank you.

I have, I have one last question, folks, and then we'll wrap this up. Um, Adam, you testified in front of The Senate Environmental Public Works Committee, that the Corps has $15 billion on your books. It's over 6 years old. Is that right? Yes, sir.

Why is that? I mean, is the money not obligated, or I mean, or is it projects that are closed? I don't understand. Can you explain to me? Senator, that's correct.

I mentioned earlier $46 billion worth of funds on our books that are unobligated. I mean, this is— any other agency, this would be unacceptable, but it's somehow become okay. Now, how much is it again? There's $46 billion total, $46 billion total, $15 billion that's more than 10 years old. And quite often the funding that's aged— and we're doing an analysis that we'll be happy to share with you and your team.

As soon as this hearing is over, I've directed my team that we are to understand every color of money within that $46 billion. Some of it is unobligated because we, at some point in our past, told Congress that a particular project was shovel-ready. Congress provided funding to it, usually in the wake of disasters, and it turned out that the project— the study that would have built the project is 10 or 20 years old and needed to be updated. So then you get back to studying, and when you get back to studying, you get back to negotiating with the locals about what you're going to do, what you're not going to do, how you're going to do it, and who's going to pay pay for it. So quite often this funding gets hung up in, in these types of round and round discussions.

Sometimes the community says, hey, we're not interested anymore. Sometimes the Corps says we need more money to actually do the project. So the goal that we have about putting that $46 billion to use for its intended purpose, or if it can't be used for its intended purpose, maybe putting it to use in a state like Louisiana. I think my point, Mr. Secretary, I don't want to to put too fine a point on it, but my point is, at some point, somebody's got to make a decision. That's right, sir.

Okay. And, and either close it out and put it somewhere else. Don't just leave it hanging around. You're absolutely right. Did I understand you to say earlier that the Corps doesn't understand— doesn't know how many total projects you have?

That's correct, sir. And it could be between 1,000 and 10,000. I think it's probably closer to 10,000, but that's correct. But you don't know. We don't know.

But we have a counter. I'm sorry, we have someone who's counting them today. We've hired someone just to unearth how many authorized projects are out there. There's a provision in the— in WERTA that says, hey, go look at projects that haven't received funding, haven't been alive or had a pulse for 20 years and recommend them for deauthorization. But we don't know the total universe, and that's unfortunate.

All right. All right. Thank you all for being here. I'll keep the, uh, hearing record open for one week. Committee members who would like to submit written questions for the record need to do so by 5:00 PM Wednesday, May July 27th.

Um, and we appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you, sir.