Hearings to examine proposed budget estimates for fiscal year 2026 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Senate Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

2025-06-11

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

A Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing convened to discuss the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation, featuring testimony from Acting Assistant Secretary D. Lee Forsgren, Lieutenant General W. H. "Butch" Graham Jr., and Acting Assistant Secretary Scott Cameron[ 00:18:05-00:18:07 ] [ 00:26:17-00:26:18 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. The hearing included sharp criticism of proposed budget cuts and a focus on project management, funding, and regional concerns.

Themes

Proposed Budget Cuts and Political Allocation

Both Senator Murray and Chairman Kennedy expressed strong disapproval of the administration's proposed budget, which includes significant cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation[ 00:27:34-00:28:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:35:27-00:36:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senator Murray characterized the budget as "dangerous" and "dead on arrival," citing a nearly 25% cut for the Corps and a 30% cut for the Bureau[ 00:27:47-00:28:24 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:28:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. She also accused the administration of politicizing funding decisions, diverting critical investments from "blue states" to "red states" and the president's political allies, contrary to expert recommendations and congressional intent[ 00:30:07-00:30:46 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:32:05-00:32:13 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Chairman Kennedy echoed this sentiment, stating that not a single galaxy would approve the proposed budget and that it is "not acceptable"[ 00:36:16-00:36:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Witnesses acknowledged that the budget primarily originates from OMB rather than their agencies[ 00:36:49 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Project Management and Delivery Challenges

Concerns were raised about the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to deliver projects on time and within budget. General Graham acknowledged that current performance, at 81% on-schedule delivery, is "unacceptable" and outlined three key areas for improvement: getting engineering right (35% design maturity before authorization), improving project management and scheduling, and building the right team for construction. Secretary Forsgren also stressed the need to find ways to bring projects in on time and closer to budget[ 00:38:16-00:38:45 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. An example was given of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans, which saw its estimated cost jump from $951 million to $4.7 billion over ten years due to court cases and a lack of trust from local communities[ 01:28:54-01:29:07 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Specific Project and Regional Funding Issues

Several senators brought up specific projects and regional concerns, highlighting ongoing challenges and the need for federal support.

  • Howard Hanson Dam (WA): Senator Murray criticized the defunding of this critical dam safety and fish passage project, noting its shovel-ready status and the administration's disregard for congressional appropriations[ 00:30:29-00:30:35 ]

    Citation requires full transcript

    Sign in to continue

    Sign in
    [ 00:43:58 ]

    Citation requires full transcript

    Sign in to continue

    Sign in
    .
  • Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund: Questions were raised about the underutilization of the fund and the failure to meet congressional targets, impacting donor ports like Seattle and Tacoma[ 00:28:09-00:28:18 ]

    Citation requires full transcript

    Sign in to continue

    Sign in
    .
  • Inland Waterways Trust Fund: Chairman Kennedy questioned why the proposed budget does not utilize funds from this trust, which is financed by a diesel fuel tax and cannot be used for other purposes[ 01:23:35-01:23:52 ]

    Citation requires full transcript

    Sign in to continue

    Sign in
    .
  • Yazoo Backwater Area Management Project (MS): Senator Hyde-Smith praised recent funding and environmental findings, seeking assurance of continued commitment and the Corps' capability to utilize robust future funding effectively.
  • Alabama Inland Waterways: Senator Britt highlighted catastrophic failures in Alabama's waterways and urged proactive maintenance and reliable funding to prevent future disruptions to the economy.
  • Tribal Partnership Program (SD) and Rural Water Supply Projects (SD): Senator Rounds inquired about resources for tribal and rural water projects, receiving commitments to continued work and consultation, given resource availability[ 01:03:07-01:03:14 ]

    Citation requires full transcript

    Sign in to continue

    Sign in
    .
  • Sioux Locks (MI) and Brandon Road Interbasin Project (IL/MI): Senator Peters emphasized the critical national significance of these projects for economic stability and invasive species control, seeking and receiving commitments for their continued progress and appropriate staffing.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely critical and frustrated from the congressional members, particularly regarding the proposed budget cuts and perceived politicization of funding allocations[ 00:27:34-00:28:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
[ 00:35:15-00:36:23 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. While witnesses maintained a professional and cooperative demeanor, acknowledging challenges and committing to improvements, they often referred to resource constraints and the budget process directed by OMB[ 00:38:16-00:38:45 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Underlying the discussions was a bipartisan consensus on the importance of the agencies' work and the need for effective infrastructure investment, despite disagreements on the proposed budget details[ 00:32:39-00:32:39 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Participants

Transcript

Thank you.
The Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee will come to order.  I want to thank all of our witnesses today.  I think I'll start by deferring to the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member of this subcommittee.   My colleague, Senator Murray, if she'd like to make some comments, and then I'll have a few comments to make, and then we'll hear from our witnesses.
All right.  Thank you very much, Chair Kennedy.  Good morning to all of you.  Acting Assistant Secretary Forsgren, Lieutenant General Graham, Acting Assistant Secretary Cameron, thank you all for being here today.  We are here today to talk about the fiscal year 2026 budget request for the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.   Whether they know it or not, every American depends on the work of these agencies every day, and that's especially true for folks in my home state of Washington and anyone who lives out west or near a major waterway.  The Army Corps keeps our ports running smoothly, which is critical for our economy and our trade.   They manage critical infrastructure like our dams, levees and bridges and protect communities from dangerous floods.  And they support our ecosystems and help protect keystone species like salmon among a lot else.  Bureau of Reclamation brings water to over 30 million people and irrigation to one in five farmers out west.   It generates power to keep the lights on in millions of homes, and it protects farmers and communities against drought, to name a few things.  It is critical work, work that we cannot afford to shortchange.  But President Trump's budget request shows yet again that he has no clue and no problem gutting essential water investments our communities rely on to feed their families and stay safe   from flooding.  The President's budget requests a nearly 25 percent cut for the Corps of Engineers.  And when you consider the fact that House Republicans' last year-long CR already cut funding for the Corps, we are really talking about a nearly 30 percent cut   for the core relative to the funding level just a few months ago.  This request, for example, falls $1.7 billion below the target level for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, leaving more than half of that target funding on the table.  Not only that, you include just $60 million for donor and energy ports like my home state,
when our bipartisan Water Resources Development Act has specifically instructed that there be 417 million for these ports.  And President Trump's budget also proposes a massive 30% cut for the Bureau of Reclamation.  These cuts would end critical work on flood prevention,   port dredging, basic management of our water resources and more.  This is flat out dangerous and Trump's budget is dead on arrival here in Congress as far as I'm concerned.  But we have a lot more to cover beyond the budget request because as we sit here today, the President seems bent on doing everything he can to undermine the work   of the Corps and the Bureau with reckless staffing cuts and by brazenly and corruptly politicizing the allocation of funding and control over our nation's water resources.  In the span of just a few months, DOGE has pushed out a quarter of the Bureau staff without any discernible strategy.   This mass exodus of talent puts the Bureau's mission at serious risk.  The last thing we need are fewer dam safety inspections or big delays on repair projects.  And when it comes to politicization, the President spent much of his first few weeks in office making up conspiracies about California's water supply as wildfires raged.   vowing to block disaster relief, picking fights with the state's governor, and against the advice of all experts, ultimately ordered the Corps to open two dams and unleash billions of gallons of water on California's Central Valley.  That move, predictably, did absolutely nothing to stop the fires and came nowhere near LA.  But it did waste huge quantities of precious water and nearly flooded   yes, flooded local farms and communities and put agriculture at risk.  It was one of the first instances we saw of this president meddling in the Corps' work and overruling experts to chase some fixation, but it was not the last.
A few weeks ago, the Corps released plans detailing how it is allocating funding for construction projects in FY25.  Now, usually that is something we decide here in Congress.  But that decision-making power was turned over to Trump administration with the House Republicans' year-long slush fund, CRR.   That was one of the many reasons I voted against that bill, and it's a reminder to all of us about why we do need strong bipartisan spending bills.  So instead of allocating construction funding to projects that were selected in both our bipartisan Senate appropriations bill   and the Republican House bill and giving funding to red and blue states roughly evenly as both bills did, this administration decided to steal hundreds of millions of dollars in critical investments from blue states and steer those investments instead to red states and the president's political allies.  Every single construction project in California, the most populous state in the country,   was zeroed out.  We're talking about funds that protect people in one of the most flood-prone states in the country, gone.  And Trump completely defunded construction at the Howard-Hansom Dam in Washington State, leaving a literal hole in the ground.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up