'You can’t spit on my face and tell me it’s raining!': Sen Kennedy explodes at Army Corps official

Added: 2026-05-23

[00:00:00]You just moved $1.4 billion dollar out of other projects to the Everglades. Who told you to do that?

[00:00:08]>> The law that included that for for which those funds were derived.

[00:00:12]>> Who told you to do that?

[00:00:13]>> The law gives gave us flexibility to >> You did that on your own? That's your testimony. You made that decision?

[00:00:19]>> Yes, sir. I did.

[00:00:20]>> And nobody told you to do it?

[00:00:22]>> No, sir.

[00:00:23]>> What projects did you take that 1.4 billion? You took it out of the Westshore project in Louisiana, didn't you? No.

[00:00:30]>> No, sir.

[00:00:31]>> You took it out of the Lake Poner train project in Louisiana, didn't you?

[00:00:35]>> No, sir. That that project is underway.

[00:00:37]>> You took it out of the com project in Louisiana, didn't you?

[00:00:40]>> No, sir. I did not.

[00:00:41]>> I have protected you and the core every step of the way up here. I have defended the core when some of my colleagues wanted to dog cuss you and change you.

[00:00:51]And I have defended you. You can't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

[00:00:55]Secretary Tel, you you just moved $1.4 billion dollar out of other fund, out of other projects to the Everglades?

[00:01:09]Who told you to do that?

[00:01:12]>> Chairman Kenny, 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 pro these projects were appropriated.

[00:01:26]>> Who told you to do that?

[00:01:28]>> The law gives gave us flexibility to >> you did that on your own. That's your testimony.

[00:01:33]>> We followed the notification procedures that were required under that law.

[00:01:36]>> Yeah. But you did you you made that decision?

[00:01:40]>> Yes, sir. I did.

[00:01:41]>> And nobody told you to do it? No sir.

[00:01:43]>> Okay. Where'd you get that 1.4? And you're asking for more money now for the Evergrades. Is that right?

[00:01:50]>> Well, Senator, there's 46 billion.

[00:01:52]>> Are you asking for more money now for >> the president's budget includes $446 million for wage restoration? That's correct, sir.

[00:01:59]>> In addition to the 1.4 billion that you just took out of other projects.

[00:02:04]>> Yes, sir. That's correct. Your >> What projects did you take that 1.4 billion for the Everglades out of?

[00:02:11]Senator, I'd have to get back to you on the sources.

[00:02:14]>> You don't remember?

[00:02:15]>> There there's multiple. It's there are multiple sources, but the sources were >> which ones?

[00:02:19]>> They were from pri past uh in uh past acts like the in infrastructure and job creation act, the BBA18 and DRSA.

[00:02:27]>> You took it out of the Westshore project in Louisiana, didn't you? No.

[00:02:31]>> No sir.

[00:02:32]>> You took it out of the lake poner train project in Louisiana, didn't you?

[00:02:36]>> No sir. That that project is underway.

[00:02:38]>> You took it out of the coat project in Louisiana, didn't you? No sir, I did not.

[00:02:42]>> You took it out of a a project in East Baton Rouge Parish, didn't you?

[00:02:45]>> No, sir.

[00:02:46]>> How about the Grand Dow project?

[00:02:47]>> No sir, that project.

[00:02:48]>> 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 Everglad Everglades money in the current budget.

[00:02:59]>> Senator, the projects that you just listed in Louisiana are all on track.

[00:03:02]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?

[00:03:20]>> No, sir. That is not my testimony.

[00:03:22]>> Okay. Tell me what your testimony is then.

[00:03:25]>> There are aged funds throughout the $46 billion total in age 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.

[00:03:37]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 uh save lives and protect critical ecosystem uh restoration projects, uh those are things that we where we use authorities that have been provided.

[00:03:52]>> I'm going to come back to this, but I'm I'm you know, God gave me the right to remain silent, but not the ability.

[00:04:00]You know, I I I have protected you and the core every step of the of the way up here. I have I have defended the core when some of my colleagues wanted to dog cuss you and change you and and I have defended you but I don't you 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 core efficient?

[00:04:44]Tell us the truth.

[00:04:47]I don't believe you did this alone, Mr. Secretary.

[00:04:51]I think somebody told you to do it.

[00:04:54]>> Mr. Chairman, we have >> 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 that this this money didn't come out of somebody's hide.

[00:05:08]Okay.

[00:05:10]Um, you can't spit in my face and tell me it's raining.

[00:05:16]That's how I feel. Your district salaries and expenses project. G give give us a a 30 or 40 second overview like you're talking to a 10th grader.

[00:05:30]>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the way that the core of engineers has uh 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.

[00:05:47]The way that we pay the salaries of those employees is by allowing them to build 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 [clears throat] 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 uh what portion of each project is tied to labor as well as to break the incentive that that we believe exists between um project there's a tension between project delivery and district sustainment that we want to break.

[00:06:26]>> So you're doing it for transparency reasons. Is that right?

[00:06:29]>> That's correct sir. That's one of the reasons. How how is it going to be more transparent if you if you just have a new entry that says salaries?

[00:06:41]>> Well, Senator, it's because >> how you going to know what salary goes with what project?

[00:06:46]>> Well, Senator, it's in the previous uh way that that was budgeted and appropriated, there was no information about salaries. None. None whatsoever.

[00:06:53]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 uh excitedly sharing more information with the legislative branch.

[00:07:12]>> Well, will you have internal data that shows how much salary is attributable to a particular project?

[00:07:22]>> Yes, senator. We've published that information for fiscal year 26 work plan as well as the fiscal year 27 budget request. Uh 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 projects.

[00:07:38]>> Have you shared that information with all the members of Congress about the projects in their districts? Senator, in sharing the the FY27 budget request, we shared it um and we have published the split and we shared it with every relevant me committee in Congress and anyone who's asked.

[00:07:57]>> Okay.

[00:07:59]So, as I understand it, Mr. Secretary, right now there there there's no column for for salaries and expenses.

[00:08:07]>> That's correct, sir.

[00:08:08]>> It's attributable >> for the districts. That's correct.

[00:08:10]Right. It's just included in each project.

[00:08:13]>> That's correct, sir.

[00:08:15]And now you're going to break it out.

[00:08:19]>> Go ahead, General.

[00:08:20]>> Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You're correct.

[00:08:23]>> It'll still be by project. So, before there was one lump sum for each project.

[00:08:27]Now, it'll be for the project delivery of the contract as Mr. Tel spoke to and then the internal usace labor, but it'll still be by project broken out that way.

[00:08:36]So, each project you'll see what the in-house labor bill is.

[00:08:39]>> Okay. So for each project, labor and expenses will still be a line item.

[00:08:48]>> Senator, the way >> but in terms of the budget, salaries and expenses will be have its own category. Is that right?

[00:08:57]>> Yes, sir. That's correct.

[00:08:59]>> How's that going to help the core with its overall missions, >> Senator? It's gonna it's going to help the core by incentivizing delivery. What I've heard from commanders in the field is that they're >> how does that incentivize delivery?

[00:09:12]>> I'm not doubting you. I just don't understand how.

[00:09:15]>> Well, today uh it is, as I said in my opening statement, when a commander um 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 management challenges with his staff because the funding continues and continues and if the funding expires quite often, Congress will appropriate additional funding. So projects become uh 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. That tension um if we eliminate uh 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 that may not.

[00:10:01]>> But Mr. Secretary, you've got that data right now, don't you?

[00:10:04]>> Yes, sir.

[00:10:06]So you can tell, couldn't can you not one of district managers gaming the system?

[00:10:13]>> Certainly we in theory we could and we will going forward. But this question had never been asked before.

[00:10:20]>> What question is that?

[00:10:21]>> The question about how much at scale the question about how much of our project budgets were going towards salaries.

[00:10:30]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.

[00:10:46]>> Except it's not listed in the budget.

[00:10:48]>> You're absolutely in in many ways.

[00:10:50]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 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.

[00:11:17]right now. Um, you know, that co-mingling, if we don't go all the way with the appropriations committee, our partners here, in my view, that comingling will still ultimately find its way through that cardboard firewall.

[00:11:29]All right, I'll be glad to read anything you want to send me. I just don't get it.

[00:11:37]Sounds to me like it's a distinction without a difference. But maybe that's my shortcoming. You testified in front of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee that that the core has $15 billion on your books. It's over six years old.

[00:11:54]Is that right?

[00:11:56]>> Uh yes, sir.

[00:11:57]>> Why 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. Um but but it's somehow become okay. Now how much is it again?

[00:12:25]>> 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. Um some of it is unobligated because um we at some point in our past told Congress that a particular project was shovel ready.

[00:12:54]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 for it. So quite often this funding gets hung up in um in these types of round discussions.

[00:13:16]Sometimes the community says, "Hey, we're not interested anymore." Sometimes the core says we need more money to actually do the project. So, the goal that we have about uh putting that $46 billion to use for its intended purpose or if it can't be used for its intended purpose, uh maybe putting it to use in a state like Louisiana, um my my my point, Mr. Secretary, I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but my point is at some point somebody's got to make a decision.

[00:13:43]>> That's right, sir.

[00:13:44]>> Okay. And and e and either close it out and put it somewhere else. Don't just leave it hanging around. You're absolutely right.

[00:13:53]>> Did I understand you to say earlier [snorts] that the core doesn't know how many total projects you have?

[00:14:01]>> That's correct, sir.

[00:14:03]>> And it could be between a,000 and 10,000.

[00:14:08]>> I think it's probably closer to 10,000, but I that's correct.

[00:14:11]>> But you don't know.

[00:14:12]>> We don't know. But we have a counter.

[00:14:16]>> I'm sorry.

[00:14:17]>> 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 in word that says, "Hey, go look at projects that haven't received funding, haven't been alive or have had a pulse for 20 years and recommend them for deauthorization." But we don't know the total universe. And that's unfortunate.

[00:14:35][music] >> [music]