Podcast appearances and mentions of Ray LaHood

Greg and Dan sit down with Ray LaHood, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Transportation, to discuss fair maps, redistricting, and more. LaHood shares why he’s pushing for change without altering congressional maps, and explains the opposition to these ideas, emphasizing his goal of giving power back to the voters. He also weighs in on recent changes at Bradley University, offering his perspective on the impact and future of the institution.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Marc Cox speaks with Ray LaHood about the Fair Maps Illinois initiative to end gerrymandering through an independent redistricting commission. They discuss bipartisan support, the need for 365,000 petition signatures, and Iowa's model as a guide. Marc also recaps the St. Charles data center meeting, where strong public opposition put the project on hold.

In Hour 4, Marc Cox and Dan Buck speak with Ray LaHood about the Fair Maps Illinois initiative to end gerrymandering through an independent redistricting commission. St. Charles Mayor Dan Borgmeyer joins to explain why the controversial data center project was withdrawn after strong public opposition. Brian Brenberg of Fox Business discusses why young voters are attracted to socialism, the failures of economic education, and previews the Fox Business special “The Cost of Socialism” airing tonight at 7pm Central.

Marc Cox and Dan Buck cover a packed show beginning with Governor Parson's appointment of Catherine Hanaway as Missouri's new Attorney General, succeeding Andrew Bailey, who has been named co-deputy director of the FBI. Ryan Schmelz joins to discuss the DOJ's delayed release of Epstein documents and heightened National Guard presence in Washington, DC. Jeremy Rosenthal weighs in on lawsuits tied to federal crime victim funds and Ticketmaster's antitrust issues, while Genevieve Wood of The Heritage Foundation addresses election security, ballot harvesting, and voter ID requirements. Ray LaHood discusses the bipartisan Fair Maps Illinois initiative to end gerrymandering, and St. Charles Mayor Dan Borgmeyer explains why he withdrew support for the controversial data center project. Brian Brenberg of Fox Business breaks down why young voters are drawn to socialism, the failures of economic education, and previews the Fox Business special “The Cost of Socialism.”

Bill Daley, former White House Chief of Staff and co-chair of ‘Fair Maps Illinois,’ joins John Williams to talk about the effort he’s leading with Ray LaHood to remove partisanship from how Illinois legislative maps are drawn. Bill explains how they are trying to create maps that are more representative of the population of the […]

Bill Daley, former White House Chief of Staff and co-chair of ‘Fair Maps Illinois,’ joins John Williams to talk about the effort he’s leading with Ray LaHood to remove partisanship from how Illinois legislative maps are drawn. Bill explains how they are trying to create maps that are more representative of the population of the […]

Bill Daley, former White House Chief of Staff and co-chair of ‘Fair Maps Illinois,’ joins John Williams to talk about the effort he’s leading with Ray LaHood to remove partisanship from how Illinois legislative maps are drawn. Bill explains how they are trying to create maps that are more representative of the population of the […]

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about a bipartisan effort to to remove the influence of lawmakers in the redrawing of state legislative boundaries. LaHood says that the Illinois legislative map is ‘an embarrassment’ and ‘an outrageous abuse of one […]

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about a bipartisan effort to to remove the influence of lawmakers in the redrawing of state legislative boundaries. LaHood says that the Illinois legislative map is ‘an embarrassment’ and ‘an outrageous abuse of one […]

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about a bipartisan effort to to remove the influence of lawmakers in the redrawing of state legislative boundaries. LaHood says that the Illinois legislative map is ‘an embarrassment’ and ‘an outrageous abuse of one […]

June 13, 2025 ~ Full Show: Dave Trott Fills in for Kevin. He takes a look at the latest with Israel and Iran. Ray LaHood, former Secretary of Transportation, joins Dave to discuss the latest with the Air India crash. Mayor Mike Duggan joins the show. Edsel B. Ford II celebrates Ford's 122th anniversary.

June 13, 2025 ~ Ray LaHood, Former Member of Congress and former Secretary of Transportation, joins Dave Trott to discuss the latest going on in air travel and share an update on the Air India flight crash.

Former Secretary of Transportation and Congressman Ray Lahood joins The Greg and Dan Show to talk about the upcoming Academy of Our Lady/Spalding all classes reunion. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CNI Broadcast Director Jennifer Fuller examines Illinois' 17th Congressional District race. Two former members of the Illinois Congressional Delegation, Cheri Bustos and Ray LaHood, were guests of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Former Illinois Congressman and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a lifelong Republican, joins Joan Esposito to talk about the work he's doing to support Vice President Kamala Harris and defeat Donald Trump in the November election. "I told the Harris campaign I'll go wherever you want me to go," LaHood said. "I'm happy to speak publicly, on the radio, on television, before any group or any news outlet.” LaHood calls himself a "very proud" Republican but has not supported Trump in any of his three presidential campaigns; he endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. He says that while some Republicans he's talked to are disappointed that he is publicly supporting the Harris-Walz ticket, he knows many "who will not vote for either Trump or Harris but will be standing at the ready to rebuild the Republican Party, and I'll be there with them." Catch "Joan Esposito: Live, Local and Progressive" weekdays from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. Central on WCPT (heartlandsignal.com/wcpt820).

Dr. Joy Erlichman Miller returns to Resiliency Within to share her international work on resiliency. This year, on September 12, 2024, Dr. Miller invites the world to join her for RESILIENCY 2024 in spreading the word about how to develop and nurture well-being. This year, RESILIENCY 2024 will focus on the POWER of connections and explore the influence and healing power of connections. Dr. Miller's Resiliency events have had more than 35,000 participants from 112 countries around the globe. Resiliency 2024 is offered free of charge. Her resiliency events have included 85 Celebrities, Influencers, Scientists, Researchers, Psychologists, Artists, and Leaders have included: Dr. Jill Biden, Alanis Morissette, Arianna Huffington, Dr. Edith Eger, Tara Brach, Jack Kornfield, India Arie, Kristin Neff, Erin Brockovich, Leigh Steinberg, Marta Kauffman, Glenn Close, Dr. Andrew Weil, Bobbi Brown, Jericho Brown, Pete Buttigieg, Ray LaHood, Dr. Ian, Jewel, Tito Jackson, Harville Hendrix & Helen Hunt, Pat Love, Jeh Johnson, Dick Durbin, JB Pritzker, MILCK, Naomi Baum & Michael Dickson, Rhonda Ross, Alisyn Camerota, David Kessler, Jurie Rossouw, Richard Schwartz, Amit Sood, Elaine Miller- Karas, Cynthia Tuohy, Julianne Hough, and 50 other remarkable change-makers. All speakers generously donate their time and talent to this unbelievable event. Joy leads with compassion, heart, and generosity. Join the host of Resiliency Within, Elaine Miller-Karas as she has the honor to interview Dr. Miller.

Dr. Joy Erlichman Miller returns to Resiliency Within to share her international work on resiliency. This year, on September 12, 2024, Dr. Miller invites the world to join her for RESILIENCY 2024 in spreading the word about how to develop and nurture well-being. This year, RESILIENCY 2024 will focus on the POWER of connections and explore the influence and healing power of connections. Dr. Miller's Resiliency events have had more than 35,000 participants from 112 countries around the globe. Resiliency 2024 is offered free of charge. Her resiliency events have included 85 Celebrities, Influencers, Scientists, Researchers, Psychologists, Artists, and Leaders have included: Dr. Jill Biden, Alanis Morissette, Arianna Huffington, Dr. Edith Eger, Tara Brach, Jack Kornfield, India Arie, Kristin Neff, Erin Brockovich, Leigh Steinberg, Marta Kauffman, Glenn Close, Dr. Andrew Weil, Bobbi Brown, Jericho Brown, Pete Buttigieg, Ray LaHood, Dr. Ian, Jewel, Tito Jackson, Harville Hendrix & Helen Hunt, Pat Love, Jeh Johnson, Dick Durbin, JB Pritzker, MILCK, Naomi Baum & Michael Dickson, Rhonda Ross, Alisyn Camerota, David Kessler, Jurie Rossouw, Richard Schwartz, Amit Sood, Elaine Miller- Karas, Cynthia Tuohy, Julianne Hough, and 50 other remarkable change-makers. All speakers generously donate their time and talent to this unbelievable event. Joy leads with compassion, heart, and generosity. Join the host of Resiliency Within, Elaine Miller-Karas as she has the honor to interview Dr. Miller.

Tuesday, August 6th 2024Today, Kamala Harris is set to announce her VP pick this morning; Jenna Ellis has flipped in the Arizona fraudulent elector case; the Justice Department has won a landmark antitrust case against Google; Kamala launches ‘Republicans for Harris' in push to win over GOP voters put off by Trump; RFK Jr. admits putting a dead bear cub in New York City's Central Park nearly 10 years ago; Clarence Thomas is busted for failing to disclose more private flights; the former Marion police chief will be charged with crime in connection to the raids of a small Kansas newspaper; plus Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Promo Code:Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders AND two free pillows for our listeners! Go to https://www.helixsleep.com/dailybeans.StoriesFormer Marion police chief to be charged with crime in connection to raids (KSHB)Google illegally maintains monopoly over internet search, judge rules (AP News)VP's campaign launches ‘Republicans for Harris' in push to win over GOP voters put off by Trump (AP News)RFK Jr. admits putting dead bear cub in New York City's Central Park nearly 10 years ago (CBS News)Give to the Kamala Harris Presidential Campaign https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mswmediaforharrisCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsHelp out with the Harris campaign (kamalaharris.com)Crooked Mile Cheese (IG)https://www.crookedmilecheese.comFriends: Pivot! (Clip) | TBS (YouTube) Live Show Ticket Links:https://allisongill.com (for all tickets and show dates)Friday August 16th Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DCSaturday August 24 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about the launch of “Republicans for Harris” and why he’s focused on getting Vice President Kamala Harris elected president in November.

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about the launch of “Republicans for Harris” and why he’s focused on getting Vice President Kamala Harris elected president in November.

Vice President Kamala Harris continues to gain support from the Republican Party with 30 GOP members cited  as part of the "Republicans for Harris" initiative, including former members of the Trump Administration Stephanie Grisham (press secretary) and Olivia Troye (national security advisor), Ray LaHood, and Chuck Hagel.

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about the launch of “Republicans for Harris” and why he’s focused on getting Vice President Kamala Harris elected president in November.

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about his op-ed in the Chicago Tribune that suggests the Illinois GOP should challenge the state’s district maps in court.

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about his op-ed in the Chicago Tribune that suggests the Illinois GOP should challenge the state’s district maps in court.

Ray LaHood, former GOP member of Congress and the U.S. Secretary of Transportation under President Barack Obama, joins John Williams to talk about his op-ed in the Chicago Tribune that suggests the Illinois GOP should challenge the state’s district maps in court.

In today's episode, you'll hear from Congressman-elect Eric Sorensen about his victory and what's next. And 46th District State Senator Dave Koehler will be returning to the Illinois State Senate and gives his take on the boundary changes to his district. Plus, former Chief of Staff to Congressman Ray LaHood weighs in on why there was no "red wave" during this year's midterms.

We've made it to 1994. In September, House Republicans gather on the steps of the Capitol and sign the Contract with America. It's a carefully-worded list of bills they promise to bring to a vote as soon as they win the majority. Election night arrives, and the Republican sweep is decisive. Democrats are completely thrown by the size of the loss — and start searching for answers. And in January 1995, Newt Gingrich's biggest moment finally arrives: The Democrats hand over the gavel, and he becomes Speaker of the House.

Back on Beacon Hill on Tuesday, Ray LaHood reiterated concerns to state lawmakers, with a bleak opinion of progress they've made on transportation safety. WBZ's Mike Macklin reports.

During this episode of the Lincoln Laureates, we'll learn how a humble civics teacher from Peoria became one of the most admired members of the U.S. Congress.

 Ray LaHood represented Illinois' 18th district in the U.S. House of Representatives for 14 years. Inspired by his admiration for our 16th president, LaHood passionately spread his bi-partisan ideals as a driving force in legislation. Our guest host for this Lincoln Laureates conversation is award-winning broadcast journalist, Chris Bury.

Patrick Pfingsten talks with Ray LaHood, former United States Secretary of Transportation about his experiences on September 11, 2001. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy 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.

Raymond H. LaHood  served as the 16th United States Secretary of Transportation from 2009 to 2013 under President Barack Obama. A member of the Republican Party, he previously served in the Illinois House of Representatives (1982–1983) and United States House of Representatives (1995–2009). Apart from Secretary LaHood’s achievements at the helm of the Department of Transportation, he has set an example for bipartisanship and leadership in Washington. As a lifelong Republican, Secretary LaHood worked across party lines and frequently reminded partisans that, “there is no such thing as a Democratic road or a Republican bridge.” LaHood served from 1995-2009 in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 18th District of Illinois, the same district once served by President Abraham Lincoln. Prior to his election to the House, he served as Chief of Staff to U.S. House Republican Leader Robert Michel, whom he succeeded in representing the 18th District.

Former Transportation secretary Ray LaHood admitted to federal prosecutors he intentionally hid a $50,000 dollar loan he received while in office from Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury. LaHood claims he needed the money for home repairs. Politico Senior Legal Affairs Contributor Josh Gerstein breaks down the full story with John Howell.

Reset talks to former transportation secretary Ray LaHood for his thoughts on Biden’s pick and some of the key priorities for the incoming administration.

On this week’s special episode of Stay Tuned, Preet is joined by two guests. Ian Bremmer, the president and founder of Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm, and GZERO Media, helps us break down the global and domestic threats posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Rahm Emanuel served as Mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019, overseeing the city’s passage of universal pre-kindergarten, its ongoing struggle with crime and police brutality, and its rapid expansion of public-private partnerships. A Chicago native, Emanuel has been a mainstay in Democratic politics since the 1980s, working as a top advisor to President Clinton for the majority of his presidency, holding a seat in the House of Representatives during the George W. Bush administration, and serving as Chief of Staff for President Obama in the first year of his administration. Last month, Emanuel published The Nation City: Why Mayors Are Now Running the World, an examination of the increasing importance of local leaders amid the dysfunction of the federal government. To listen to Stay Tuned bonus content, become a member of CAFE Insider. Sign up to receive the CAFE Brief, a weekly newsletter featuring analysis of politically charged legal news, and updates from Preet. And if you haven’t already, listen to this week’s full episode of the CAFE Insider podcast for free. Lisa Monaco, former Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Advisor to President Barack Obama, joins Preet and Anne to discuss the many pertinent issues raised by the coronavirus. Sign up to receive a link to the episode at cafe.com/preet. As always, tweet your questions to @PreetBharara with hashtag #askpreet, email us at staytuned@cafe.com, or call 669-247-7338 to leave a voicemail. IAN BREMMER Ian Bremmer, “We Are In a Geopolitical Recession. That’s a Bad Time for the Global Coronavirus Crisis,” TIME, 3/13/20 Eurasia Group’s Top Risks for 2020, published 1/6/20 Ian Bremmer, “The Fate of the World in 2020,” Stay Tuned, 1/30/20 Ian Bremmer, “The Fate of the World in 2019,” Stay Tuned, 1/10/19 Maggie Haberman and Noah Weiland, “Inside the Coronavirus Response: A Case Study in the White House Under Trump,” New York Times, 3/16/20 Ishaan Tharoor, “South Korea’s coronavirus success story underscores how the U.S. initially failed,” Washington Post, 3/17/20 Scott Neuman, Emily Feng, Huo Jingnan, “China To Investigate After Whistleblower Doctor Dies From Coronavirus,” National Public Radio, 2/7/20 Shannon Liao, “Chinese billionaire Jack Ma says he will donate one million face masks and 500,000 coronavirus testing kits to the US,” CNN, 3/14/20 Abby Vesoulis, “Will the Coronavirus Outbreak Turn Andrew Yang’s Dream into a Reality?,” TIME, 3/17/20 The Trolley Problem, “Would you sacrifice one person to save five?,” TED-Ed, 1/12/17 RAHM EMANUEL Rahm Emanuel, The Nation City: Why Mayors Are Now Running the World, Knopf, 2/25/2020 Lizzie Widdicombe, “Emanuel in Full,” New Yorker, 11/18/2008 Handling a crisis “Member of Obama’s Cabinet Announces More Help for Flint,” Detroit Free Press, 2/26/2016 “Congress Approves $15 Billion Airline Bailout,” CNN, 9/22/2001 Shift to Cities “Emanuel Expands Universal Preschool Plan as Mayoral Clock Winds Down,” Chicago Tribune, 3/21/2019 “Chicago’s $8.7 Billion O’Hare Airport Expansion Underway,” Associated Press, 3/20/2019 Rahm Emanuel, “If Donald Trump Won’t Tackle Climate Change, Then Chicago Will,” Guardian, 8/27/2017 “16 Shots: The Police Shooting of Laquan McDonald,” NPR Podcasts/WBEZ Chicago, 2018 “Emanuel Expands Universal Preschool Plan as Mayoral Clock Winds Down,” Chicago Tribune, 3/21/2019 Ruthlessness “Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician,” CNN Money, 9/26/2006 Peter Baker, “The Limits of Rahmism,” New York Times Magazine, 3/8/2010 “LBJ and Richard Russell on Vietnam,” UVA Miller Center, 5/27/1964 John Dickerson, “A ‘90s-Style Government Shutdown,” Slate Whistlestop, 1/16/2019 W. James Antle III, “How ‘Democrats Fall in Love, Republicans Fall in Line’ Got Flipped Upside Down,” The Week, 6/19/2019 2016 and 2020 Elections W. James Antle III, “How ‘Democrats Fall in Love, Republicans Fall in Line’ Got Flipped Upside Down,” The Week, 6/19/2019 Thomas E. Patterson, “News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters,” Shorenstein Center, 12/7/2016 Chief of Staff “Rahm Emanuel: No Prius for Sec. Ray LaHood,” The Hill, 3/17/2010 “Trump Names Mark Meadows Chief of Staff, Ousting Mick Mulvaney,” New York Times, 3/6/2020 “The Myth of Hamilton Jordan,” Washington Post, 12/17/197 “The People Who Advise Jimmy Carter. Best and Brightest? Or Not?” Christian Science Monitor, 8/14/1980

Republican Ray LaHood, the former Peoria congressman who served as transportation secretary during Barack Obama's first term, said Chicago-based Boeing should have grounded its own fleet of 737 Max jets the moment Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed into a farm field about 40 miles from Addis Ababa, killing all 157 passengers and crew.

First, Chris goes one-on-one with Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Chris tests Gaetz on his tweets about Michael Cohen and the impending Mueller report. Then, Chris heads to the Magic Wall to break down the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Chris continues that discuss that topic as well as the influence of wealth in the American educational system with Laura Coates and Christopher Hunt in a session of "Cuomo's Court." Chris wraps up the show with Aviation Experts, Jeff Guzzetti and Ray LaHood about the FAA decision not to ground the Boeing 737 Max 8, and a Closing Argument on the problem of money over merit in college.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

First, Chris goes one-on-one with Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Chris tests Gaetz on his tweets about Michael Cohen and the impending Mueller report. Then, Chris heads to the Magic Wall to break down the largest college admissions scam ever prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Chris continues that discuss that topic as well as the influence of wealth in the American educational system with Laura Coates and Christopher Hunt in a session of "Cuomo's Court." Chris wraps up the show with Aviation Experts, Jeff Guzzetti and Ray LaHood about the FAA decision not to ground the Boeing 737 Max 8, and a Closing Argument on the problem of money over merit in college.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

In the final installment, Poppy and Jeffrey go back to RBG's origins, beginning with her Brooklyn upbringing through to her time as a young lawyer struggling to secure a job despite being top of her class. They sit down with Professor Arthur Miller, who knew RBG and her husband Marty at Harvard Law School. Finally, CNN Supreme Court reporter Ariane De Vogue helps tie it all together and walks us through expectations for the coming term.  To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Bill Press welcomes Debbie Hines, Ray LaHood, & Cory Bennett to discuss Sarah Huckabee Sanders' embarrassing defense of Trump's James Comey firing, why a constitutional crisis may be looming, a former transportation secretary's 'F' grade for US infrastructure, & what we can learn from the French election hacking - the full Thursday edition of the Bill Press Show!

Co-chairs of 'Building America’s Future Educational Fund', Ed Rendell, former Governor of Pennsylvania, and Ray LaHood, President Obama's Secretary of Transportation, join Rick and Michael to preview "infrastructure week". The guys continue to cover the political fallout from President Trump's dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey.

Ray LaHood served as the United States Secretary of Transportation from 2009-2013. Prior to that, he served in the House of Representatives, representing Illinois's 18th congressional district. In this interview with Chuck Marohn, Mr. LaHood discusses bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure decisions and his views on the presidential candidates' position on drastically increasing infrastructure spending. He answers questions like, "If we're going to invest in infrastructure, where should that money come from? Who should decide how it is spent?" He also discusses his view on gas tax increases, and small-scale vs. large-scale projects. His book, Seeking Bipartisanship: My Life in Politics, is available now. This interview is part of our ongoing conversation on infrastructure spending

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a speech to The Ripon Society, former GOP Congressman and current Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood expressed optimism that both parties will be able to work together in the wake of the mid-term elections. He also pointed to three areas – deficit reduction, transportation funding, and the war in Afghanistan — where, he believes, the Obama Administration and Republicans in Congress will be able to find common ground.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Co-sponsored by UChicago's Office of Undergraduate Admissions, IOP director David Axelrod moderated a discussion featuring IOP Advisory Board Members Robert Gibbs, Larry Grisolano, Ray LaHood, Isaac Lee, Mike Murphy, Neera Tanden and Howard Wolfson for prospective and current UChicago students and their familes. Tune in to see some of the smartest minds in politics analyze the election.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Co-sponsored by UChicago's Office of Undergraduate Admissions, IOP director David Axelrod moderated a discussion featuring IOP Advisory Board Members Robert Gibbs, Larry Grisolano, Ray LaHood, Isaac Lee, Mike Murphy, Neera Tanden and Howard Wolfson for prospective and current UChicago students and their familes. Tune in to see some of the smartest minds in politics analyze the election.

Americans took over 10 billion trips on public transit in 2012—that’s the highest number since 1957. At the same time, 2013 has been dubbed the year of the bikeshare as more and more cities establish their own bikeshare programs. As Americans in both urban and rural communities increasingly demand a wider range of transportation options, what can local and federal transportation planners do to give them what they want? Ray LaHood will offer his vision of what the next generation of transportation looks like—from high-speed bullet trains to smart cars capable of talking to one another. You can be sure that it won’t be your grandparents’ transportation system. Speakers: Ray LaHood and Ronald Brownstein

Former Secretary of Transportation and Congressman Ray LaHood joins BACK ROOM POLITICS to discuss his time as Secretary, what he sees as America's and Congress' Challenges in the future.   The Back Room Politics team will discuss the issues surrounding a possible Government Shutdown and the looming budget crisis.

As the Obama Presidency transitioned into a second term in January, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced his resignation. In a little over four years as SecTrans, LaHood oversaw the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which poured billions of dollars into all modes of transportation across the country, as well as helping lead the way toward the adoption of unprecedented driver safety laws, including laws against distracted driving in 39 states. I spoke with the Secretary recently on his time in office and what work he feels still needs to be done.

Chrysler posted strong financial earnings last year but the company is still too reliant on the U.S. market. Speaking of financial earnings, Ford’s UAW employees are going to reap the benefits of the company’s positive results. Find out how much they’ll receive in profit sharing checks. Fisker just hired a consulting group to help it figure out how to save cash as it looks for a partner or a buyer. All that and more, plus John responds to your questions and comments in “You Said It!”

9 AM - 4th Elmo voice accuser; Ben the Libertarian calls in; Most people think Christmas should be about Jesus; Rep Jeff Denham went at it with Ray LaHood about funding for the CA bullet train; Jamie Foxx joked about "killing white people" in his new movie.

Oregon Update-   transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is calling for a FEDERAL BAN ON TALKING ON A CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING, on any road in the country.   LaHood says that the only way to deal with this "national epidemic" is for tough federal legislation. also on the program   new rules proposed by the Obama administration would prohibit children under 18 from working in "storing, marketing, and transportation of farm product raw materials and prohibits places of employment such as grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feedlots, stockyards, live stock exchanges and livestock auctions." http://news.yahoo.com/rural-kids-parents-angry-labor-dept-rule-banning-054605888.html (but it gets better) also under the proposal, would revoke the government's approval of safety training and certification caught by groups like 4-H and FFA replacing them with a 90 hour federal government training course. The dumbing down of America continues and we'll talk about it April 30 1 PM Pacific time. Hope you'll join us!

Volkswagen just posted record financial results for 2011. Its earnings before interest and taxes were up 58 percent to 15.1 billion dollars. Panasonic announced it will supply lithium-ion batteries to Ford for its hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Mercedes-Benz could be toying with the idea of a four-door SLS. Sketches of one popped up in a German patent application. All that and more, plus a preview of Autoline This Week with the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood.

Four years ago he was a one of 435, just a seven-term Congressman from a sleepy section of western Illinois. But since then life has been a bit harried to say the least. When Representative Ray LaHood joined the Obama Administration as the 16th Secretary of the Transportation in January 2009 little did he know that he would be presiding over the most dramatic time in the American auto industry since Henry Ford drove his first car around Detroit. From bankruptcies to bailouts to batteries driving green vehicles, his department oversees everything we drive or ride in on the ground or on the water, as well as divisions like the FAA, the FHA and NHSTA to name three. This week on Autoline from the floor of the Washington Auto Show, John McElroy welcomes Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for an exclusive one-on-one interview on everything automotive and more.

Four years ago he was a one of 435, just a seven-term Congressman from a sleepy section of western Illinois. But since then life has been a bit harried to say the least. When Representative Ray LaHood joined the Obama Administration as the 16th Secretary of the Transportation in January 2009 little did he know that he would be presiding over the most dramatic time in the American auto industry since Henry Ford drove his first car around Detroit. From bankruptcies to bailouts to batteries driving green vehicles, his department oversees everything we drive or ride in on the ground or on the water, as well as divisions like the FAA, the FHA and NHSTA to name three. This week on Autoline from the floor of the Washington Auto Show, John McElroy welcomes Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for an exclusive one-on-one interview on everything automotive and more.

Four years ago he was a one of 435, just a seven-term Congressman from a sleepy section of western Illinois. But since then life has been a bit harried to say the least. When Representative Ray LaHood joined the Obama Administration as the 16th Secretary of the Transportation in January 2009 little did he know that he would be presiding over the most dramatic time in the American auto industry since Henry Ford drove his first car around Detroit. From bankruptcies to bailouts to batteries driving green vehicles, his department oversees everything we drive or ride in on the ground or on the water, as well as divisions like the FAA, the FHA and NHSTA to name three. This week on Autoline from the floor of the Washington Auto Show, John McElroy welcomes Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for an exclusive one-on-one interview on everything automotive and more.

Inventory levels are increasing in the American market, a sure sign that automakers are making too many cars. Lamborghini will unveil a new flagship supercar at the Geneva Motor Show, called the Aventador, which is expected to cost more than $370,000! The average fuel economy of new light-vehicles sold in the U.S. fell last year. All that and more, plus a look at the new Ford Focus.

MailBag; Ray LaHood said Toyota electronics were not at fault.

Yesterday the FBI raided the Michigan offices of Japanese seat belt supplier Takata. China's problems with traffic congestion is becoming much worse. Dodge unveiled the new 2012 Charger SRT-8 at the Chicago Auto Show which features a completely new look. All that and more, plus John calls out Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation for not having the guts to call it like it is.

The U.S. federal government socked Toyota with another fine, this time for its tardy handling of recalls and other safety issues. Chrysler just released pictures of its redesigned 300, which should start arriving at dealerships in the first quarter of next year. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers is one of four trade groups that’s asking a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling by the U.S. EPA that allows gasoline blends with 15 percent ethanol. All that and more, plus John shares some of his thoughts on the Ford Focus RS 500 he recently drove.

Port directors from across the nation talked face-to-face with United States Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on Friday, February 5, 2010, at the San Diego Convention Center. LaHood attended a special town hall morning session of the first-ever National Port Summit. The event was organized by the Department of Transportation and MARAD.

It’s that time again, Mr. McElroy’s out and the inmates are here to run the asylum with the Autoextremist leading the charge. Tonight Peter De Lorenzo welcomes Rod Meloni from WDIV in Detroit, Frank Markus of Motor Trend, and the irrepressible Jim Hall from 2953 Analytics. Carlos Ghosn bets the farm on the success of EVs. Ray LaHood declares Detroit bailout money well-spent after a visit to the Motor City. The panelists debate the most significant cars in the first decade of the 21st century. All that plus we get to your questions in Rapid Fire!