Podcast appearances and mentions of peter defazio

America's dramatic shift towards renewable energy generation in remote areas will require a substantial transmission build-out in the years ahead, potentially doubling or tripling the current grid. In other words, there is no transition without transmission. While it's crucial that we expedite the construction of large power lines at a much faster clip, there's another technology solution that demands equal attention. This parallel approach involves the use of Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs). GETs offer a modular, cost-effective path to enhancing our existing infrastructure while also significantly amplifying the efficacy of new transmission investments. To gain deeper insights into how GETs can help us meet the needs of the 21st-century electric grid, accelerate the clean energy transition, and lower energy costs, Gil Jenkins and Manish Chaturvedi spoke with Julia Selker, Executive Director of WATT Coalition.Links:WATT Coalition WATT Coalition WebsiteWhat are Grid Enhancing Technologies?Whitepaper: Building a Better Grid: How Grid Enhancing Technologies Complement Transmission Buildouts (WATT Coalition & Brattle Group, April 20, 2023)WATT Coalition LinkedInWATT Coalition XMore on Julia: Julia Selker is Executive Director of the WATT Coalition and Director of Policy and Strategy and Chief Operating Officer for Grid Strategies. She previously worked for the Business Council on Sustainable Energy, the technology startup Faraday Grid, and interned with Congressman Peter DeFazio focused on energy and climate policy. Prior to coming to Washington, DC, Julia worked on the launch of Monterey Bay Community Power through the public relations agency Miller Maxfield, Inc., in Santa Cruz, California. Julia previously worked for the Bulleit Group, a San Francisco public relations agency. She has a bachelor's degree in physics from Reed College. Julia Selker LinkedInJulia Selker XLinkedIn Post: The grid fairy godmothers of the energy transition (Julia Selker, August 3, 2023)Episode recorded December 8, 2023Email your feedback to Chad, Gil, and Hilary at climatepositive@hasi.com or tweet them to @ClimatePosiPod.

[EPISODE ORIGINALLY RECORDED FEBRUARY 2021]Lisa Grove has been a leading Democratic strategist and pollster for 25+ years, helping elect a President, Senators, Governors, and more. She also developed a reputation for winning tough ballot measures and helped refine messaging to advance the cause of marriage equality. In this conversation (recorded February '21), she talks her roots in Oregon politics and activism, being drawn to polling, her early days in the business, starting her own firm in the mid 90s, and stories & insight from a successful career that has spanned several decades.IN THIS EPISODELisa grows up in Portland, OR inspired by the activism around her...Lisa's early jobs in politics in route to becoming a pollster...Lisa talks learning from famed pollster Nancy Belden...Lisa on her approach to focus groups and her favorite focus group stories...How and why Lisa started her own polling firm in the mid 90s...How Lisa made it work as a pollster living in Hawaii...How Lisa's chalked up a successful record on ballot measures...Lisa's work helping advance the cause of marriage equality...Some of the celebrities Lisa has worked with over the years and her current work with Billie Eilish...AND John Anderson, John Anzalone, Brian Baird, Maggie Baird, Warren Beatty, Nancy Belden, Sergio Bendixen, Anna Bennett, Ami Bera, Brian Bilbray, Graeme Blair, Shirley Chisolm, Tom Daschle, Susan Davis, Peter DeFazio, Barry Diller, Tom Donilon, Mike Dukakis, Matt Erickson, Pablo Escobar, Lily Eskelsen, feather boas, Diane Feldman, Sarah Flowers, Cesar Gaviria, Dick Gephardt, the Golden Rule, Martin Hamburger, Hanford Nuclear Site, Darlene Hooley, Jack Mormons, Ron Kind, Celinda Lake, Ed Lazarus, Norman Lear, Carl Levin, Sandy Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Jeff Liszt, Jon Macks, mai tais, Tom McCall, Mark Mellman, Howard Metzenbaum, Mr. Steak, Ralph Nader, Narcos, Finneas O'Connell, Bob Packwood, Jessica Paulson, paradise guilt, the princess ad, Christy Quirk, Rob Reiner, Barbara Roberts, Michael Robinson, Will Robinson, Rich Schlackman, Barbra Streisand, sustainable furniture, swagger, tattoos, Third Way, tissue paper flowers, Joe Trippi, Univision, Melissa Williams, Ron Wyden, Yucca Mountain & more!

On Friday, Jan. 20, David Sirota and former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) will explore the ongoing issues plaguing the U.S. airline industry and railroad companies. Peter is the former chair of the House Transportation Committee and boasts decades of industry knowledge, including on how airline and railroad carriers are increasingly tied to Wall Street. Join us on Friday for their discussion and chime in with a question. If you like the work we're doing and want to support independent journalism, head over to LeverNews.com to become a subscriber. If you'd like to leave a tip for The Lever click the following link. It helps us do this kind of independent journalism. levernews.com/tipjar A transcript will be available on this episode's Callin page after it is published. Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

On this special edition of Oregon Grapevine, a conversation with Peter DeFazio as he ends his 36-year career as Representative of Oregon's 4th Congressional District. In this interview DeFazio shares some highlights of his time in Congress and looks ahead to what's next.

On the fourth installment of a special Grounded series called Oregon Energy Timeline Conversations, ODOE's director, Janine Benner, and I meet with Congressman Peter DeFazio. Congressman DeFazio tells the story around a major ratepayer lawsuit, the NW Power Act, and the region's “disastrous” efforts, led by the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, or “Whoops) and Bonneville Power Administration, to build five nuclear power plants in the 1970s. You won't want to miss this story! Learn more about our work at www.oregon.gov/energy. Music: “If” by Broke for Free. freemusicarchive.org/music/Broke_Fo…Free/Layers/If

House Transportation leaders called on the nation's top transportation officer to increase resources for the expansion of parking facilities for truck drivers. Reps. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, and Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, wrote to Secretary Pete Buttigieg, saying that increased funding for truck parking availability would help alleviate long-standing supply chain inefficiencies. The trucking industry has cited a lack of parking spaces as a top concern for several years.

House Transportation leaders called on the nation's top transportation officer to increase resources for the expansion of parking facilities for truck drivers. Reps. Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, and Sam Graves, a Missouri Republican, wrote to Secretary Pete Buttigieg, saying that increased funding for truck parking availability would help alleviate long-standing supply chain inefficiencies. The trucking industry has cited a lack of parking spaces as a top concern for several years.

“If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going” was a phrase uttered by generations of pilots in reference to the storied Seattle-based company that was virtually synonymous with American engineering know-how. But, in 2018, a practically brand-new Boeing 737 MAX 8 aircraft crashed soon after takeoff in Indonesia, followed five months later by a second 737 MAX crash in Ethiopia. All told, between the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines flights, 346 people were killed. And Boeing's reputation lay in tatters. In her searing new Netflix documentary “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing”, Academy Award®-nominated and Emmy® Award-winning filmmaker Rory Kennedy (“Last Days in Vietnam”, “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib”) sets out to examine not only how and why these planes went down, but to explain the crash of Boeing itself. Rory joins Mike and Ken on “Top Docs” to talk about her collaboration with former Wall Street Journal reporter Andy Pasztor who doggedly investigated Boeing. Why was he a perfect guide for telling this story? In what ways did the family members of those who died in the crashes prove to be among the most articulate and knowledgeable voices about the crashes? What was the one condition that Garima Sethi, the widow of the Lion Air pilot, put on doing an interview with Rory, and how did Rory convince her that this was, indeed, the one thing that she had to talk about? How did Rep. Peter DeFazio help break open the “case against Boeing”? After all this, would Rory herself set foot on a 737 MAX today? You'll want to stay tuned to the end of the podcast to find out. The answer may change how you feel about the next flight you take. “Downfall: The Case Against Boeing” is currently streaming on Netflix.   Hidden Gem:  Moon Age Daydream   Follow: @roryekennedy @topdocspod

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio announced last year he would not seek re-election. This means for the first time in more than 30 years, Oregon's 4th congressional district will not have an incumbent candidate. We hear from three Democratic candidates vying for the spot: Doyle Canning, Andrew Kalloch and Val Hoyle. The Democratic primary winner will face off against Republican candidate Alek Skarlatos.

U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio announced last year he would not seek re-election. This means for the first time in more than 30 years, Oregon's 4th congressional district will not have an incumbent candidate. We hear from three Democratic candidates vying for the spot: Doyle Canning, Andrew Kalloch and Val Hoyle. The Democratic primary winner will face off against Republican candidate Alek Skarlatos.

Video on available on YouTube @ youtube.com/watch?v=D5RZN3Sng7M The inaugural joint episode of Broken Class and Spent the Rent Podcasts. Featuring candidates in Oregon's 4th Congressional District. Featuring Andrew Kalloch, John Selker, G.Tommy Smith, and Jacob Matthews. With a pre-recorded message from Doyle Canning and an appearance by Rep. Peter DeFazio. Hosted by Patty Rose and Thomas Hiura (of Broken Class) To support the podcast with a one time or monthly donation go to strpod.com/sponsors To become a Patreon Donor, Sponsor, or Executive Producer and receive loyalty rewards, exclusive content, and more… go to patreon.com/STRPOD Ending Track “Timestamp” By Patty Rose Sponsored by Oregon Cash Flow Pro More Wealth, Less Debt… Fast! Oregoncashflowpro.com To listen to all previous episodes, buy merch, and more go to the official website strpod.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/strpod/support

The Yemen cease-fire, which took effect last week, is the first serious truce between the country's warring parties in six years. The factions in Yemen agreed to a two-month truce proposed by the United Nations. And on Thursday, Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, Yemen's exiled president, said he would transfer power to an eight-member presidential council, suggesting progress in ending the war. All of this comes on the heels of a new Yemen War Powers Resolution — announced by Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. — to end U.S. involvement in the war. Hassan El-Tayyab, the Friends Committee on National Legislation's legislative director for Middle East policy, joins Ryan Grim to discuss the cease-fire, efforts to end the war in Yemen, factors at play, and the likelihood of finally seeing an end to the war and humanitarian crisis in the country.https://join.theintercept.com/donate/now See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dave Wasserman, a Senior Editor at the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, is universally regarded as one of the foremost election analysts on the planet - especially when it comes to US House races. In this conversation, Dave talks his early obession with all things politics, how he turned that into a job at the Cook Report, his approach to political analysis, the story behind his twitter catchphrase "I've seen enough", and his take on both the 2022 redistricting developments & overall House playing field. IN THIS EPISODE…Dave's early love of maps…How a cable system glitch leads Dave to find politics…Dave's unusual gift request for his 13th Birthday…The one race that drew Dave into congressional politics…The story behind a teenage Dave's appearance as a pundit on a local public affairs show…Dave talks his important intersection with UVA Professor Larry Sabato…The $10 bet Dave won from Larry Sabato…The college analysis Dave wrote that led to his role with the Cook Report…Dave talks the approach he brings to elections analysis…What goes into creating Dave's election night models…Dave on the races he's proud he got right, plus some that surprised him…Dave talks trends he's observed in House races during his time as a race-rater…Dave takes us behind the scenes of the NBC Election Night Decision Desk…The origin of Dave's catchphrase to call elections…Dave breaks down the average work week for a race-rating analyst…Dave talks his longtime fascination with the redistricting process…Dave gives his thoughts on the 2022 redistricting process…Dave provides an update on recent legal ground that's been broken around redistricting…Dave's overall read on the '22 House playing field…Dave talks signs the Trump hold on the House GOP caucus may be weakening…Dave's advice to the next generation of race-raters…AND 2,568 districts, George Allen, Mrs. Barkley, Ben Bernanke, Mary Bono Mack, Lauren Boebert, Bridgegate, Scott Brown, bruised egos, C-Span, Eric Cantor, Joe Cao, Don Cazayoux, Julia Carson, James Carville, Travis Childers, Emanuel Cleaver, Martha Coakley, Miles Coleman, compulsive list making, Jim Cooper, cranberry bread, creative ethics, Joe Crowley, Ted Cruz, Henry Cuellar, Rodney Davis, Pete Dawkins, Peter DeFazio, dummymanders, Election Twitter, Marc Elias, false suspense, food science, Louie Gohmert, Governing Magazine, Josh Harder, Andy Harris, Rush Holt, Bill Jefferson, John Katko, Dan Kildee, Steve Kornacki, Frank Lautenberg, Elaine Luria, Morgan Lutrell, Sean Patrick Maloney, map recipients, Terry McAuliffe, Kevin McCarthy, Bob McDonnell, David McKinley, Peter Meijer, Mary Miller, minimum split districting, Alex Mooney, Nathaniel Moran, Joe Morelle, oddly engrossing debates, Mike Pappas, Nancy Pelosi, PoliticsNJ.com, Premier League Soccer, QVC, Raul Ruiz, Stu Rothenberg, Rutgers, Bernard Shaw, Chris Shays, Siskel & Ebert, Elissa Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger, the Squad, Starbucks, Kenneth Starr, useful stereotypes, Paul Tonko, Lauren Underwood, the University of Chicago Institute of Politics, Fred Upton, violin lessons, Wal Mart, Amy Walter, Jim Webb, West River South Dakota, David Wildstein, Judy Woodruff, John Yarmuth, Glen Youngkin, …& more!

Doyle Canning joins the podcast. Canning is a candidate in Oregon's 4th Congressional District. A seat that recently became vacant, after it was held by Peter DeFazio for almost 37 years. Find out more @ canningforcongress.com Hosted by Patty Rose To support the podcast with a one time or monthly donation go to strpod.com/sponsors To become a Patreon Donor, Sponsor, or Executive Producer and receive loyalty rewards, exclusive content, and more… go to patreon.com/STRPOD Ending Track “Tsunami” By Thinking About You Underwater Friday March 18th 7pm @ Sessions Music Hall (Eugene, OR) Sponsored by Oregon Cash Flow Pro More Wealth, Less Debt… Fast! Oregoncashflowpro.com To listen to all previous episodes, buy merch, and more go to the official website strpod.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/strpod/support

Andrew Kalloch joins the podcast as an interview guest. Kalloch is a candidate in Oregon's 4th Congressional District. A seat that recently became vacant, after it was held by Peter DeFazio for almost 37 years. FIND OUT MORE @ andrewkalloch.com Hosted by Patty Rose To support the podcast with a one time or monthly donation go to strpod.com/sponsors Ending Track “Never Enough” By Patty Rose Sponsored by Oregon Cash Flow Pro More Wealth, Less Debt… Fast! Oregoncashflowpro.com Check out the podcast official website strpod.com To listen to all previous episodes, buy merch, and more go to strpod.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/strpod/support

Oregon Grapevine host Barbara Dellenback and U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio talk about his successes during his long career in Congress. DeFazio is retiring after this term.

Peter DeFazio is the longest serving House member in Oregon history and the 65th longest in U.S. history. He was a guest on this week's episode of Straight Talk to reflect on his congressional career and his plans for retirement.

The insurrection at the U.S. Capitol was one year ago. Domestic extremists overwhelmed Capitol police and attacked the building where lawmakers were formally counting the Electoral College votes for the 2020 election. We look back on what happened that day and its aftermath with two members of Oregon's Congressional delegation: Democratic U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio and Democratic U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader.

In this podcast we talk about Matthew McConaughey announcing he won't run for Governor of Texas, Dr. Oz announcing he's running to be the next US Senator in Pennsylvania, Stacey Abrams announcing she's running to be the next Governor of Georgia, Charlie Baker announcing he won't seek a third term as Governor of Massachusetts, Tom Suozzi announcing he's running for Governor of New York, Peter DeFazio announcing he won't seek another term in the US house, Russia might invade Ukraine, Chris Cuomo getting fired, Chris Christie's new book, Oroville, California declaring themselves as a Republic, and Illhan Omar hanging up on Lauren Boebert after she tried to apologize for her comments about her.

Oregon's longest serving member of Congress is retiring. A firebrand Trump-style Republican is trying to take out an incumbent. And we now have a lot more clarity on what 2022 Congressional races will look like in the Pacific Northwest.On this week's episode, we'll look at how this week's big news changes next year's fight for control of the U.S. House.

After more than three decades as a mainstay in Oregon politics, the state's longest-tenured U.S. House member Peter deFazio announced Wednesday that he won't seek a 19th term. The 4th Congressional District he represents spans Oregon's southwest corner, stretching from the California border to Albany. OPB political reporter Dirk VanderHart joins us to talk about DeFazio's legacy.

Oregon health leaders ‘request patience' as they acknowledge booster shots not readily available. State agency tasked with certifying police officers defers too much to police agencies, auditors say. Trail Blazers will be without Dame, Little for long stretch. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On this week's Government Affairs Update, we are joined by Rodney Slater, former Transportation Secretary under the Clinton Administration and Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Both are now with Washington, DC lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs. In a wide ranging conversation, we cover the status of infrastructure in Congress, how Secretary Buttigieg is doing, and the what lies ahead for Speaker Pelosi in the House as it returns from the August recess.     Transcript: Host: Welcome to the Government Affairs Update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are very pleased to bring you two experts when it comes to infrastructure to get some interesting perspectives on what's happening right now in Washington, as the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure moves from the Senate over to the House. And I'm joined today by Secretary Rodney Slater and former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, both of whom are right now with Squire Patton Boggs in Washington, DC. Secretary Slater was Transportation Department Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Chairman Shuster, in full disclosure, I used to work with Chairman Shuster while he was Chairman of the T&I Committee. Both bring extensive experience here. And I thank you both for joining us today on the program. Thank you very much for coming on. Secretary Slater: Thank you. Host: I want to start off actually with you Chairman Shuster, because this is, this is kind of an interesting situation we find ourselves in because you spent a significant amount of time and energy as both a member of T&I, and then also as Chairman in pushing a long-term, substantive infrastructure bill beyond just highway authorization. How does it feel seeing this now to be so close to such a generational investment in infrastructure? Chairman Shuster: Well, I think it's good. The bill is, is this large -  a trillion dollars, it has some positive, real positive things in it. Like for instance, taking the cap off the PABs, that is one thing they've done. They've done some procurement reforms in it. That's positive. And they've also put in a section, I think it's a hundred million dollars that goes to states and locals to help them analyze a big job, big projects, to see if it makes more sense to use the private sector dollars or to or to stay with traditional government programs. And I think that's a thing because I think they're going to find in many cases it may be a little bit cost higher up front, but when you get the private sector involved over a period of time, it usually drives the cost down because the private sector is very much focused on that. Chairman Shuster: They did some things in there that I wish they would have eased up on. Some of them, they put some regs in there too, and I believe it's going to make it a little more difficult to build roads and bridges because of some of the things that they put back in or increased. But I think overall the fact that it's a bipartisan bill, it's got a pretty big number. It includes some things that haven't been traditional like broadband, which I think is is something that you've got Republican support for. I just wish my good friend, Peter DeFazio, he didn't, he wasn't able to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. And, and I think we've seen over the last 20, 30 years at Secretary Slater knows transportation bills when they come out on a bipartisan way they pass. And that's what we've seen in the Senate. And I think the House will take it up to pass it also. Host: And Secretary Slater, I mean, looking at this bill and how expansive it is and how it goes beyond your traditional roads, bridges and highways and rail systems and the like, you know, what, how, what do you think this means, you know, for the economy? Secretary Slater: Yeah. Well, first of all, Jeff, I'm excited about the bill. I mean, it's taken them a long time to make infrastructure week something other than, you know, a tagline to a conference without the action to go along with it. And so I applaud the President, you know, I know the Vice President was involved, and clearly other members of this team Steve Richetti in particular and the entire Congress for really working hard to pull this off. Now I say the entire Congress. So you know, I'm being cautiously optimistic here, but I think with the momentum built by the action of the Senate, that that's a real possibility and I'm, I'm excited about it. I echo the sentiments that the chairman noted about the differences in this bill as relates to bills in the past. You know, this focus on broadband is just essential in this day in time. Secretary Slater: And especially in this post pandemic era that we're trying to bring online, but I also applaud the leaders for really giving us a bill that has a lot more resilience focus to it, sustainability focused dealing with some of the climate challenges we face and then issues as relates to equity. And so I think that it's a bill that is future oriented future leaning. There are those who might argue that more needs to be done clearly the Democrats and any Republican that might have that belief will have an opportunity to deal with that with the with the other measures that are being put forward. But when it comes to really doing something that is akin to what we've done in the past, and then sort of building back better, I think that this is an answer to that to that challenge, Host: You know, Secretary, you bring up a good point because one of the words has been used a lot is the question of resiliency, and it's just not resiliency against extreme weather, but it's also resiliency for critical infrastructure against external threats. I mean, we're seeing a significant increase in the number of cyber-attacks on computer systems and just critical hard infrastructure. And Chairman you also did a lot of work at T& I on pre-disaster mitigation getting the dollars there and getting things done before the next storm hits before the next tropical storm turns into a hurricane. Do you think the bill does enough? If not, you think that, that, what, what do you think needs to be done in addition, you know, to really what we're looking at here in this bipartisan agreement to really strengthen our infrastructure? Let's start with the Chairman. Chairman Shuster: I think the bill does. A good bit in it to help with resiliency, which, you know, as we were talking about back on the committee of how do we build things before they collapse or hurricane blows them down or whatever the case may be. And at the end of the day, you save money by building these things stronger, being able to withstand a catastrophic weather event. So I think it's positive. I think that there, there needs to be more streamlining to get these things done because I just, I feel that as we did in the past, we run into these hurdles to build these things faster and more effectively. But I think overall, it's, it's a, it's a positive thing. It isn't enough, probably not, but it all depends on what if the hurricanes and the tornado seasons and the earthquake seasons and the fire seasons over the next coming years looks like. But I, I think it's definitely a step in the right direction. Secretary Slater: I agree with that. And Jeff, if I may, I, I think that the members of the Council really have a big role to play here. I mean, this is not something that's across the finish line just yet, but you know, engineering companies that are in the business of giving us the kind of system we need and deserve going forward, actually spending the resources in a proper way. You have a lot to say about this bill about it's, I mean, people may say shortcomings. I just think it's to be applauded the fact that we've gotten it done. There are other things that could have been done. Maybe a bit more here or there that can be done later. We shouldn't allow the perfect to sort of distract us from the, from the good, and this is a good, good start. Secretary Slater: And when it comes to the issue of you know, security and cyber concerns, I mean, we, there's a report in today's paper about the rail system in Iran, possibly being attacked by cyber-attacks. And then just a few months ago some pipeline here in the US and also a ferry system up in the in the Northeast. So we've got these issues to be concerned about, and I'm very pleased, and we're starting to really come to grips with this, both the public and the private sectors to do something about it. Host: Yeah. You raise a good point, especially with the rail system in Iran. I mean as some of our larger firms and actually a lot of our medium-sized firms as well, you know, it's a question of designing the best infrastructure possible. And usually today, that means with the rise of AI and machine learning and the like, intelligent transportation systems, which are networked, which are, you know, have to talk to each other that are open up to potential external threat. So the question is designing it in such a way where it's hardened. Host: And you're correct to the point that it's good, that we're having the conversation that, that this has to be. And also the fact that our firms are designing not for what is today, but what will be 20 years, 30 years down the line, the bridge is going to last a hundred years for the building on a shore that's going to potentially see a sea level you rise or, or erosion from the beach. Host: And those are all things that, of course our members are very concerned about. On the question to pay-fors because this is something which is interesting because when we got the framework, when everybody's wondering, okay, how are we going to pay for this thing? And then through the debate and the amendment debate, you know, they really considered everything from unspent COVID dollars to changing regulations on reporting requirements on cryptocurrencies, but what wasn't really talked about a lot with the user fee and, and, you know, Chairman Shuster, I know, you know, from my experience with you, it was always that simple, very basic argument of saying that if you use the roadways, you should pay into keeping them in good repair, and that user fee consideration. Secretary Slater, you were with the Clinton administration. Of course I was the last time the tax, the gas tax was actually addressed. It seems like we're getting further away from the idea of that user fee model. What do you both see as the future of, of infrastructure funding chairman you know, where do you see things moving? Chairman Shuster: Think it's, first of all, look, we made a mistake when the Republicans controlled the house in 2005, I guess when we passed safety loo we, when we were doing this big tax bill, I, you know, what the leadership and try to convince them, instead of giving the average American a $2,000 cut in their taxes, let's do $1,800 or $1,750 and, and deal with the gas tax because that is a user fee. And again, I think they missed the opportunity not to do the user or the gas tax forever, but to do it for a period of time that they can't implement, implement something that's different. And that would be miles travel tax. And they, they, they put some big, they expanded the pilot program, but I really think they were going to be dealing in five years with how are we going to fund the next transportation bill? Chairman Shuster: And with this bill, they had to back fill the highway trust fund shortage. It's like $120 billion, and that's going to just keep growing. So, you know, and it's, I believe as a conservative that as you pointed out at the beginning, if you're going to use the system, you need to pay into the system. And I'll just say this for rural America, where I come from, the average, every dollar that a rural community puts in, they get back about a $1.70. So it's a pretty good benefit for rural America for roads and bridges being built across their communities. Host: And we also saw last year the number of states that took it upon themselves to increase their own state gas tax that state after state, you know, did something to improve the amount of revenue that was coming in to their own coffers. And no one seemed to pay that political price that everybody expected, that, that idea that boogeyman of saying, if you raise the gas tax, you're going to lose an election. At least the state level never actually materialized. Right? Chairman Shuster: I was going to add, I think that number's up to about 35. Yeah. Have done it. And then the real test case was California. Two years ago, I guess was two years ago. Was it less than a year, I guess was a year ago they had it on the ballot and they rejected repealing the gas tax, something like 57 to 43. So, you know, people understand, they want the roads and bridges to be uncongested and they don't want to bust their tires, break a tire, damage their vehicles. So I think people get it if you, if you pitch it in the right way. Secretary Slater: Yeah. You know, I, I agree with the Chairman on this. And I, I would say, I was thinking about actually Kentucky, Arkansas, some of the other Southern states in particular where Southern governors, you know, have stepped forward to move these measures. Secretary Slater: I was pleased to hear about the reference to California. I mean, I think it makes the case that it's happening across the country. I would offer this in defense of the of the Biden administration in this regard. I think what the president is attempting to do is to sort of rebalance things. And he recognizes that there has been this inequity in the system where frankly, the burden of progress is placed on the shoulders all too often of those who can, you know, either least pay or have the hardest time paying. And I think what he's trying to do here is to say, look, we're not going to raise the tax burden of anyone making less than 400,000 as a couple. That's, that's pretty significant. And so he did not want to raise the gasoline tax for that purpose. Secretary Slater: Did not want to go with vehicle miles traveled for that purpose. And I think where he finds himself at this point, it probably is a policy. That is a good one. Now I don't think that it closes the door always to an increase in use of fees. I think it probably such it up where it, at a time in the future, it'll be a lot fairer to maybe do some of that. And I see that, that time coming, but I can see why the president would want to, at this point have significant lines in the sand about what he would and would not want to see. And then, you know, frankly keep his powder drive when it comes to negotiating at an end point where, you know, you have to find closure on these things. And so I think that's a pretty good position to take. Secretary Slater: I will note this too, that Jeff you're right, that during the early days of the Clinton Administration, the gasoline tax was raised but the president would note that he made the case that it should be raised to deal with the deficit to put our economic house in order in balance. And then four years later was actually when we had the resources transferred from the general fund to the highway fund. So as to take advantage of that 4.3% increase in the gasoline tax. So it was done in a two-step kind of fashion. And it may be that with the passage of time, we may get to a point where we can support more funding for infrastructure through user fees. I agree with that. But I also think we should test any number of other options too. And I know the chairman agrees with this because we've talked about things like an infrastructure bank. We've talked about other public private financing techniques. I mean, putting it all on the table and then selecting those that best fit the moment is the proper course, I believe. Host: It seems like today with the amount of innovative financing available that there are a lot more opportunities to break away from the paradigm of just a simple, you know, either a lockbox highway trust fund, or just all always pulling from the general fund to instead look at other options - P3's whether it's capture or that investment, the reinvestment of potential, you know, I forget exactly what was called chairman, but it was something that you were talking about when you were chairman. It was, it was when, when we bring somebody in to buy something or to lease out an airport.... Chairman Shuster: Asset recycling. Host: Yeah, exactly. How a P3 or asset recycling, something like that. In your conversations with people in government in and out, is that something which seems to be gaining some traction? Chairman Shuster: I think you're always going to have to have some kind of governmental component, whether it's a fed state putting money into it, because these deals we're seeing around the beltway here in Washington, DC, I think the Virginia invested about 20% of the money into it to get a cost down where they wouldn't have enormous tolls on those, on those hot lanes or fast lanes. But so I think there's always that component that will always be there, but I think yes, looking at things like an infrastructure bank and because we look at an infrastructure bank and we've been pushing this during this bill, they almost had a piece. It was a very scaled back version of, there was a infrastructure finance financing agency was small and they, they finally pulled it out the end, unfortunately, but I think, you know, folks in your community the ACEC they deal with these TIFIA and RIFF programs. Chairman Shuster: And every time I talked to a contractor engineer, they tell me it takes 14 to 16 months to get through this process and it's painful and it's cost a lot of money. And so I think having a true infrastructure bank based on the federal home loan bank, it's a real bank, it's independent chartered by the federal government. They're going to be, they can make loans in 90 to 120 days. And if it's a good project or not, and it's only going to be a component of the, just like a P3 is a component of the financing package. So I think it's time for us to really look at these other ideas, asset recycling where it makes sense. And again, as the Secretary said, what comes next is probably a vehicle miles traveled, but we've got all kinds of barriers and hurdles because folks don't want somebody tracking them. But as far as my son, when he was in his early twenties, he held up his iPhone and said, they're tracking every moment of the day. Host: You're being tracked one way or another. Secretary Slater: And Jeff, Jeff, can I just say this, I should have mentioned earlier that even when we increased the gasoline tax and the chairman's father was actually in the Congress along with a former secretary and Congressman Norman Mineta. I mean Jim Oberstar, I mean, just a wonderful group of individuals on the House side. I mentioned the House because I want to put the heat on the House to do what the Senate has done that. But, but they also really gave us tools to create some of these innovative financing programs. The chairman mentioned the TIFIA program, the RIFF program, all of that came into being at that time. And again, it was because of a good piece of legislation that gave federal highways and federal transit and all the Department of Transportation and others, the Treasury the ability to, with the private sector to gain insights about how we might fashion programs that resulted in those programs. I think that there are likely to be some measures that can be used in this bill. Even though, you know, it may not be as clear now that will help us to tap some of those private sector dollars and the private sector ingenuity that you just have to have as a part of an effort like this. And I think ACEC can be a really big part of that of that effort going forward. Host: That's, that's a really good point. And thanks for bringing that up because that's something which, you know, our members need to be pretty strong advocates for this, and they need to take, take their own experience from the private sector, work, working with public sector clients and explaining how they can be more efficient. And that's one of the things we always talk about, qualification space selection. It's kind of that idea of saying that Secretary Slater: We are at the lowest price exactly. Qualification over, over cost. Host: Secretary Slater, let me, let me ask you as a former Secretary of the Department Transportation, right now, how would you, how would you rate the job that Secretary Buttigieg is doing on selling the agenda? Secretary Slater: Well, I don't think it could have been express better than in the post today. That was a, a love piece. Although I thought it was, was balanced as well, because it's all teed up. He still has to deliver it. And yet I've talked about that too. I said, you know, it's great to have a president. Who's talking about infrastructure is great to have, you know, the conduit team that you've got with Polly Totenberg and others there to help you make it happen. But at the end of the day, you gotta make it happen. And I thought what was very telling in the article today, and this is what I really want to underscore is the way that he's made himself available. I mean, to Republicans and Democrats this was actually, I thought set up in his hearing where there were so many members who, you know, they had their issues with him and they, you know, they would take him on, I mean, that's the responsibility I think of the Congress to test the administration. Secretary Slater: That's what our three branches of government separation of powers. That's what that's all about. But then almost invariably at the end of the round, you would have a member saying, and I hope that you will be able to come to mind my state. I know that the chairman has had that experience and, and, and to have a, a secretary or a member of the administration say that not only am I willing to do it, I look forward to doing it so that we together can be on the ground with your constituents, looking at challenges you face that's what really gets a member's attention. And that's what gains their respect, that rate. And throughout the article, you could just see just any number of people mentioned in that way. And you know, that they don't all have this, that they don't all agree on everything. Secretary Slater: And so I think that he is doing a tremendous job. I think that the article was correct in saying that there was always the likelihood that he would be in the president's cabinet or a member of his team where he selected because of the endorsement and the warm endorsement that he gave to Mr. Biden at a very critical time in his campaign. And then the president saying just off the cuff that he reminded him of his son. I mean, all of those things sort of lining up. And then it was noted that he had some interests, but, you know, the president gets a chance to choose. And he said, look, I think that you can best help me and help the country serving in this capacity. And I would say that that the former mayor Pete now, secretary Pete has not disappointed. I'm very, very pleased with the way he's gone about his work. And I think all of these relationships, they're going to pay dividends in the short term and the longterm, and they'll pay dividends for him or his team, and clearly for the the president as well. And so I'm, I'm very, very pleased Host: Chairman. You've worked with a number of secretaries. Where would you put him? Chairman Shuster: I, well, first I think the, you know, Secretary Slater is right on target saying, I think he's done a pretty good job. He's measured when he speaks to, you know, to the media. He's not, you know, throwing bombs out there, which I think is important, especially on an issue like transportation and infrastructure. I think, I think he's also, he's, he's obviously bright. I think we did. He demonstrate that in the debates, I was always impressed with them. Didn't always agree with where his policies were, but I smart he's young, hopefully that makes him want to think outside the box. It says to the secretary of Slater's point, you got to get it done, man. It's great. You got to having a bill here, but you're the guy that's going to have to make that department start to hum. Chairman Shuster: And I think too, that, and this is, I forget who said this - might have been Secretary Slater, or maybe Secretary Skinner said, this is the first time I can remember that the Secretary of Transportation was a presidential candidate. So he's got his own platform of followers. They're saying, Hey Secretary, Pete, you know, we love the guy we were with him when he was running for president. So I think that gives you a whole different platform to be able to get out there and go around the country, but to Secretary Slater's point, he's absolutely right. Going into members' districts, talking to members. I think I think what I've heard from a number of the, at least the moderate Republicans that said, he's great, great access to him, he would call them up. He would, you know, talk, talk through the issues, what they thought were important. So I think that's really important. I know the Secretary Slater did it. I know Ray LaHood did it. You know, through the years I named Sam Skinner, when he would have him out on a conference, he said, he sat down with a members' leadership of the House and the Senate different committees once a month and had breakfast with him. So he, you know, he stayed in touch with him. So I think that's important. Host: And I mean, if this does, if he does land this and like you said, you gets it done. He's going to be sitting on, I mean, Jeff Davis from Eno, kind of doing a rack up on Twitter. And it seems like he would have in competitive grant funding, almost the amount will be quadrupled over what is, what is, what has been in the past almost about 24 to $33 billion, depending on exactly what gets through appropriations. I mean, that's a massive war chest to sit on. That's a political weapon as well. Now I think you meet that point, you know, being a former candidate, he's young, he's got aspirations. I, you know, for the Secretary, I mean, how, how, what advice would you give to sit on that record amount of competitive grant funding? Secretary Slater: Well, I, I would say it a little differently. I would say Jeff, don't sit on it. Host: Yeah. Send it, spend it. Chairman Shuster: I would agree the secretary - right out the door. Secretary Slater: You know, all of the meetings up to this point where you go out and you say, oh man, this would be a great project to fund, that's one thing. When you can go back a little later with all of those resources and say, this is a great project to fund and we're going to fund it. That's a lot better. First of all, you basically say I'm here with the Congressman who is going to make an important now, because it's all about continuing to build those relationships. And I think that I think the secretary is going to really have a wonderful time with members of his team doing just that. And, and, and frankly, I think he'll be creating opportunities really for the president, the vice-president, you know, maybe even a secretary of grand home and others to do that same thing as well. Because the, the key is to not, you know, it's, it's not to sit on it and it's also not to gloat in it. I mean, it's all about really doing the business of the American people and getting everybody involved. And I, I think as a mayor, he's going to understand a former mayor. He's going to just understand that instinctively. Host: And Chairman, I mean, you were great at this. I mean, you made sure both as Chairman and then also back in the ninth district of making sure that everyone at every level of government was included in those announcements, because to underscore the fact that everybody from county commissioner all the way up to member of Congress had a part to play. Chairman Shuster: Well and that's the Secretary's point with the department that the Secretary of Transportation, he may not go down to that granular. When you're a member of the House, you need to go to the township supervisors, have them sit in there with you or whoever it is because it's you know, it, it helps it helps everybody out. And so I think this is, as the Secretary said, you get the stuff out the door. And I believe he's going to get it in places that need like rural Pennsylvania, if he does some good work in rural Pennsylvania, the next time around in elections. I mean, the Democrats win Philadelphia and Pittsburgh big, but if they can diminish how big they lose in the, in the center of the state than it, it's better for their candidates. And again, there's, there's good projects out there for everybody to be able to participate. Secretary Slater: Yeah. And Jeff before, before we go on, I just thought about this. I do think that that Senator Schumer should be given some credit here as well. And I think it was very significant that you had, you know, 19 Republicans, including the minority leader. And I just think you know Majority Leader Schumer and Minority leader McConnell. I just think that they, they deserve a lot of credit here. And I know when the chairman was in office, these were the kinds of victories that you really relish where it was not just the chairman, but it was the ranking member and, you know, the other members of the committee and leadership and really down to the last person coming on because of seniority coming on the committee. Secretary Slater: So I think that manifested itself on the, on the Senate side as well. And, and look, you've got that Brent Spence bridge in the Ohio Kentucky area on I-75 that's going to get some attention now, much needed attendance. And that's very important to the constituents in that region. Chairman Shuster: And it won't be lost on anybody that Rob Portman was the chief, negotiator. Secretary Slater: No doubt about it. Chairman Shuster: And he's from the Southwestern and Cincinnati area. Secretary Slater: We were honored at one point that he was a member of Squire Patton Boggs too. I think I should, we should say that, you know, years ago, Host: Well, I have two final questions. One, I want to ask the Chairman, because now we're looking at the house, we've got the INVEST Act. You made the point that, that it wasn't as bipartisan as previous bills have been at least on the vote total coming out. You know, there's, there's some argument being made about, okay, take the Senate bill up and just get it done. Your experience working across from Chairman DeFazio for a number of years. I mean, he's been very vocal on some areas of policy that are not in the bill, dealing with climate, also dealing with resiliency, do you see him letting leadership kind of move this forward or use without the opportunity to amend it. Or do you think he's going to want to have that formal conference, he's going to want to have the opportunity for the house to put his stamp on it? Chairman Shuster: Well, he's already, he's already given up on a conference because he realizes you go to conference and this thing will never get done. So I think it's going to come over. I think there's the potential for being a couple of amendments, but they're going to be very few and they've got to be something that's agreed to by the, basically the 69 senators that voted for it. So it can be things that, you know, are correcting things and maybe the Senate didn't do right. Because that always occurs, but I don't think you're going to see anything major. And I think the DeFazio, Chairman of DeFazio is going to now focus on getting more dollars to put in these different areas that he has that he, that he supports very much. And that'll be some of these things like resiliency. And, but again resiliency and some of the climate change policies, but he can't change the policy and budget reconciliation, but he can plus up plus up the money or pick the money from one to another, but he can't change policy. So I think he's going to be very focused on that. Host: And just a state of play question for you both to kind of round out the conversation. So right now the current state of play in the House Speaker Pelosi has floated a dear colleague letter, but essentially says that she wants to try to twin both the budget resolution to the infrastructure bill in the rules package, which means that voting on one is voting on both. That's gotten some pushback from moderate Democrats. How do you see this playing out? Do you think that it is going to be a twofer or do you think that you know, there's going to be an agreement to allow infrastructure to go first and then the budget reconciliation? I mean, how do you see the state of play in the House coming at the end of the month? Chairman Shuster: I think she's in a very tough spot. She's got her progressives, they're saying they're not voting for it unless they vote on the big package. And she's got her moderates saying, we're not going to vote on that big package, you need to pair it down. And by the way, we also want to vote on this thing. So I think she's in a really tough spot. She can't afford to lose more than what, three votes, four votes? So she's in a tough spot and I'm not sure how to work out. I don't think it's going to happen. Well, I know for sure it's not going to happen at the end of this month because they're just coming back in the House, to vote for the budget, which will pass. And then they they're coming back September 20th. But I think if she's got this fight to keep them paired some way somehow you know, one goes, first, one goes second kind of thing. Chairman Shuster: She'd probably be, I would bet on Nancy to get it done, but I don't think it's going to look the same you know, at the end of August as it does at the end of October. I mean for these two bills. The infrastructure is going to stay basically the same. It's how big the other package will be. Secretary Slater: Yeah. You know, I'd pick up on the comments of the Chairman in that regard. I think that if I were going to bet on anyone getting it done, I would bet on the Speaker. But that doesn't mean that you cannot acknowledge that it's going to be a heavy, heavy, heavy lift. I, you know, I just think that first of all, I, I just, I don't think we, and I think, I think she took note of this. Secretary Slater: I, I don't think you can just dismiss the significance of the bipartisan vote in the Senate and the size of that vote. I mean, that was, that was very significant. I didn't know that the numbers would be that high. I mean, I would, I was basically counting on 10, 11 maybe. Yeah. But that was it signaled that they would, because I think the highest we got with those who were sort of saying, well, maybe it was about 11. And so I think it bodes well for a number of things that are important to a number of people beyond infrastructure. I mean, I think you've got a criminal justice reform opportunity here. I think you might have something on voting. And I think that you know, the, the Speaker has all of that to navigate and to balance and to negotiate. Secretary Slater: And I just think she ultimately gets it done, but it'll be very, very difficult. I'd also like to say just in support of a Chairman DeFazio, I think he's done a tremendous job as well. I think that his effort was necessary, even though it was a little partisan. And I think, you know, it cut against what his natural tendency was. I mean, and that was to work with your Ranking Member to kind of work through, you know, the process in a way that is, you know, institutionally sound and, and frankly an effort, a way that he'd been a part of for so many years. But I think that what he recognized was that he had to really help the Speaker in speaking to the progressive wing of the party in a way that would keep it engaged. And you know, and I think engaged is probably the best way to say it and they are engaged. Secretary Slater: Now you've got this process going now where the various you know, parts of the party will express itself and she'll have to hear all of that, not dismiss any of it. And then carefully, you know, bind it all together with, I think the ultimate argument and that is don't let perfect get in the way of the good, I really think that it comes down to that and let us survive for another fight. And, you know, it's, it's acknowledged that some of that fight in the future will have her being supportive of others who will be at the helm. And I think she will say, look, stay with me. And you know, I've just tried to be as open as possible to make sure that all opinions are heard, all arguments are given an airing and I believe this is the best we can do. And I think that's what it ultimately is. That's what the final question is. And then the votes are counted and I don't think you take a breath until the last vote is cast, you know, so, and as, as the chairman said, it's a three vote - I mean, she's got three votes to [inaudible]. Host: Yeah. Well, it's going to be an interesting end of August. It's been an interesting August to begin with. I mean, so let's, let's get it done. Hopefully this can get this voted on and passed before the beginning of September. And, and that would be a great thing. So I really appreciate your time and your insight because you both been there you've worked on these issues. You have great insight that I know our audience of member firm executives loves to hear. So thank you for taking the time both of you. And of course, Rodney Slater former Secretary of Transportation is a partner at Squire Patton Boggs now. And of course, Chairman Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and representative of the of the ninth congressional district or the ninth as it were before redistricting - a Senior Policy Advisor at a Squire Patton Boggs as well. And again, this has been the government affairs update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Thanks for being with us. We'll going to see you next time.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) joins The Post to discuss mounting concerns in Congress over the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan and the latest on the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

  ACEC was honored to welcome Rep. Peter DeFazio, Chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee onto the show to discuss the next steps for the bipartisan infrastructure bill and budget reconciliation in the House. Transcript: Host: Welcome to Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are honored to be joined by a longtime friend of ACEC and the engineering industry and a strong advocate for America's infrastructure, House Transportation and Infrastructure Chair Peter DeFazio, who has represented Oregon's 4th Congressional district since 1987. Chair DeFazio is a powerful advocate for transformative federal infrastructure investment and consequential action on climate change. He drafted the INVEST in America Act, which passed the House in early July and became the vehicle for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which cleared the Senate last week. With passage of that bill, the issue of infrastructure once again squarely lands in the House, which is expected to return from the August district work period later this month to address it, as well as a budget reconciliation bill.  I'm also pleased to be joined by ACEC CEO Linda Bauer Darr for today's conversation. Thank you both for taking time to join the podcast today. And with those introductions out of the way, I will throw it over to Linda for the conversation. Linda Bauer Darr: Great. Thanks for doing this, Jeff. And thank you, Chairman DeFazio for being with us. When we were getting started, you mentioned that you just adopted a dog, a Labrador. So, what's the dog's name? Chair DeFazio: Liddy. She's now learning her name. She came from a pound in Texas. They named her Lydia, and we've stuck with it. Linda Bauer Darr: So, you're sticking with it. So how old is she? Chairman DeFazio: A year and a half. The story was that she had pups and was in the kennel with the pups. The pups got adopted. She didn't. They put her on a transport, she came to Oregon, and we got her. So there are a lot of dogs in Texas that are apparently neglected. Linda Bauer Darr: Well, you've joined a long line of people who have adopted pets during COVID. I'm down one pet during COVID, so I'm on the other side of that fence, but congratulations, and I'm sure you will have a great time with Liddy. Linda Bauer Darr: We'll go ahead and get started. You were able to secure passage of the Invest Act in the House. By the way, great job. I know that was a Herculean effort. No doubt that had an impact in showing people that the bipartisan package was on its way and that it was going to make it through the Senate. What stands out to you as the most important provision that you secured in the bill? Or what would you be most proud of? Chair DeFazio: First that we went through a real legislative process. We were in committee for a total, I think, of close to 60 hours over the two years. Hundreds of amendments in committee, hundreds of amendments on the Floor. An actual legislative process. Yeah, I didn't get a lot of Republicans for it in the end, but quite a number of their amendments were included in the bill, in contrast to the Senate bill written behind closed doors principally by people who don't even serve on the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. So, you know, my bill was transformative. It was really to take the country beyond Eisenhower 8.0 and into the 21st century for transportation policy, dealing with climate change, resilience, and social equity and creating one whole hell of a lot of jobs. Unfortunately, their bill is Eisenhower 8.0 for the most part with a little green dressing on the side, Chair DeFazio: There's more money spent on subsidies for fossil fuels in their bill than on alternative fuels. When you add it up properly you know, they, they say that 25 percent of the zero-emission bus policy has to be spent on polluting buses. Half of the $18 billion for fossil fuel reduction can be transferred to highways. There are a number of provisions like that in their bill. Their bill is slightly bigger on highways than mine, but way less on rail and transit and way less on social equity, way less on wastewater drinking water and lead pipes, which came out of Frank Pallone's committee. So we're going to deal with those deficiencies in Reconciliation, which is in part why we're pairing the two. Chair DeFazio: Reconciliation is going to continue a lot of the democratic agenda. I'm unwilling at this point to pass this bill without some changes. It's been made clear that the cabal who wrote it are not interested in going to regular order and having a conference. That the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate were not consulted during the drafting is an absolute insult to them, to the legislative process, and to the House of Representatives. And it's not how you get the best legislation when a group of people write something behind closed doors. So we're going to do our best to fix it. Linda Bauer Darr: I will applaud you on regular order. I think people who have been in Washington for a long time have been very eager to get us back into that good rhythm. And even if neither the Senate nor the House has the perfect bill, the fact that we're exercising those muscles again, I think is hopeful. So, you talked a little bit about Reconciliation and you know, how you're going to marry these things. Can you talk a little bit more about that and the strategy and how you think that's going to work? Chair DeFazio: Reconciliation is going to go through—at least in the House—a committee process. I assume it will in the Senate. It came out of the Budget Committee. The House will pass the budget, and then the committees of jurisdiction will be given their apportionments and we'll work through a legislative process committee-by-committee to put together a bill by mid-September. I think the deadline for us to have legislated our parts is the 15th of September. I'm going to mark up on the 12th of September in my committee. Chair DeFazio: And I'm dealing with the White House since there have been some vague pledges that I'm not quite sure of from the President saying no more money for things that are in this bill, but I didn't make that agreement and I think there are ways to work around that. It can be just a little bit different but I'm working to add back money to transit. We got $100 billion just to bring it up to a state of good repair, let alone to provide new options for people. My bill critically included frequency, which would really help with ridership. Their bill has no decent policy in it. They don't understand transportation. Then rail, Amtrak's doing pretty well, but high speed rail didn't and I very much hope to come up with a different novel high-speed rail category. Then social equity, again, under-funded in the Senate bill. Didn't include my sidebars for affordable housing and to prevent gentrification, which has happened in a couple of cases where we removed freeways. Great, we've just rejoined a community that's been split asunder, and now they're all being driven out. So, I'm not sure how we can deal with that under the Dead Guy Rule, so-called Reconciliation, the Byrd rule, but we're going to try and deal with that. Wastewater is a tiny fraction of the investment we need and way less than I had in my bill. I'm hoping to increase wastewater. I'm hoping also to figure out how to bring back in a green infrastructure for wastewater, which has tremendous promise in addition to methane capture and electricity generation. And then certainly again, I partnered with Frank Pallone on this, drinking water and lead pipe removal were way under-funded. Hopefully we can deal with those things. And then EV  charging is very lacking also, and they didn't include Park and Rides. I mean, seriously, I know that truck stops were fighting viciously against including rest areas, but I didn't know anybody was against EV charging at Park and Rides. Unless you're trying to tell people not to take transit. I don't get that one. It might by a that might be a Toomey amendment as he hates transit. I don't know. Linda Bauer Darr: You said that high-speed rail didn't get what you felt it deserved. And then, of course, Amtrak did pretty well. I imagine that had to be one of the President's "This is the deal, and you're going to have to accept it." I imagine it was a huge priority for him. And probably also something that ultimately was pushed by Senator Carper. Obviously their long-term friendship was helpful. Chair DeFazio: Carper didn't have a voice in writing this bill. I talked to him. They did not consult the chairs of the committees of jurisdiction. It was written by the likes of Sinema and Portman and Collins and a cabal of other people and Manchin who got his $8 billion for blue hydrogen, which by the way, if you read the New York Times three days ago—and I've known this for a long time—so-called blue hydrogen is more polluting than CNG. And there are a lot of elements in that bill that are parochial and not dealing with climate change and not dealing with the investments we need to make. Linda Bauer Darr: So how does this all get worked out? You put a lot of time and effort into your bill. It goes over to the Senate and the Senate has negotiated, or some of the leaders in the Senate have negotiated, with the President. We've got it through the Senate. Now we have to come back together. How does this play out ultimately, and how can you have a voice in this process? Chair DeFazio: We are going to have a voice in the process because Reconciliation originates in the United States House of Representatives. We are intending both for the Build Back Better agenda, the things the President wants to do for families, for childcare—so more women can get into the workforce—all those things, in addition to what we can do to at least mitigate some of the shortcomings of the Senate infrastructure bill. Which is why we are pairing the two together. If we moved this infrastructure bill tomorrow, first off, it doesn't go into effect until October 1st, so what's the rush? And secondly, I predict that then we wouldn't even get a Reconciliation bill. It's very likely that wouldn't happen. Often around here, the next thing doesn't happen. Chair DeFazio: I remember when I voted against Obama's recovery act because they had dramatically reduced real investment in jobs, investment in infrastructure, school construction, and other things for tax cuts too small to notice because of that jerk Larry Summers. I tried to get Jim Oberstar to vote the whole committee against it, and I said, Jim, we've got to fix this. He said, "No.They promised me the next thing would be a big infrastructure bill," which then Obama killed. So next thing never happens around here. And that's my opinion on Reconciliation. If we were to just blithely pass. without addressing some of these concerns in the infrastructure bill, we would never see reconciliation. Linda Bauer Darr: You've talked a lot about sustainability and climate and those issues are very important, and frankly that engineering plays an enormous role in—as well as equity—so, you've been vocal about these things. What are the other differences that you see in the Senate bill that stand out to you as red flags? Chair DeFazio: The fact that there is more investment in promoting fossil fuels, requiring that one quarter of the zero-emission buses be fossil fuel buses, allowing the transfer of half the funds into highways, no fix-it-first provisions. Not to make states look at whether more lanes are the best way to go. Senator Kaine tried to do this as an amendment in the Senate because Virginia is the poster child for this. Republicans were in charge. They said, More lanes on 95. It's backed up all the time." But the projections were, in 10 years with two more lanes, one each way, that it would be just as congested as it is today with induced demand and no alternatives at a cost of 10 to $12 billion. Chair DeFazio: And they instead are coming up with an innovative rail project, working with CSX, new right-of-way, new bridge over the Potomac River for rail, the other one's at 99 percent of capacity. CSX likes it. And they're going to run fast trains—not high-speed trains—but fast trains down to Richmond from DC at half the cost, reducing all that pollution. And they have great projections on how much it'll reduce congestion. I was doing a press conference with the mayor of Richmond and he said he never really wanted to be a bedroom community in DC, but it's way less expensive down here. So, things like that that were left out, and they're going to be hard to fix. The other thing is that Secretary Buttigieg under this bill is going to have $100 billion of discretionary grants. I'm working with the White House on how we're going to mitigate some of the boneheadedness in the Senate bill through that $100 billion dollars of discretionary spending. Linda Bauer Darr: That brings to mind years ago when I was at the Department of Transportation, and they were talking about a talent drain, how people were leaving government. And the last Administration, obviously, made an effort to reduce the size of government. How are we prepared in the Department of Transportation to take this money and run with it, considering a lot of it is going to be discretionary and there's going to be a process that needs to be taken on? Chair DeFazio: I'm hopeful that DOT will act with unusual dispatch, and hopefully this won't require a lot of laborious rulemaking. I'm not totally conversant with the details of the discretionary money yet, but we will certainly look at ways to expedite it. If DOT needs more staff to deal with these things or people with different talents, I'd be happy to look at dealing with that either in Reconciliation or in appropriations. I'm already looking at that with the FAA. They lack inspectors both to deal with air rage and with ongoing problems with the industry and the manufacturers. So, if other parts of DOT have been hollowed out—I wasn't aware of DOT getting as hollowed out as the State Department or a whole bunch of other agencies that Trump decimated—but I'll ask on my next conversation with the Secretary what he needs. Linda Bauer Darr: Well, that'd be interesting, if after all this effort, we ran into that bureaucracy, when the money is finally flowing towards projects, that we are all excited to get started on. So, this one is not a question. It's really more a word of thanks. You know that the engineering industry is facing a challenge among firms that took these PPP loans to save jobs and are now being told that they have to give those forgiven loans back because of a quirk in the Federal Acquisition Regulations. You and your great staff on the T&I Committee were very helpful in getting language attached to the Invest Act to lessen the impact of the problem. It didn't make it through in the Senate. At one point, we were making great progress with Senator Braun and some others who had actually even expanded on the work that you did. We were excited about that. Ultimately, it got held up by the process. A lot of the amendments that had a good support behind them fell out, particularly by Rand Paul. He was kind of the party killer. We were very close to getting it done. Linda Bauer Darr: If it comes back to the House, I hope that we're going to be able to count on your support. We've talked about this issue before. It really is unfair. We've got contractors and everyone else that contracts with the government being treated differently than the engineering industry. We're being pulled out and told that "This money that you were given as basically a grant. Well, everybody else doesn't have to give it back, but we're going to take it out of your hides going forward in future projects. So, in some cases you're not going to be paid for the work that you're doing." That, to me, is just insane. We're hoping very much that we're going to be able to get this taken care of, and we hope that will be something that's important to you as well. Chair DeFazio: It's important. It's outrageous. I was not a big fan of the PPP program. The restrictions that were put on people. This is one glaring example. The fraud that occurred through that program. The thing I did for aviation, the Payroll Support Program, had zero fraud and no questions. I know the fix I did in the House wasn't everything you wanted. Unfortunately, I don't have complete jurisdiction. I deal with two other committees who objected. I didn't know how close you came in the Senate. And it's sad that that's a body where one person can stop something that has I think extraordinary merit and we'll continue to work on it, continue to work with the green eyeshade people at DOT, and see what we can do in the House. Chair DeFazio: We're very bound by the Dead Guy Rule, the so-called Byrd rule, the Reconciliation rules, but we'll see what we can do. Policy is tough under his rules. It's pretty absurd that we're held up by a rule written by a Senator dead 12 years and written 28 years ago. It makes no sense to me. And the Senate does have discretion, which they seem loathe to use to just have the chair rule things in order. And then it takes 60 votes to overrule the chair, which turns the filibuster on its head and ultimately in a good reconciliation bill, if the parliamentarian and seance with Robert Byrd is saying, you can't do these things, I'm hopeful that the Senate leadership puts Harris in the chair to rule it in order. And then the Republicans are going to have to get 60 votes to overturn her ruling. And they can just go forward with the bill with 50 votes. Linda Bauer Darr: We will be in there pitching, and we'll do everything that we can to try to make sure that people have the information they need to make a decision. We absolutely appreciate, again, your support and hope that we can continue to count on it, which it sounds like we can. It's just the process and anything can happen with the process, so let's work towards that. Let's assume and hope that we're successful and we get this major infrastructure package to the president's desk this year. Then what? Other than a vacation, clearly, what's next on your list of committee priorities? What else is up? Chair DeFazio: We've already started working on the Water Resources Development Act, which we try to do every two years. And this time not to use the around-the-barn, indirect way of funding individual projects. I intend to go through a similar process to that that I went forward with, which is very rigorous and scandal free on member directed spending, in the Surface Transportation bill, which, by the way, I haven't given up on yet, We have some ideas of reconciliation. Although individually we can't do a projects, we have some ideas. And then some water resources, Coast Guard authorization, reforms at the Federal Emergency Management Agency I'm hoping in reconciliation to create a new pre-development program substantially funded at the Economic Development Administration, which could help a lot of the smaller communities who don't even know how to begin to try to access a federal grants for wastewater, drinking water, housing, or any other thing that relates to economic development. So that that's also something that we'll be working on, plus all the usual burdens of oversight and trying to get the money out the door. This bill will go into effect October 1st, and we want to have a really robust construction season. Linda Bauer Darr: We're with you on hoping for that. I know you don't have a lot more time, but you did reference member-directed projects, which to me is code for earmark. Is that right? Chair DeFazio: Yes, except technically an earmark is something the Appropriations Committee does that isn't authorized. We always did designated spending in surface transportation bills in the House, and they always went through a legislative process. In the Senate, not so much. Things got airdropped in. We went through a rigorous process. 109 Republicans and almost all the Democrats had projects up to $20 million. They had to work with their local governments with their states. And there are a lot of really good projects in there that the state bureaucracy or the federal bureaucracy is never going to get to in people's districts. It was about 1 percent of the bill, and I'm still working on that because I think it has a lot of merit. There are some ways—I'm not going to go into detail—but we have a couple ideas to get around the Dead Guy rule. Linda Bauer Darr: You and I had talked about this over a year ago. I'm with you on the need to give the members some ownership of these projects, give them something to bring back to their communities, because frankly they're there to represent their communities and make the case for their communities when infrastructure projects are required. It seems to me like this is an even bigger issue than what we're working on with infrastructure. It's the ability for Congress to collaborate and compromise. The opportunity to  reach across the aisle and say, “I want to help you on this priority. Will you help me on this?” Or “I can do this. It's just doing business.” And it seems like when we were deprived of that. Regular order came to a halt, the wheels of Congress grinded to the halt, and there was less bipartisanship as a result. So, I think you feel passionately about that. I know we at ACEC feel very passionately about it. I think it's important going forward. We thank you for recognizing that. And you know, before we wrap, I am curious, how did you go about vetting those member requests? That's got to be a difficult job, right? Chair DeFazio: It just about killed the staff. We brought in hired some additional staff. First we had to get a vendor to create a software program. And then they had to be submitted online, posting online all of their documentation, showing local support, affidavits of no pecuniary interest, all those things that in the past led to scandals. Plus, obviously, I created equity. I got 20 million bucks and the newest freshmen got 20 million bucks. And you can do a lot. I spread it around between wastewater that'll help a small port in my district attract a fish processor, worked with the port of Coos Bay on rail sidings that will enhance the port activity and get more product on rail instead of truck, and I had a number of projects for electric buses and multi-modal facilities. There were a lot of things that people liked. Chair DeFazio: Quick story, when the whole earmark thing blew up back after ‘06 and the Tea Party came in and they got this bad name and Republicans banned them. I was down in my second most conservative county. Most of my counties are red except for two. And a guy stood up and said that earmarks are horrible. And I said, “I know there have been some issues, but what do you think about the Weaver River Road bridge,” which is a bridge over the freeway that opened up an industrial park. He was “Wow. It's great.” And I said, “Sir, that was an earmark. He said, “That wasn't bad.” And I said, “Yeah, the state wasn't going to do it and the county couldn't afford it. I got it done.” I did a lot of them in my years on the committee and there's never been a scandal. I had some people object to joining North Bend and Coos Bay with a bike path, but tourism is a really important part of our economy. Linda Bauer Darr: That's a great example there. And who knows better than your constituents about what the needs are and who is better positioned to deliver for them than you, but you have to have that opportunity. The reason for us having this federal program is because it all needs to tie together ultimately. It's like the circulatory system of the body, right? At the center of it maybe is the federal government, but then the state portions and the local portions go out from there and they need to be right on, and we need to make sure that the blood is flowing between the heart and the end of the system and make sure that all the communities are weighing in and earmarks are a way for us to do that. So, we agree with you. It's good for the nation, and I think, it's good for government. And it's good for your constituents ultimately. So again, thanks for being bold and going forward with that, because I don't think without your pushing that it would have entered into the frame again. So, thank you for that. Chair DeFazio: Okay. I enjoyed doing the interview. Liddy and I have done three Zooms in a row. She needs a break. Host: So. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate it. And thank you for your time today. Good luck in the legislative session ahead. And we appreciate your strong voice for the built environment and for infrastructure. And we do appreciate for everything that you do, and Linda, thank you very much for joining us today on the program. Thank you. Chair DeFazio: Thanks Jeff. Thanks Linda. Hi to everybody who listens to this podcast. Host: And again, this has been Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. We will see you next time.

Oregon's longest tenured Congressman has a critical seat at the table in Washington as the Biden administration pushes for a massive transportation package.On this episode of Beat Check, Rep. Peter DeFazio talks about the latest twists and turns in the years long effort to pass a major transportation package.The Springfield Democrat chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We talked about his own $547 billion bill that is expected to go before the full house for a vote later this month, what he makes of the ongoing talks in the Senate, what the various bills may mean for Oregon's Interstate Bridge and Rose Quarter freeway projects, and much more.Related reading: My 2019 profile on his relationship with-then President Trump See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Rep. Peter DeFazio says he is well aware that being stuck in traffic is bad for business. For that reason, he wants to remind the country that his new highway bill is designed to help everyone spend less time in traffic. DeFazio, chairman of the U.S. House transportation committee, is the author of a comprehensive five-year, $547 billion highway bill that he says would be the largest-ever single investment in surface transportation infrastructure. He said, “People are pretty tired of congestion. They're pretty tired of repair costs [because] of potholes. They're tired of detours.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio says he is well aware that being stuck in traffic is bad for business. For that reason, he wants to remind the country that his new highway bill is designed to help everyone spend less time in traffic. DeFazio, chairman of the U.S. House transportation committee, is the author of a comprehensive five-year, $547 billion highway bill that he says would be the largest-ever single investment in surface transportation infrastructure. He said, “People are pretty tired of congestion. They're pretty tired of repair costs [because] of potholes. They're tired of detours.”

【美加新闻播报新闻稿（北京时间6月7日、美加时间6月6日）】 （今日播报：紫璇）   听众朋友大家好，这里是海外华人都在听的”美加新闻播报”，我是。。。今天是北京时间6月7日，北美当地时间6月6日，首先来到今天的新闻头条： 美墨边境附近一天发生超150次地震 最高震级达5.3级 【路透社】据美国地质调查局监测显示，当地时间6月5日，美国加利福尼亚州索尔顿海附近一处地区记录到600多起小型地震，其中最高震级为5.3级。 地震学家称，事发地的人口并不稠密，总共发生了603次地震，专家们已对所有地震震级进行了测量。其监测显示，这些地震均发生在萨尔顿海以南，震级从2.5级到5.3级不等。虽然地震频繁，但当地的一位工作人员表示，他们没有感觉到任何地震。 --------------------------------------1-------------------------------------- 好，进入今天的焦点新闻： 1、白宫发言人：司法部已确认不会在泄密调查中获取记者通讯记录 【卫报】当地时间6月5日，美国白宫新闻秘书普萨基表示，美国司法部今后在调查任何向媒体泄露机密信息的案件时，将不再发出传票获取记者的通讯记录。媒体指出，这标志着拜登政府做出的不同于特朗普政府的“惊人改变”。 据悉，美国前总统特朗普政府曾经秘密试图获取两家媒体记者在2017年工作时的电话记录。此外司法部还曾向报社高层发出禁令，不得披露该事件。司法部也发表声明称，目前司法部已完成审查，将按照总统指示，今后将不会在泄密调查中通过法律手段从新闻工作者处获取消息来源。 2、美国八旬华裔老人失踪超1周 警方发布照片急寻人 【CBSN】旧金山一名八旬华裔老人已失踪一周多时间，警方近日公布了老人失踪当天的监控照片，并称老人未卷入犯罪事件。其家人也焦急求助，希望发动公众帮助寻找。 84岁高龄的华裔老人张琼珍（音译）5月28日下午3点左右离开位于列治文的家中，外出散步，至今未归。当地检察官表示，“我们未查明犯罪情况，我们只知道一位可敬的老人失踪了，家人正焦急盼她回家。”张琼珍家人称，我们恳请大家关注事件。由于语言障碍，我们相信她在外面会感到无助还害怕，请帮助我们团聚。”   3、美众议院民主党人公布5470亿美元基建草案 【THE BOND BUYER】美国国会众议院民主党人近日公布了总额达5470亿美元的基础设施建设草案。该草案由德法齐奥 （Peter DeFazio）提出，在未来5年将在基础设施建设方面支出5470亿美元，包括修建、改造高速公路、桥、铁路等设施。该草案将是美国总统拜登提出的基础设施建设计划中的重要部分。 白宫新闻秘书普萨基则表示，白宫与国会共和党人针对基建计划的谈判将继续下去。她还表示，对于该谈判，白宫没有设置截止日期。 4、年来最大增幅 全美交通事故死亡率增长7% 【WCVB】美国国家公路交通安全管理局National Highway Traffic Safety Administration，日前发布报告称，新冠疫情期间民众驾车的里程数减少，但去年美国交通事故死亡人数同比增长7%，是13年来的最大增幅。 国家公路安全机构在发布初步数据时表示，去年估计有38680人死于交通事故，是2007年以来的最高水平。根据数据显示该，死亡人数上升的原因是司机在道路上超速、不系安全带或在吸毒或酗酒的情况下驾车，致使交通事故的风险大增。 5、纽约州议会立法打击伪造疫苗卡 伪造和持有假卡将成三或四级重罪 【PIX11】继联邦机构警告伪造的疫苗卡在纽约乃至全美网络上成为“热销商品”后，纽约州议会参众两院均在进行立法，将伪造和持有假疫苗证明卡定为犯罪行为。 提案发起人Anna M.Kaplan表示：“我们正在使用疫苗卡和疫苗护照来使一切变得更安全。但我们已经看到，反疫苗者在网上传播有关如何制作假卡以规避疫苗接种要求的技巧，我们需要制止这种欺骗公众的行为，以便我们从疫情中恢复过来继续前进。” 6、特鲁多宣布9月30日为联邦法定假日！纪念加拿大这段惨痛历史 【CTV】当地时间6月4日，加拿大联邦C-5法案获得御准，正式将9月30日定为官方的真相与和解国庆日(National Day for Truth and Reconciliation)。这个法定假日只适用于联邦监管机构的职员。 总理特鲁多在推特上表示：“为了响应真相与和解委员会的号召，并且为了纪念寄宿学校死去的孩子们，我们将每年的9月30日作为真理与和解日。今晚，法案已经通过。”负责此项法案的加拿大遗产部长Steven Guibeault也发推特称说道表示，成立这个纪念日是“步向和解的重要一步。” 7、美墨边境民众将获得美国提供的强生疫苗 【Mexico News Daily】墨西哥外交部长埃布拉德（Marcelo Ebrard）近日表示，墨西哥将向墨美边境地区18-40岁的人提供由美国供应的强生公司新冠疫苗。埃布拉德说，这一举措的目的是在6月下旬之前重新开放边界。 墨西哥总统 奥布拉多（Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador ）表示，美国已经同意向墨西哥运送100万剂强生新冠疫苗。强生公司的疫苗将足够为墨西哥边境39个城市中，三分之一的18至40岁人口进行免疫接种 。 8、美国菲尼克斯发生丛林大火 过火面积超16公顷 【今日美国】美国亚利桑那州菲尼克斯当地时间5日发生丛林大火，过火面积超过16公顷。当天，10个机构的大约200名消防员正在处理火灾。根据亚利桑那州公共服务部门表示，大约800名客户也受到火灾地区停电的影响。 航拍画面显示，现场火势凶猛、浓烟弥漫。当地消防队负责人奥弗顿表示，他最初担心大火波及附近建筑。不过经过消防人员数小时的扑救，火势整体得到控制。截止目前，一名消防员因下肢受伤而住院，暂没有接到更多人员伤亡以及建筑物受损的报告。 9、影响平均寿命！加拿大这省最严重！ 【Global NEWS】据加拿大统计局发布的新数据显示，COVID-19 大流行导致2020年加拿大人出生时的平均寿命减少0.41岁，退回2013年的水平。 其中魁北克是 COVID-19对预期寿命影响“最显著”的地方。加拿大统计局表示，由于与COVID-19 相关的死亡人数太多，现预计魁北克女性的平均寿命减少了0.84年，男性减少0.80年。曼尼托巴省减少了0.60年，安省和阿尔伯塔省的预期寿命分别减少了0.34年和0.32年。 10、被黑客组织点名发送“战斗”威胁，马斯克发推，言辞意味深长！ 【纽约邮报】黑客组织“匿名者”当地时间5日在推特等社交媒体上发布视频，呼吁与特斯拉创始人马斯克“开战”，指责他操纵加密货币等，并暗示他未来将面临一场战斗。“你可能认为你是这个空间里最聪明的人，但现在你遇到了你的对手，我们是匿名者，我们是军团，期待我们吧。” 马斯克并没有直接回应黑客组织的这番威胁，而是在其发布视频20分钟后，在推特上写道：“不要杀死你所憎恨的，拯救你所热爱的。”这可能是在隐晦回应黑客组织的攻击言论。 11、加州州长纽森宣布支持加州餐饮业全面重开 【加州政府】随着加州持续经济复苏，加州准备在本月中全面开放，州长纽森（Gavin Newsom）日前宣布一项行动，以确保餐馆、酒吧、啤酒厂和酿酒厂继续受益于疫情援助，包括扩大户外餐饮和外带酒精饮料的销售，以支持餐饮企业复苏和保护公众健康。 纽森表示，加州餐饮业是创造活力和多元化重要组成部分，使加州成为世界羡慕的地方。政府延长援助的措施包括，允许餐馆和酒吧继续受益于其投资，在人行道和停车场等领域扩大户外经营，并继续销售带食品外卖的酒精饮料，以及其他成功的应变措施。 12、为保护环境，美农业巨头为保护环境要给牛戴口罩 【LesEchos】美国最大非上市公司、农业巨头嘉吉集团(Cargill)近日宣布，将开始销售奶牛使用的可穿戴设备，以吸收它们排放的甲烷气体，支持一项可帮助该行业减少温室气体排放的实验技术。 据了解，这款类似口罩的设备是由英国初创公司Zelp开发的，该公司声称，它可以减少一半以上的甲烷排放。看到这样的一幕，不少网友又提出了新的问题，牛打嗝会产生甲烷，放屁的话同样会有，那么是不是还要给牛的其它部位，也要带上特殊“口罩”呢？ 13、非洲巨鼠在柬埔寨扫雷5年后将退休 曾发现逾百枚地雷炸弹 【卫报】近日，在帮助柬埔寨探测地雷方面表现出色的非洲巨鼠真川（Magawa）即将退休。在过去5年，它一共发现了71颗地雷与38颗未引爆的炸弹。“尽管它的健康状况良好，但它已经到了退休年龄，而且行动显然开始放缓”，该机构因此决定让真川退休。 真川非常聪明且工作迅速，搜索一片网球场大小的土地仅需30分钟，而人类使用金属探测器则可能需要4天。2020年9月，真川曾获颁英国“救助患病动物民众医务所”颁发的金质奖章，这也被称为动物界的“乔治十字勋章”，以表彰它“恪尽职守，拯救生命”。 14、模特穿“假”泳装，引数千名游客围观，近看才发现是画的“裸泳装” 【雅虎新闻】美国名模特卡皮拉·梅(Kapila May)近日在海滩上穿泳衣漫步的照片火遍全网。游客原本只是好奇这套泳装怎么如此特别，走近一看，卡皮拉根本穿的就不是泳衣，而是是人体彩绘师保罗·路斯坦（Pual Roustan）在卡皮拉身上画的“裸式泳衣”。 保罗没想到画的泳衣竟然能够以假乱真，骗过这么多人的眼睛，为此，保罗感到非常兴奋和自豪。他说道:"我本身就非常热衷于做一些“瞒天过海”的事情，让别人都察觉不到我做的事情，看来这次的人体彩绘很成功。” 15、美国26岁男子花三天时间找到2.2克拉黄色钻石为女友制作订婚戒指 【KATV】在美国阿肯色州钻石坑公园，26岁的克里斯蒂安·利登（Christian Liden）近日在泥土中苦苦挖掘了三天后，终于收获了一颗闪闪发光的钻石。 克里斯蒂安为了向相恋两年的女友求婚，决定开车2000英里（约3218千米）从华盛顿到阿肯色州钻石坑公园碰碰运气。最终他爱情钻石双丰收，找到了一颗2.2克拉黄色钻石。克里斯蒂安说：“我抖得很厉害，我让朋友帮我把它从沙砾里抓出来！”钻石坑公园是世界上唯一对公众开放的钻石矿公园，门票为10美元，每天限制1500人。 以上就是今天美加新闻播报的全部内容，我们明天再见！

The Selective Service System is one of the last gender-based distinctions still on the books in federal law. Men ages 18 to 26 are legally required to register for the draft in the United States: fail to sign up and you could still face major penalties — even though the draft hasn't been used since 1973.A new petition before the Supreme Court argues that women should also be required to register for the draft. Its defenders say that's only fair, following a 2015 decision by former Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter that opened all combat positions in the military to women.But nearly 50 years after the Selective Service System was last used, a new bill in Congress poses a bigger question: why do we even still have the draft system in the United States?Full story here

Extremists emboldened by President Donald Trump flooded into the U.S. Capitol building yesterday in an attempt to disrupt the certification of the electoral college. We hear from members of Oregon's congressional delegation, including Democratic representatives Kurt Schrader and Peter DeFazio, and Republican representative Cliff Bentz. We also hear from hip hop journalist Mac Smiff, who has been participating in protests against police brutality in Portland, about how the police response to the insurrection in Washington, D.C. differed from what he has seen here. And journalist Leah Sottile talks about the connections between far-right extremism in the Pacific Northwest and the pro-Trump mob at the Capitol.

Today on The Local: Emily Gilliland delivers today's Quick Six local news run down, then an interview with Peter DeFazio, one of Oregon's congressional representatives.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, gives an update for Federal appropriations too avoid a government shutdown and OCC plans to release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on CRA before the end of the year. Next, he covers several infrastructure plans including Peter DeFazio's infrastructure bill, the Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2019, as well as presidential candidate Joe Biden's infrastructure plan. Then he discusses the Opportunity Zone Reform Act that was introduced in the House, and the Opportunity Zones Diversity Bill that was introduced last week. He also talks about the Immigrant Investor Program Reform Act and the Incubator Act of 2019, both of which encourage investment in opportunity zones. Next, he talks about plans for House Democrats to introduce legislation to extend expire and expiring renewable energy incentives. He also gives an update on the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Finally, he discusses a Notes from Novogradac blog post on the rate of cost-burdened households in older-age groups.

In this week's Tax Credit Tuesday Podcast, Michael J. Novogradac, CPA, gives an update for Federal appropriations too avoid a government shutdown and OCC plans to release an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on CRA before the end of the year. Next, he covers several infrastructure plans including Peter DeFazio's infrastructure bill, the Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2019, as well as presidential candidate Joe Biden's infrastructure plan. Then he discusses the Opportunity Zone Reform Act that was introduced in the House, and the Opportunity Zones Diversity Bill that was introduced last week. He also talks about the Immigrant Investor Program Reform Act and the Incubator Act of 2019, both of which encourage investment in opportunity zones. Next, he talks about plans for House Democrats to introduce legislation to extend expire and expiring renewable energy incentives. He also gives an update on the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Finally, he discusses a Notes from Novogradac blog post on the rate of cost-burdened households in older-age groups.

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee leaders U.S. Rep. Bill Shuster (R/PA-9)and U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio (D/OR-4)discuss the effort to find common ground on a plan to rebuild America's roads and bridges, and the importance of working across the aisle to achieve that goal.