Podcasts about wrda

Transport Topics is the news leader in trucking and freight transportation. Today's daily briefing includes news on a June dip in tonnage, a new form for truckers who take their dogs to Mexico or Canada, and the House advancing WRDA. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Trade deficit climbs. WRDA legislation advances. Wage rates remain challenging. 

The House Armed Services Committee marks up the NDAA. The Senate Environment panel marks up the biennial water bill. And a House committee hosts Blinken amid GOP consternation over Biden's Israel policy. David Higgins has your CQ Morning Briefing for Wednesday, May 22, 2024.

Since 2014, Congress and the Administration have passed a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) every two years. WRDA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, through the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)), to conduct studies, construct projects, and research various activities and development that can lead to improvements of rivers and harbors of the United States. Listen in on this episode to learn about WRDA with Mr. Gib Owen, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works; Mr. David Wethington, Chief, Future Directions Branch at USACE Headquarters; and Ms. Amy Frantz, Senior Policy Advisor at USACE Headquarters. Additional information about the Water Resources Development Act can be found on our website at https://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Water-Resources-Development-Act/.

On the First WaterLog Podcast episode of 2023, Howard and Dan cover coastal funding in the FY23 omnibus appropriations and legislative changes in the Water Resources Development Act of 2022.

AgriTalk's Chip Flory and Pro Farmer policy analyst Jim Wiesemeyer discuss several issues and policy initiatives affecting U.S. agriculture, including a huge omnibus spending bill members Congress is trying to put together, revised Emergency Relief Program funding, WRDA update, immigration reform, and more.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On the November episode of the WaterLog podcast, Howard and Dan lay down the upcoming opportunities for federal funding for coastal communities. They will discuss the importance of lobbying the federal appropriations process and the relationship between WRDA and appropriations bills, and then have a brief discussion on all coastal federal bills in the 117th Congress.

On the July episode of the WaterLog podcast, Howard and Dan discuss legislative proposals to reform the National Flood Insurance Program, the status of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, and FY23 Energy & Water Appropriations.

On the May episode of the WaterLog Podcast, Howard Marlowe and Dan Ginolfi take an exclusive look at the Senate's recently unveiled version of the Water Resources Development Act of 2022, and talk about the big picture of coastal resilience, including large-scale projects like the Ike Dike, the New Jersey back bays study, and other enormous coastal infrastructure projects in America.

Welcome back Clinch Crew! On this week's agenda:The Pride of Ukraine and her dominant winYan Xiaonan vs Marina Rodriguez; who had the edgeIzzy's technique twinBoooo throwin tomatoes (at Greg)Our beloved child Kevin Holland pulls off the big WRDA vs Moicano *Banger Alert* (also no bonus? um...ok Dana)The surprising unanimous prediction for Colby vs. JorgeI hope you enjoy!

On this month's episode, Howard and Dan discuss provisions in the newly introduced SHORRE Act and other pending WRDA legislation that elevate coastal protection to a primary mission of the Corps and provide true leadership for addressing sea level rise, flooding and climate change along the coast.

On The Capitol Beach, Derek Brockbank talks WRDA with Ryan Seiger, the Staff Director for the Water Resources and Environment sub-committee of the House Transportation & Infrastructure committee. Ryan has been working on WRDAs on Capitol Hill for over 20 years and is one of the most influential people on coastal policy that no one outside the DC Beltway knows. They discuss policies from the recently passed 2020 WRDA, including Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, coastal resilience and natural infrastructure, beneficial use of dredged material, and environmental justice at the US Army Corps of Engineers. This pod dives deep into the weeds of the nation’s most recent water policy, while showing that legislative language tweaks can have real world impact on how our coast is managed.

On this, the first episode of 2021, Peter Ravella and Tyler Buckingham look back on 2020 and discuss the top coastal stories of the year. Of course, this begins with a discussion of the impacts of COVID19 on the American Shoreline. Then, the discussion turns to the Atlantic Hurricaine Season, the second busiest in history, followed by a look at the last year's Pebble Mine developments, and the new WRDA bill. Finally, Peter and Tyler look back on ASPN's 2020 calendar, in particular looking back at the new shows and hosts to join the ASPN team over the past year.

Thursday on Adams on Agriculture Ex. Dir. of the Soy Transportation Coalition Mike Steenhoek gives an update on WRDA legislation, Carrie Calvert with Feeding American discusses the challenges of feeding people in need during a pandemic and ACE CEO Brian Jennings discusses the ethanol trade dispute with Brazil.

On this month's edition of the WaterLog Podcast's DC Update, Howard Marlowe and Dan Ginolfi discuss the structure of the Corps as a part of the Department of Defense, give a legislative update on WRDA and Energy & Water Appropriations, and then talk generally about coastal resilience and the hurricane outlook. Another great show from our Nation's Capitol, the land of rationale deliberation and judicious analysis.

         The U.S. Chamber's Vice President of Transportation and Infrastructure, Ed Mortimer joined the program to discuss the current state of play in Congress and the Chamber's advocacy efforts on behalf of the engineering industry. Transcript: Host:Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering companies. Today, I am pleased to welcome Ed Mortimer to the show. Ed serves as the Vice President of transportation and infrastructure at the US Chamber of Commerce, where he oversees the development and implementation of the Chamber's, transportation and infrastructure policy, and represents the Chamber on Capitol Hill, as well as before the administration and industry organizations. In addition, Ed also leads the Americans for Transportation Mobility coalition, which is a collaborative effort by business, labor, transportation stakeholders, and concerned citizens to advocate for improved and increased federal investment in the nation's aging and overburdened transportation system. We at ACEC are members of that coalition which helps us amplify our voice to Capitol Hill. And Ed comes to the Chamber from AECOM where he served as director of government relations. So in other words, Ed knows our industry and he understands Congress and it is great to have him on the show. So welcome to Engineering Influence. Ed Mortimer:Great, Jeff, good to be with you. Host:So we were kind of talking about this beforehand, before we went live, but, you know, things are happening at least a little bit on the Hill. If you can give us a kind of an update on the legislative prospects for a surface bill, now that the House has passed their version. And of course that was dead arrival in the Senate and the Senate has been acting on their own version of not only a surface bill, but a WRDA bill. Where are things standing right now? Do you think we'll get something passed? Ed Mortimer:Well, Jeff, we're definitely in a critical moment to get something passed through the Senate. We have 63 days until the expiration of the FAST Act. And it's been over a year since the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee marked up their surface transportation reauthorization, the American Transportation Infrastructure Act, which was a 27% increase in highway funding. Unfortunately we haven't seen any action since then to bring the full bill to the floor. We need the banking committee who does a transit title, commerce committee, which does a safety title. And then the most critically the finance committee, which pays for the Senate bill. Since we haven't raised the gas tax in 27 years, they need to come up with $110 billion in new revenue to pay for that 27% increase in funding to date. They have not been able to do that. Ed Mortimer:We have been advocating for action on this. As you mentioned, the House of Representatives passed a bill, which unfortunately wasn't something we were very excited about in the sense that, the bill was introduced in the transportation committee and marked up in a partisan way. Not one Republican vote in committee, it was a 494 or 5 billion five-year reauthorization. And then all of a sudden, right before the bill came before it became a $1.5 trillion bill with a lot of things that I think your members. And again, the Chamber and the business community think are important, such as school construction, affordable housing. But in our view, we have an authorization bill that expires September 30th. We have divided government, so we have a Republican Senate, a Democrat House and a Republican White House. So the end of the day we need bipartisan solutions because until a bill signed into law, it doesn't do us any good. Ed Mortimer:And so our view was the House bill did not move that process forward of getting that bipartisan solution. So, but it passed, at least they got it through. Now we need the Senate to move out and then get into a House-Senate conference committee. So we urging the Senate knowing that they have a lot of things going on, or obviously working on the next COVID relief bill, they have appropriations that expire in September. But again, this is a, this is a priority that Congress is supposed to do their job. They're supposed to get these bills done in time and we need the Senate to act now, so we can get this bill into conference and get it to president's desk before September 30th. Host:Yeah, this is not something which is creeping up unexpectedly on either chamber. I mean, last Congress, the conversation was about the fiscal cliff that happened with the FAST Act and dealing with that, uh, knowing that there was going to have to be a reauthorization coming up because the law was expiring. The Senate was the first out of the gate, early on moving a surface bill. And it just seemed that the House's answer increasingly, it seems with the, you know, the polarization in Congress that you had a surface bill, but then it was run out of the Speaker's office and all these other policy provisions were tacked on and it became more of a political football and you're right. There were some things in the bill, that I think overall industry is interested in, you know, issues related to resiliency issues related to school construction, rural broadband, especially now in the post COVID working remotely kind of environment, but we need a surface bill Host:We've been looking at this over time. And infrastructure has always historically kind of been a broad bipartisan issue, but it does seem like those parts and elements have disrupted the dynamic, the T&I part - we mentioned that the process there was, was as partisan as we've ever seen it. And, you know, is this going to be the new norm? I mean, do you think that in your experience in working with Congress and this administration, just how things have developed do you think we can get back to that level of compromise and bipartisanship, or do you think we're going to be in a pitch partisan battle moving forward? Ed Mortimer:Well, I mean, I think it's gonna be a combination of both. And I will say, you know, a couple of weeks after this extremely partisan, uh, transportation bill came up, the committee unanimously approved a water resources development act, bill, and, you know, uh, on July 27th, the full h]House is going to take it up under suspension of the rules, which means two thirds vote to approve it. It should probably get 300 to 400 votes. So as painful as the surface markup and that situation was, they have come back and were able to get this WRDA bill done on a bipartisan basis. So, we are optimistic that we can get back to cause again, at the end of the day with divided government, you need bipartisan solutions. And we've always whether we had divided government or not. We've always been able to work on a bipartisan basis. Ed Mortimer:Now it may not be the same as it was 20 years ago. But we are optimistic that, you know, there's an old saying there is no Republican road or a Democrat bridge. And so at the end of the day, we have to hold our lawmakers accountable because they should work together to do the people's business. And in our view, infrastructure is a core responsibility of the federal government. You go back to the constitution, it actually requires the federal government to do two things. Now they may have wandered a bit from that, but the only two things that the constitutional part of the federal government to do is national defense and interstate commerce. And so investing in infrastructure is really critical to the backbone of our economy. And we have to hold our lawmakers accountable. We can't just let them say, well, I passed a bill through the House or we did a mark-upw. We have to tell them until it's gets signed into law engineers, don't benefit the American public. Doesn't see the fruits of the engineering industries labor until these bills get signed into law. And so we cannot accept half passage and press releases saying we just passed this 50% increase of funding because it doesn't mean anything until it's signed by the president, wherever that is. And then we can get the states the predictability of federal investment over the next several year period. Host:Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's, I still remember, you know, and I don't know if it's there still, because I haven't gone into the committee room, uh, since the, uh, the Congress, the new Congress, but, you know, the last Congress could be turned around after entering a room on the left hand side is Adam Smith talking about the responsibility of the sovereign to maintain commerce and infrastructure. And on the right, is the constitution, uh, specifically outlining the federal responsibility for maintaining post roads. And of course, you know, the national infrastructure, so it is a federal responsibility and you're absolutely right. We can't take half measures. We have to get a bill done because it will, it's necessary for the certainty that the states need, especially now with, with, you know, shrinking budgets, for those states to be able to do long-term planning and, you know, the programs need to be there to, to allow our economy to recover. You did mention WRDA, and I think that's an important point that the reference, because this is always the sleeper bill, it's the one that generally gets the bipartisan support. It passes with overwhelming majorities in both chambers, but it doesn't get the press that it really deserves. From your position at the Chamber, how important is that WRDA bill, you know, it's critical for water infrastructure, you know, inland waterways, port stamps, harbors, but what's the economic impact of getting a bill like that done? Ed Mortimer:Well, what WRDA does is, and Jeff, why it's really important for the engineering industry is it's 2015. Congress has done this bill every two years. And so every two years they authorize new water projects. So without that action, uh, the Corps cannot start new projects. Why is it important? Because before 2015, it was seven years until the previous authorization was done. So this is the third time in a row that Congress is on track to meeting that responsibility. What does that mean? That means that communities can make plans and investments knowing the federal government going to do this bill every two years. Um, water infrastructure is critical to so many communities throughout the country, particularly in the agricultural, the manufacturing industry. And we all know that our infrastructure systems are old at the best and our locks and dams are some of the oldest. We've been band-aiding them for 25 to 30 years. And so these water investments are really critical, so many communities, we're also looking at, you know, you talked earlier about resiliency, we're looking at natural disasters are happening. And so doing this water bill every two years allows engineers to provide the innovation and technology that they can bring to the table and we're repairing and modernizing these water systems. We can make sure the resilient to handle the new natural disasters that perhaps our forefathers 50 years ago, hadn't planned on us dealing with. Host:Yeah. So you did mention earlier the, um, pandemic response bill, do you think that infrastructure investment like support for state DoT or local transit agency airports or other sectors might be included as a portion of that bill? Ed Mortimer:Well, it has to, okay. Our transportation systems have suffered substantially since the pandemic started. We shut down most of this country. Um, some parts of this country now we're going through a mini second shutdown. Um, the revenue sources for state DoTs is dried up significantly. AASHTO has said that they need an additional $37 billion to continue projects through the next year. Um, transit agencies have submitted proposal for $32 billion. Um, the heroes act, which passed the house includes 15 billion for state DoTs and 15 billion for transit agencies. Um, the Senate bill that McConnell has started the process of putting out there only includes $10 billion for airports. But I can tell you that we need, we will fight very hard and vigorously to ensure that any final product includes funding for those state DoTs, for those transit agencies in the airports, because they have suffered not because of anything they did, but because of a pandemic, that's a federal response has to take place to ensure that we're able to continue the business. Ed Mortimer:So many engineers have been able to continue work. They're essential workers. We be able to actually in several States move projects faster because of a lack of traffic on some of the infrastructure. So we actually have an opportunity here to take advantage of this unfortunate situation, to maybe expedite some infrastructure projects in a more timely manner. So it's a combination, all of us to ensure that the Senate, uh, the ball's in their court, the house passed a bill Baldwin Senate court. They need to come together. They need to ensure that this type of funding is available. Cause whether we get in long-term reauthorization of the fast app or an extension of this program without state match we're going to see a reduction in projects at the, at the, at the, on all levels of government. So it's critical that we urge the Senate to include this as this process moves forward. Host:Yeah, absolutely. And that's something that's been a core focus of our digital advocacy effort. Of course, we were hoping to have a spring convention and legislative fly in as normal, but COVID disrupted that. So we switched over to a virtual advocacy campaign, which was successful in the House. And of course our target is right now is the Senate. And our grassroots advocates have been very, very vocal and sending messages to their members of the Senate and also organizing meetings, virtual meetings over zoom and other formats. What has the Chamber have been doing in terms of grassroots activities to support those objectives? Ed Mortimer:So we've been very active, you know, educating our members about what's going on. Um, we've actually started a social media campaign where we have a calendar every day. It's, you know, I mentioned 63 days, to the expiration, we remind lawmakers every day, they haven't acted and that the clock is ticking. We actually have on our website, let's rebuild america dot com. We have a ticker that shows the hours, the minutes, the days that are taking now, um, for action. Um, and so like your members, we've learned to kind of change our advocacy. It's no longer um, just our folks walking the halls of Congress, but it's doing zoom. Uh, it's being involved in social media campaigns. You know, we're still talking to members of Congress and their staffs in a different way. Um, but to be honest with you, it's, it's still effective. Ed Mortimer:They still hear it. And I know engineers have a lot on their plate right now, but we need you to step up and have your voice heard these members of Congress need to hear how many jobs your company has, uh, what projects you're working on and what are the opportunities that may go away if they don't act. Um, it does make a difference and telling our story is really going to be critical in next three weeks where there's so much noise in Washington, right. We watched the news and we know the ongoing pandemic. Um, but making sure that our voice is heard, that the lawmakers truly understand the ramifications of not acting to invest in infrastructure. Uh, it's really to make the difference whether we get the right amount of funding in this next bill or not. Host:Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you turn on the television it's wall to wall COVID-19 coverage. You look at the major newspapers and they talk about, you know, the issues going on around the country. Um, and it doesn't seem like this is getting a lot of play, but honestly, the people who matter are paying attention and the best way to cut through the noise, cut through the media cycle is to get to them directly, um, either a message by email or a request for a zoom meeting. The ones that we've had have been very successful and the members have been very receptive meeting because we're able to amplify our voice. You can never get, let's say 50 people into a Senate office or 50 people into a House office. Now with zoom, you can have as many people as you want on that meeting with that member of Congress. Host:And you can essentially have a full fly in and one meeting virtually. So it's of critical importance. Um, also the ATM coalition, which is something that we've been involved with. Um, you know, you see a lot of the social media activity going on our page. Uh, we always retweet the messages and we, and we try to drive people over to the website, um, which is for the coalition it's, it's faster, better, safer, safer. So our faster, better, safer. Yes, I know exactly. I always get caught up on that. Tell us a little bit more about that coalition in some of the, some of the things that it's focused in on. Ed MortimerYeah. So we started this coalition, um, and it's been around for a while. And, and what we decided was, you can't just have the engineers, the construction industry, go up to the Hill and continue to ask for funding. We need to broaden the coalition. And so the goal of the coalition was let's bring organized labor in, let's bring other parts of the business, community retailers, Farm Bureau. And so we're trying to widen the coalition of stakeholders that understand the importance of infrastructure. And so ACEC and their membership in it allows us to do those activities. And then Jeff as you mentioned, we're able to kind of amplify all of our messages in this world of Twitter and so much noise, uh, being able to have colleagues to amplify the message are really important. Um, and so the coalition does that. We partner with folks, we tell the story of members all over this country. Ed Mortimer:And so ATM really is focused on from it from a grassroots campaign and on the outside in, so we hear stories around the country. We try to tell those stories to the members of Congress, um, you know, ACEC's got a great Capitol Hill office, and you guys work the inside the beltway, we partner with you guys on many of those efforts, but again, it's working inside the beltway and combining that with an outside the beltway campaign, to make sure that we're bringing the vast array of resources that we have, and we pull them together and pulling them together. We're able to be more effective than if we just do all of our, do our own campaign. So, you know, I really love what you guys do. Um, your membership has been extremely active. Um, I know it, cause I hear from members of Congress all the time hearing about what ACEC members were just in your chapters are very active at the state level. Ed Mortimer:And you've been, the chapters have been very effective at the state level raising revenue. We need to take some of the lessons learned at those state campaigns and bring it to Washington because so much of Washington tells us why they can't do something. Engineers know how we can do something. And we just have to remind these folks. And then we got to hold them accountable, whether they're Republican or Democrat, um, too many times, they tell us what we want to hear and they don't do anything after the meeting. So when you meet the zoom meeting, follow up with them and say, okay, you promised me X, Y, and Z, where are you at on those promises? Where's the bill? Has it been approved? Is the bill going to the White House? because it doesn't help you and remembers if we don't get these things done. So again, I think bringing all these resources to the table that none of the organizations that care about this can do it on their own, but together we really are bringing that large stakeholder community that can make a difference. Host:Yeah. If you were able to bring the engineering sector of the economy together with the construction sector of the economy and then the labor that actually gets it all done and have a unified voice it's practically unbeatable because you you're covering all fronts. Um, and I, and I think that's a good point. I mean, from, from the perspective of our state chapters, you know, they're working very hard on their own issues at the state legislative level, but if there's a success that, and this was kind of a call for stories, if there's a success that you've had at your state level to let us know, so we can filter it up because success at the state level translates to success in the federal level, because the members of Congress from that state delegation pay attention to what happens in the state house. And if you're able to go back and say, Hey, in Pennsylvania or Illinois, we were able to do this. So Mr. Senator or Congressman, it's not impossible, and this is how we did it. Um, it all feeds together and we all kind of self-support. So, uh, anyone out there listening who as a story or as a kind of a case study, make sure to let us know so we can get it to Ed. We can get it to people at the ATM coalition and kind of get that communicated to Congress. Ed Mortimer:Yeah. Jeff, if I could make one more point on that, the other thing is we see a lot of state officials come to Congress. So, you know, when they hear these stories, a lot of these folks that have, are now coming to Congress, we're seeing more and more of them say, Hey, I, I worked with the engineers on getting a gas tax raise or a sales tax raised. And that's going to be very helpful as we continue to grow base of support in this Congress to make the real investments that are required. So that's why in another way that, you know, these folks that end up at the state level, they find their way to DC. So cultivating those relationships and keeping them going is going to be really critical. Host:Absolutely. Well, before I let you go, I've got to ask a NEPA question because, you know, this has been n one of the administration's main focuses policy-wise from a regulatory standpoint, so I know that the Chamber supported the administration's NEPA reform, um, and of course the streamlining of project delivery, which is crucial. Why do you think it's important to the business community in general? And do you think that the changes in the NEPA regulations will make it through legislative and judicial challenges? Ed Mortimer:So good question. So, you know, look, the Chamber believes we need to modernize our infrastructure. That also means we need to modernize the way that we deliver projects to the engineers on the frontline of the challenges in the permitting process. Almost 20% of the cost of many major federal projects is due to the planning approval process. And NEPA has been used by our opponents to delay and stop projects. And that's not what NEPA was meant to do. NEPA was meant to encourage public participation and to make sure environmental regulations are being met, um, engineers that work on products today, I guarantee you any project at any ACEC members working on is going to make the infrastructure more environmentally sensitive than what it replaced, just because innovation and technology that engineers bring to the table. And you're replacing an infrastructure that was built 50 years ago or longer. Ed Mortimer:So the reality is, is that we need to show the business community because the business community is willing to pay more for infrastructure. As you know, we've been out there saying we need to adjust the fuel tax, but if we do adjust the fuel tax, we also need to show the business community that we're going to use limited dollars more effectively. And so we did support the administration's executive order on tightening up, uh, the NEPA requirements. Um, again, it doesn't change the NEPA law and there's some misconception out there. Uh, it does not change the law. It just changes the way federal agencies implement NEPA, and it provides some reasonable timelines for it. And while the Mark dental community and others have raised a lot of objections to it, um, actually in the Senate EPW bill that I mentioned that moved through the committee on a 21 to zero vote, um, that was sponsored by Senator Carper of Delaware. Ed Mortimer:It includes language that would put a two year time limit on lawsuits, on NEPA projects, um, Democrats and Republicans in the last two surface transportation bills have supported, you know, ways to kind of expedite permit approvals. So again, we believe this needs to be done without changing environmental law without cutting corners, but putting reasonable timelines. And if the answer is no, we'd rather see limited dollars go to projects that get to yes. And so again, if we're going to make the major investments necessary to modernize, we have to figure out a way to modernize these rules. So, you know, the administration just made an announcement that they finalize these rules. Um, they're going into litigation, um, as all of these things always do. Um, you know, do you believe that it's solidly, it should last that now obviously if there's an election this fall, um, there could be a change in an executive order, and that's why we wanted to get the Senate bill codified into law because a law is a lot harder to change than an Executive Order. And so that's one of the other reasons that we want to push to get that Senate bill done. Um, because getting that enacted into law this year would make sure that it's going to last where the Executive Order, if there does happen to be a new administration, it's pretty easy for them to just eliminate that Executive Order. Host:Yeah, that's, that's a really good summary because I think that a lot of people are following it, but they're not following it too closely, but it is all about keeping the pipeline open for projects. It's about easing burdensome regulations. It's not about undermining environmental quality or protections, but about getting projects from paper to completion faster. That benefits the local level all the way up to of course, the federal bottom line. So, that's very important. Ed, is there, is there anything that we didn't cover that you want to make sure that our listeners know? I mean, this is a great opportunity to hear from the Chamber. Ed Mortimer:Sure. Well, one thing I wanted to let you know, the engineers know that there's a couple of things that Chamber's really going to be advocating for in the next COVID relief bill. Um, one is liability protection, making sure that businesses that are following CDC and other health guidance, um, don't have frivolous lawsuits, as long as they're showing they're doing the right thing. Uh, making sure that we extend the PPP program, uh, and work to make sure that our businesses are able to survive through this very challenging time that did not come from anything they did. We also want to make sure, as we talked about state and local governments get resources to make up for some of the lost revenue that they had. Um, and we it's really critical that we get these done before they leave for the August recess. Um, you know, in our view, they shouldn't go on recess until this is done.Ed Mortimer:Some of these programs, actually the PPP program, the unemployment insurance, additional funding expires this Friday. And so we have to hold these lawmakers feet to the fire. Um, it's been a challenging start in Senate where at this point there's probably not 50 votes for the initial proposal that was put out there. It's going to be a lot of horse trading, um, but we have to keep our eye on the ball and remind our lawmakers, stop the partisanship. Uh, you have to do the right thing on behalf of the American people. Businesses need some certainty that these things are going to be locked into place. And so, you know, this is something that is really critical to all businesses. But I know in the engineering business, a lot of engineering companies took advantage of PPP, and we want to ensure that you're able to keep your employees through this very difficult time. We want to make sure there's government support there - very timely and targeted. So these aren't just longterm extensions, but timely and targeted to help businesses get through this pandemic. So urging you all to talk to your lawmakers about that and ensuring that they get this done before they leave for the August recess. Host:Absolutely. And those are issues that we will be joining you with, and helping you to advocate for, uh, throughout, um, the current session of Congress. And hopefully they do get this done before leaving for recess. And if they don't, they, they shouldn't go. Um, this is, this is critically important for the economy and for the industry. So, um, there's a lot to do. Um, if you're listening out there, you have a voice, make it, um, follow a Ed on Twitter at Chamber Moves - @ChamberMoves, and that's his Twitter feed, the ATM Coalition, faster, better, safer, that's www dot faster, better, safer.org, check them out and stay with us. And, uh, we'll keep you informed ed. I really appreciate you coming on the show. Uh, love to have you on when we get closer to the lecture and kind of maybe, uh, uh, look at, you know, the two potential outcomes and kind of where we might be going from an infrastructure standpoint. I'm a little too early to tell. We need to get Congress moving first before we can talk about that. Absolutely. Well, glad to glad to do that and good to be with you. All, everybody stays safe and let's keep busy. Yep. Host:Great. Stay safe and enjoy, uh, I guess the, the, the hot sweltering DC weather. Ed Mortimer:Right. Host:But thank you again, ed. And you've been listening to engineering influence from ACEC. 

Everyday a massive amount of goods are transported across our nation, not on the highways but on the waterways in our country. Waterways Council Inc. is the organization which helps make those projects possible. Coordinating a wide variety of groups including the Laborers resulting in hundreds of thousands of jobs each year. Matt and Shella speak with Debra Calhoun, Senior Vice President of Waterways Council Inc., to give us a better understanding of what their organization is doing to improve transportation. Email Matt & Shella your comments and questions at talk@downwiththedig.comViews and Comments of this program does not reflect those of Ohio Laborers' District Council and LIUNA. © 2020 Ohio Laborers' District Council All Rights Reserved.

Steve Hall, Matt Reiffer and Katharine Mottley from ACEC's Advocacy team joined Engineering Influence for our very first video podcast to give a government relations update on their Rescue, Recover, Rebuild grassroots advocacy campaign and the current status of the PPP program.Transcript:Host:Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast by American Council of Engineering Companies. Today we are bringing a new kind of twist to our podcast. We're in the world of Zoom and COVID-19. We're going to try to do something visual this time and have a government affairs update with our own Steve Hall who has been practically on Zoom since the day started to um bring us up to date on what's going on with the Paycheck Protection Program. I want to give you guys a little bit of an idea of where things stand here as far as the association goes and with our industry on the PPP program. In our latest member survey on May 8th, we found that 88% of respondents reported applying for the program. And 94% of those said that they'd been approved for the PPP program and another 4% are awaiting approval.Host:So it was very popular with the industry and 94% let's see here. And just under two thirds, 64% of those firms plan to use all of the loan funding while 22% plan to use some of it and return to rest only 2% right now or are considering returning all of the funds. So it's a program is being accessed by our industry, many other industries. It is a monumental effort by the SBA. This is not an agency that's actually designed to do something like this to take this amount of volume of applications and this kind of money and try to get it out to the economy. It's been going well but there've been issues with guidance. Treasury and SBA have been slow to get some certainty out there with certain aspects of their FAQ. And things have changed over the past couple of days. And Steve, if you want to kind of bring us up to date on, on where the program stands and, and what Treasury and SBA have done and what really, you know, it was going on with the program right now.Steve Hall:Yeah, thanks Jeff. Now we're seeing some encouraging developments really over the past week and a lot of anxiety up until now, and it's lingering a bit, but over two issues really. The issue of, of certifying good faith in terms of economic uncertainty, in other words, is, is the firm worthy to, to receive this loan. And I think what we saw released last week was encouraging basically loan holders at $2 million and below are essentially defacto certified by virtue of the size of the loan. And then the guidance goes on to say that for borrowers above that $2 million SBA is going to work with them through a process to help them to to figure out if they can meet that certification threshold, but a much more encouraging tone, a much more deferential tone than perhaps we had seen in, in previous weeks.Steve Hall:Where there was a great deal of concern generated about you know, what SBA and the federal government take a very punitive approach to borrowers really outside of what we thought was within the intent of Congress. I think Congress really wanted to be very deferential to to borrowers and try to structure the program as such. So that was a good step on that question of certification and and I expect that we hope we'll be seeing some additional information come out on that. The next issue was loan forgiveness. You know, the core of the program and we did see some information come out earlier this week. You know, the, the application for forgiveness and the kind of data and criteria that SBA is looking for, which gives us a sense of what it was, what it's going to take to get some, most, all of your loan forgiven and some guidance with that.Steve Hall:I think we are expecting to see additional guidance, more comprehensive guidance forthcoming. But again, this has been helpful to our firms, to our CPAs, to, to get at least an initial sense of what the agency is looking for to satisfy that question. So, you know, good news over the last week, not a complete catalog of information that we need and where you're hoping to see that relatively soon. And as if history is any judge, you know, it may be that con or SBA and treasury continue to put out guidance in small traunches and then refine that guidance responding to questions from organizations like ACEC. And then at some point we may actually have to go back to Congress if there are structural problems or challenges that are really beyond SBAs per view to to fix where we have to amend the law. We'll do that. But we'll work hand in glove with our members before we do that and work with our CPAs. We've got a lot of very smart people working with us to you know, go through this information and to come up with recommendations that we need to deliver both to the agency and to Congress.Host:Because it is a popular program. And I think that the universal call or answer from, from the private sector is that they want it to be a success. So that there's a lot of, you know, it's not a adversarial relationship with, with, but the SBA and Treasury, it's more just informing them of what we need, what we need to actually make this program work as it's intended. So it's good to see that that guidance come out. And again, you know, as we get this information, of course we're putting it out anywhere we can. So we have our Coronavirus Resource page of course, which is on acec.org. It's right on the homepage when you see that. And, and we're making sure to put all this information into our normal communications to members. There's going to be a weekly message coming out from our CEO, Linda Darr. It's going to be focusing on a lot of what Steve just mentioned here and everything's been linked and it's all available for you.Steve Hall:And Jeff, just to add to that you know, the education side of ACEC is teed up and ready. We've got a panel of CPAs that will take part in a free webinar. Once that additional guidance comes out, we expect that we'll be well attended and we will redo it as often as we need to and as often as new guidance comes out but you know, but the organization really geared itself around getting that information in the hands of our members as soon as possible so they can make good business decisions. And and we're certainly going to continue with that.Steve Hall:And I know that you've been, like I said earlier, you know, you've been busy all day on Zoom meeting after Zoom meeting. We are right in the midst of a larger advocacy push under the Rescue, Rebuild and Recover kind of theme and it's been a virtual grassroots effort. Letters, emails, meetings, Zoom meetings with members of Congress. How many meetings do you think you've been on right now with, with members of the House and Senate with ACEC members across the country?Steve Hall:Gosh, I think we're North of total North of 70 meetings so far. And and these are happening. I've been on a few today and I know my colleagues Matt Reiffer, Katharine Mottley have been participating in these as well. And really the message has been coming back has been very encouraging, you know, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. They get it. I mean, they want, they very much want to support a recovery agenda built around infrastructure and you know, there's lingering questions as there always is about how to pay for it. But a great deal of interest in doing this. I think you know, as you've heard me say before, I think Congress is still in emergency response mode and still thinking near term needs. I think what, what may be emerging as the next package of assistance may actually be built around assisting state and local government agencies, DOD, transit agencies things of that nature.Steve Hall:Obviously that's something we're very supportive of, you know, anything that will prevent, you know, current projects from being interrupted or shutting down. We want to be supportive of and there does seem to be an inkling of bipartisan support emerging from this approach. So that may be the catalyst for the next package. You know, as, as Katharine indicated, there's sort of hopeful expectation. We might see something in June on that package and and then hopefully, you know, Congress then switches gears and thanks a bit longer term, you know, in a multiyear recovery agenda, you know, built around what Congress has to do this year. They've got to do a surface transportation bill to replace the fast fact by September 30, and they've got to do a big water package. And the Senate stepping out, they, they have reported all of those bills out of committee unanimously. Which is great to see. And and that gives you know, the congressional leaders in the Senate the option to package all of them together into one big package or to move them separately if they wish, but actually to get something done this year, but they got us, they got to move quickly because the clock is ticking.Host:Yeah, it's not in their favor. And you mentioned, you mentioned Matt and Katharine and I think they have joined us, so I'm going to switch over to a view and bring them in. And thank you both for joining in. So we have really the the, the feet on the, the, the boots on the ground here for the PPP and surface transportation effort. So Matt and Katherine, thanks for joining the interview here. Steve was going over, a lot of the PPP work has been done. A lot of the guidance coming out and of course the webinars and the meetings with members of Congress, part of our advocacy program. I mean, I know you've been on some of the meetings as well. How do you think they've gone, this is new, it's virtual instead of going actually into somebody's office and talking to somebody, you have a screen like this where you know, you have maybe 10 people or less and a member of Congress. How, how has it compared to what, you know, the traditional shoe leather lobbying that you guys do?Katharine Mottely:You know, Jeff, I think that's a really interesting question. I mean it is a different kind of connection. On the one hand you don't get that face to face. You, you can't really read the body language and get and get sort of that better sense of the story behind what they're telling you. On the other hand, I think it has sort of opened up these meetings to a larger swath of our members. The meetings that I've been on have had, you know, 25 members from the state with their senators and for some of them some of those folks may not have been able travel to DC on a normal basis anyway. So, you know, I think that sort of greater access for both, for our members and for the legislators can be a good thing.Matt Reiffer:I would agree with that. In the, in the few that I've been on what's nice is you get the Congressmen or the Senator's undivided attention for a block of time. When you're meeting in DC, almost inevitably you get interrupted by votes or committee meetings or markups or important briefings or something. But particularly for the house members who have largely been back in their districts you know, they're not, they're not getting pulled away into those sorts of things. So you get, you know, 20 to 30 minutes of their undivided attention, which is really tremendous. And there, you know, they are so eager to hear about what's going on with their constituents, where their local businesses. So it was valuable for them to hear not just here's our advocacy priorities, but you know, here's what we're working on. Here's what we're experiencing, here's what we're concerned about, you know here are plans for, you know, reopening our offices or keeping our employees safe. Here's the, you know, here's what we're doing, worksite protocols and safety, you know, just a range of things that they care about. And then, yeah, how are the aid packages that we've already approved working for you? Are they helpful? What do we need to change? Cause they want to know. So this has been really valuable input for them.Steve Hall:You know, Jeff, Matt made a really good point there with respect to, you know, how certainly our members reviewed on these calls. You know, because there are great conversations with lawmakers and the lawmakers and seeing each one of those faces on the screen and they're often zoom calls like this. Each one of those faces represents a firm that employs many people. So that, that, that ACC member talking is not really talking just for himself or herself. But for all of the folks that work in the firm and and that reality is not lost on lawmakers and the staff that participates on these calls these, these, these contacts resonate and really do have meaning.Host:And it's just not, the meetings are fantastic. So I think it provides a, it's a new way of reaching out and talking to your member of Congress in person, virtually in person. Like I said, Katharine, if you have 25 people on a call, it's hard, you're hard pressed to find, you know, 25 people don't get them into an office. Even, even a, even a ranking where a senior Member, you know, their offices aren't big enough to fit 25 people in normally. So being able to get people on a screen, you know, you get more, more bang for your buck there. But then we're also doing the traditional, you know, letter writing. We're doing, you know, emails to Members of Congress and of course, social media activity. Matt, I mean we, we've, we've topped a significant number of compared to, I think the last major push was on tax reform and I think we've kind of eclipsed the number of, of emails and messages sent. What's the last you have the last tally available? I know, I don't, don't want to spring it on you, but I know thatMatt Reiffer:I don't, but I can click over and check and get them.Host:Yeah, no, that would be great 'cause I know that the number is significant.Matt Reiffer:Get you real time information. Hang on just a sec.Host:Yeah. that would be awesome because again, you know, on the, on the acc.org website you know, you'll see it right there. When you land on the page, you'll see advocacy and that takes you to the R3 - Rescue, Recover, Rebuild advocacy site where you can click to tweet. It has issue sheets. It has social media resources for, for grassroots activism. And it's really a one stop shop for everything that you need to take part in this.Steve Hall:You know, Jeff during tax reform. And Katharine knows this. I mean, we generated something on the order of 6,000 contacts with lawmakers and which was far and away bigger than we've ever done. And I think when, when Matt last checked this, we were rapidly closing in on that amount. So this campaign is going to go into the summer and I have no doubt that we're going to Go well beyond what we did previously.Katharine Mottely:And you know, Steve, just to add to that, I've heard comments from a couple of our members who remember that advocacy effort during tax reform and part of what they've communicated back is that we didn't realize that we could have such an effect. We didn't realize that our engagement through ACC and contacting our members of Congress could result in such a good outcome. And so a lot of them would have remembered that and taken it forward to this time. And they see that what they do and say and the emails they send can make a difference.Matt Reiffer:I just checked - we've got 2,060 member firm advocates who have taken action and delivered just about 6,400 messages to the Hill.Steve Hall:That may be a new record right there.Matt Reiffer:Tremendous outcome.Host:And again, yeah, this is, this is, this is in its early stages. It's going to evolve as the situation evolves. You know, we're calling for of course a focus on an infrastructure based recovery agenda. Of course that's going to be focused again and Steve, like you mentioned, FAST Act reauthorization and WRDA - two pieces of legislation that are must do's must pass bills and they're already teed up. Each chamber is working on its own respect of tracks and as you noted in the Senate, they've been marked out unanimously. There's no real bipartisan schism when it comes to WRDA and surface - they are a lot closer than people think. So the, the continued push by our grassroots to get this through is going to be significant.Steve Hall:It's going to be critical. Jeff, not to interrupt cause we've, we're, we're hoping to see how spills emerge in the month of June. And so you know, it'd be great if we could double those numbers in the month of June and and give some additional push behind house lawmakers to, to at least get this out of committee in the month of June and get them ready for floor consideration.Host:Absolutely. Well we covered PPP, we covered kind of the advocacy campaign and the, and the work you guys are doing on, on, on the individual member meetings, but then also the webinars and everything else that's going on. I mean it's, it seems like every day there's, there's, there's another webinar or three webinars that we're running to, to make sure we're covered. Anything else to think of as we enter kind of an odd Memorial day weekend?Steve Hall:Ah, you know, just, just the, the issues we've talked about and then side issues, you know, we're working to make sure that issues relative to from overhead are addressed and protected. You know, there is a, you know, regulatory action on the part of the department of defense that would require firms that receive forgiven loans to provide their federal clients with a credit to offset those loans. We don't think that really was the intent of Congress. We've pushed back and we actually have developed a letter that a number of organizations are signing on to, to help us push back. So that's an ongoing priority and something that Matt has been working with the rest of the team on. And as well as similar efforts in issues and potential concerns on the transportation side with respect to state DOTs and the Federal Highway Administration. You know, in addition to the big issues in Congress, there's a lot of granular issues that we're working on with respect to those issues and you know, tax issues and the tax deductability questions that are outstanding relative to firms that receive PPP loans and something that Katharine has been working on.Matt Reiffer:Yeah, I was going to say Katharine and I were a little late coming onto this call because we were just coming off a small firm roundtable with about 40, 45 participants, a really great forum for information sharing and helpful for us to listen to and hear what firms are experiencing. And yeah, there are a lot of interest in both of those issues. A lot of those firms took PPP loans, are interested in forgiveness, interested in the tax component of that as well as the potential impact on their overhead rates in terms of loan forgiveness and how that may be treated for federal state contractors. So yeah, very timely and yeah, very interesting.Host:Yeah, it's nonstop with government affairs right now. So I know it's we're coming on to about half an hour. I know you guys have a busy packed schedule, so I really appreciate you all taking the time to to appear on a kind of an oddly I guess just figure we live on Zoom now. Might as well tried to do a video interview instead of just the the, the good old audio podcast that we do. So thank you for being on. And again, this is Engineering Influence brought to you by the American Council of Engineering Companies. Katharine, Matt, Steve have a great Memorial Day weekend. Stay safe, stay healthy and and stay engaged with us 'cause we are off to the races. Just go to acec.org click on advocacy. It's right there on the homepage. It'll take you right there to the R3 advocacy page, all the resources that you need to take advantage of the grassroots campaign we're running. It's all there for you and just take advantage of it. So thank you all for being on. 

The Savings Clause.  WRDA.  Lake Levels.  LOSOM. LORS. Everglades Restoration. What does all of it mean? This week, we give our takes on the things you hear so much about on a recurring basis from so many of the non-profits – we’re not experts, but we try to take an inquisitive and thoughtful approach to what’s going on with Florida’s most precious resource . . . Go to Patreon and become a friend of the show OFFICIALLY here! E-mail Fletcher with Hallett Insurance to get your quote! Check out Two Fish Creative for your software solutions Follow Cast and Blast Florida: Instagram – Twitter – Facebook – Website Want to experience a world class duck hunt or fishing charter? E-mail Travis to book today . . . Connect with the gang on social media: Travis Thompson – @travisthompson – Instagram – Twitter – Facebook Nathan Henderson – @nhenderson77 – Instagram – Twitter – Facebook Emily Thompson – @lovedaloca – Instagram

On this episode of the WaterLog podcast, hosts Howard Marlowe and Dan Ginolfi discuss the USACE FY20 Work Plan and California's projects in that plan, introduce the audience to the new Director or Civil Works, go over some WRDA updates, and conclude with an editorial on why the FY21 coastal policy is a literal disaster.

 Engineering Influence had the privilege to sit down with Representative Cheri Bustos, who represents Illinois' 17th Congressional District this week to discuss the newly announced House blueprint on Infrastructure, the importance of investing in rural America and her focus on workforce development and economic development.  Transcript:Host: Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. Today we're very pleased to welcome to the show Representative Cheri Bustos, who represents the 17th congressional district in the House of Representatives. The 17th stretches west of Chicago from Dubuque in the North all the way down South to Peoria. Representative Bustos serves on the all-important Appropriations Committee and the House Ag Committee, and is also the Chairwoman of the DCCC, the political arm of the House Democrats. Representative Bustos, welcome to the show.Rep. Bustos: Thanks for having me.Host: Today is an exciting day. I think that we can kind of cover this a little bit in in our conversation that House leaders came out with a blueprint for an infrastructure bill. Of course, that's going to be focused a lot on economic development and workforce development. And I know those are two issues that you're extremely active on. And you actually do have two pieces of legislation that you have introduced on those two issues specifically. Can you tell us a little bit about those two bills? I believe it's the Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act and the Rebuild Rural America Act.Rep. Bustos: Of course, I'm happy to. Have you laid out the framework at all for a what was announced today or do you want to -Host: We can jump into that. We kind of looked at it and of course we took a more, you know, encouraging step that we're actually moving forward on infrastructure. But I think that, you know, from the engineering industry's perspective, the two things that are of course most pressing are reauthorization of the FAST Act, but then also getting a WRDA done, which is absolutely necessary.Rep. Bustos: Well and, and you described my congressional district, but let me just offer a little more context to that. We have more locks and dams in the congressional district I represent than any congressional district in the country. And that's because the entire western border of my district is the Mississippi River and then the Illinois River runs through the southern part of our congressional district. So any kind of water infrastructure means a lot. And when you look at the depression era locks and dam system, now, you know, I'm 75-ish plus years old. You know, we've got to look at investing in that. But the reason I answered your question with a question is, you know, today's a pretty momentous day. And I was at our caucus meeting earlier where we had the Chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Peter DeFazio.Rep. Bustos: We had the Chair of Energy and Commerce Frank Palone, and then we had the Chair of Ways and Means Richie, Neal all talk about the various components. And I think it's important that we look at, you know, it's going to take all of that coming together and it's not just it's not just horizontal construction. It's the vertical construction as well. And I think that we as at least as House Democrats want to take a look at this as being a very encompassing piece of legislation.Rep. Bustos: Are the couple bills that you reference in particular Investing in Tomorrow’s Workforce Act - it's something that I introduced last October along with Senator Durbin, but that looks at really the future of America as it pertains not just to infrastructure, but as, as it pertains to how people work. We are going to be seeing increased automation and we want to make sure that as a nation that we are ready for that and that people aren't going to be losing their jobs and not having anything to go to.Rep. Bustos: So it helps prepare workers for the jobs of tomorrow with a with a major investment in that. The other is the Rebuild Rural America Act also. We introduced that last October and that calls for a federal funding investment in rural and small town economic development projects. Again, further context. In my congressional district, 85% of the towns in the district I serve are 5,000 people or fewer and 60, about 60, 65% are a thousand people or fewer. So and we have to look at, you know, our while we have our coastal big cities like, you know, New York and LA, we have our Midwestern big cities like Chicago, but there are a whole lot of small towns in between and we've got to make sure we're investing in that. This new bill that we rolled out today calls from major investment in rural America and then the two bills that we just talked about that are out of our office address that as well.Host: Absolutely. I mean, coming from my experience with former chairman Shuster and his district, middle of Pennsylvania, you know, you have Philadelphia you've got Pittsburgh and then you have the rest of the state.Rep. Bustos: Yeah, very similar to Illinois.Host: Yeah. So You really need an economic development. You need the workforce training. You need to be able to prepare those workers for, you know, the effects of the ripples and the economy that are coming from automation. But then also getting the training and understanding of opportunities that might come if you're able to get an infrastructure package done and actually build out some of these massive projects that need to happen that attracts economic development into the districts, attracts these new companies that might be high on automation, for example, Amazon and the like. And I guess the same from the engineering industry is that, you know, our member companies are going to be the ones who are going to be building a lot of those structures, whether it's going to be the roadways that lead you into the new opportunities or the vertical structures, the warehousing or the data centers or the social infrastructure, the schools, hospitals that are actually going to be in those areas.Host: And everybody's going to benefit from so it was all tied together. It's in no way is it, is it, is it separate. And I think you've raised a good point because a lot of our members might not understand exactly how intricate it is to get something like an infrastructure package done because it's just not T& I, it's also a Ways and Means, it's also Energy and Commerce. Can you talk a little bit about the interplay in your experience in Congress about how a piece, a big bill like this comes together with all those different chairmen and the individual constituencies they have to serve?Rep. Bustos: Yeah, I think that's a great question because in the end, if we don't figure that out, we don't pass anything, right? I mean, you might be able to pass something out of the House, but as we all know from our civics lessons that it takes more than just passing it out of the House. We need the Senate, we need the White House to all agree. Why don't we use an example that is very much also out of today. Today, the President signed the USMCA, the trade deal, the United States, Mexico, Canada Trade Agreement. And the way that came together, I think is a blueprint for how we ought to look at our transportation bill that we're going to pass. And think about this from a political perspective. And even from a governmental perspective, in the end, we had the House, the Senate get together on this.Rep. Bustos: You had Democrats and Republicans, you had the White House, and even in the end you had your farmers and AFL-CIO, organized labor all say that this was a good deal. That let's use that model. And I will throw out trade ambassador Lighthizer who's in the Trump administration as really someone who was ready for this moment in that I can't think of any meeting that we asked for or anybody asked for that he wouldn't participate in. And so I think it's going to take that same view of bipartisanship and the House and the Senate working together. And then in the end we can't just pass this without having a pay for.Host: Yeah. And if the White House comes in.Rep. Bustos: That is where the White House comes in. And Richie Neal who's the Chair of Ways and Means this morning out of our caucus meeting said that we are not going to get into the specifics of how this will be paid for until we all come together and have an agreement.Rep. Bustos: You know, anybody who wants to look at the political side of things knows that you know, you're not just going to have one side of the aisle say, you know, this is how we're going to pay for it without having the other side of the aisle have buy into that as well. I mean, things like the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund have, are brought up in pretty much every discussion because we have the money in there that we need, but the general fund keeps robbing from it. That can't keep happening. But this investment is absolutely critical. I know firsthand from looking at, for example, at the Chicago Rockford International airport, which is in the northern part of my congressional district. Okay, the economic impact of that airport. We'll close in to probably about $2 billion a year soon. Why? Because they have turned that into the fastest growing air cargo hub in the world.Rep. Bustos: And so we need our engineers. I want to do a shout out to the how important the engineers are to making sure that we are looking at things like air cargo hubs and improving our airports. If anybody saw the 60 Minutes segment from a couple months ago we've gotta improve our airports to be competitive on the world stage. We are falling behind. You know, when in the Eisenhower era what made us this powerhouse is that we could move our goods to market more efficiently than anybody else. We could move our people more efficiently than any, anything else. We could move our information faster than anybody else. And we're falling behind on that. And that's what this is all about.Host: Yeah. And that's a really good point. I think that there's a common theme in the House and I think for our listeners who are focused on what's happening on the major news channels to realize that behind the scenes, especially in the House, that there's always going to be some bipartisan agreement on infrastructure and there's always going to be that desire to move the ball forward and to really address things, I think that one of the issues that as a of increasing importance also, and I think, you know, I heard in the last Congress the same, which is the issue of resiliency of dealing with the environment that we have and what we're going to be inheriting on the next couple of years. And the fact that engineers have to deal with the world as it is and have to design for the future so that the bridges, the buildings, the roads are going to last there for 20, 30 years. And the issue of resiliency and dealing with sustainability and issues related to climate change and the changing environment was also a theme of what was rolled out today. From a rural district, from an agricultural district. That's also important. How important you see the issue of resiliency in terms of infrastructure and economic development in your district?Rep. Bustos: Oh, I think it's critically important. And, and it was I would say of the one hour presentation that we had this morning that took up a good part of it. Everything from chairman DeFazio talked about an electric spine or an electric backbone to this project. And that is, you know, building out the infrastructure of if we're increasingly going to no emission vehicles or electric vehicles you can't just have this without having the infrastructure to support it. And it's even the materials that we're using and certainly your engineers who are in the practice of building roads and bridges and improving rail and all that, know a lot more about that than I do as we sit here. But that will be very important that we are, as you said, getting ready for the future. We're building things now or we'll build things next year, but you're right, they have to be resilient through the next, you know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.Rep. Bustos: I look outside of my front door when I'm at home and Moline, Illinois. I live on river drive. And by the way, that river that's just on the other side of that road is the Mississippi. But I see this one point $2 billion bridge that is under construction from Moline, Illinois to Bettendorf, Iowa. And I count the cranes every time I walk along our little bike path and walking path there. And you know, you count as many as 15 cranes that are up and you know, you realize how important what we're talking about right now, how important your engineers are to economic growth and economic sustainability for communities. And again, to your point of this bridge is being built right now and it's replacing a bridge that was built in the '50's and one span. And I think the other span was built in the '30's. So, you know, these things have to last a long time and they the engineering is, is very, very important to this. And, and I love seeing those cranes cause I know with every one of those cranes or jobs associated with that.Host: Yeah, absolutely. It's, it's a big economic driver and it's truly amazing what our members are able to produce and the challenges that they're able to surmount with their talent. And then also just you know, good working relationships between local, federal and state governments and the industry at large. I know that we're a little bit tight on time and we want to respect your schedule. So, or any parting thoughts that you want to offer to our audience and of course, you know the members of the of the Illinois engineering community who will be listening to the podcast.Rep. Bustos: Yeah. so my oldest son went to Iowa state and was an engineering major. So I'm mechanical though, not, not civil. Yeah. So I just have a great appreciation for actually the brain power that engineers have and your thought process that you put into everything and really the importance to all of our communities for the work that your members do. And let me just, I probably just echo what you just said, but those working relationships are very, very important. Our office has a very close relationship with ACEC. You've been great at keeping us informed. I hope that you see our office is one that wants to make sure that you're informed and we seek your counsel. And I think a good days are ahead and, and again from a political perspective, which, you know, it, it's good, good policy is good politics and vice versa.Rep. Bustos: But infrastructure and rebuilding America is something that we as Democrats campaigned on going into 2018. It is what President Trump as candidate Trump campaigned on going into 2016. And my, our friends across the aisle also campaigned on this. So when you've got all of those elements saying, we've got to get this done, I think that is a, that I hope that's a telling sign that we're going to be able to make something big happen that we can pass the House, the Senate, and the President will sign it into law. And we have a lot of good work ahead of us.Host: That's great. Well, there we have it, brighter days ahead and a hopeful message to end the podcast on. Representative Bustos thank you so much for being on and we hope to have you on in the future.Rep. Bustos: Thank you. 

Engineering Influence sat down with ACEC Chair-Elect Charles Gozdziewski during ExCom orientation last week.  This is the first of our conversations with ACEC's new volunteer leadership during that training.   Transcript:Host:  Welcome to another episode of Engineering Influence, a podcast by the American Council of Engineering Companies. This week in Washington at ACEC headquarters, we're hosting Executive Committee orientation. It's a chance for existing and new members of ExCom to come in and get an overview of of what we do here in Washington from department to department from advocacy to membership to education and get an idea of the work that we're doing now and things that they should look out for in the months ahead in 2020.Host: I'm very pleased today to welcome to the show Charles Gozdziewski with Hardesty and Hanover. He is here as part of that orientation today. Charlie, welcome back to the show.Charlie G: Thank you. Thank you for having me. It's a pleasure to be here in Washington, DC.Host: 2020 - It's already starting with a lot of activity with our group down here. We kinda hit the ground running with, of course ExCom orientation. But then we're also off to the races from a policy perspective with NEPA, which is something Steve talked about before and really looking towards our own policy work with WRDA infrastructure and potentially appropriations for 2020. That's what we're looking forward to. But I want to get your perspective, of course in your position in volunteer leadership. ACEC as it stands right now, the opportunities that we have for the coming year and you know, some of the things that you watch out for.Charlie G:  Well this is a very busy and challenging year and as people are aware in the organization, we have a major reset in place. And I'd like to talk a little bit about the internal aspects of 2020 and then the external. On the internal side. We had a chance to revisit our strategic plan, which has not been had any major revisions since 2002.Charlie G: That's basically complete. We're now looking at the implementation phase of the strategic plan and that will be a big lift for ACEC staff and volunteer leadership as well as ExCom. So that'll take up a good part of our workload going forward. On the external side politics always plays a big role in our organization and as usual, the politics can go any way any day. But we are very well plugged in as you mentioned, we have a very strong advocacy group and there'll be engaged and active the rest of the year. We have a major election coming in 2020. That's going to be a big part of our program. But also, you know, we can't lose sight of the infrastructure bill that we're tracking and we need to be a a leader in that field.Charlie G: We are the experts. We should be the voice of the infrastructure bill and we plan on doing that. We also have to keep in mind that our industry is changing very rapidly on a technology side and we need to stay on top of all these changes and how we do our business. ACEC again, one of the main focuses is the business of engineering and we have to remain relevant in a changing society that will be prominent going forward.Host: How do you think our members can best utilize ACEC to do that?Charlie G: All our survey data show that our membership rates advocacy and networking as the top two reasons they belong to the organization. The networking will be the Avenue to share ideas and information. If you're an engineer today working in an office by yourself or a company working by yourself, you're at an extreme disadvantage.Charlie G: ACEC opens up those doors by sharing the knowledge, communicating all the regional events, the local events all the opportunities on our committees. This is the Avenue where people can learn and adjust their business practices.Host:  And I think the ACEC coalitions is a great place for that to happen. Where you're not alone if you're a sole practitioner or if you're in part of a small firm or, or a regional firm. The coalitions give you the ability to punch above your weight class. It gives you the ability to talk to your peers across the country who may be facing the same challenges as you may be facing or are looking ahead and seeing things that maybe you haven't gotten to yet. And being able to do that information sharing is critical for a company that wants to increase their market share or to possibly enter into other markets that they might not be, you know, used to entering.Host: And so that, that's, that's a great tool for ACEC members to take advantage of. And it's not expensive to get involved in the begin with. And number two, it's, it's just very successful for networking, which was, I like you said, it's one of the key benefits of ACEC membership.Charlie G: The coalitions is another good example of the opportunities that ACEC offers all member firms. Of course every member firm is different in style and culture and size and geography and discipline where the coalitions, the biggest challenge is some of the firms need to spend some time and be committed to the coalitions to get the most out of them. And every feedback we get is that once they participate in the coalitions, everything is positive feedback and they learn more, go out coming out of it didn't go before they went in. So again, coalition is a good, good example of the value proposition ACEC offers all member firms.Host: During the meeting earlier when we were talking about the advocacy program, we talked about the green new deal and we talked about some of the larger policy implications and your perspective coming from New York. I thought was very interesting because a lot of ways there are two States in the country that really lead the other States on, on adoption of more progressive policies - that's California and New York. Where do you see things going when it comes to those bigger issues of, of, you know, sustainability, climate change the green new deal and what New York is doing and how that might impact other States, especially as it interacts with our industry with engineering.Charlie G: As you know, New York has experienced some severe weather related events that damaged a lot about infrastructure that has changed the way, not only the engineering community thinks, but also the way the elected officials think about their infrastructure.Charlie G:  We are now very active on resilient programs in all of the government sectors. And also on the energy side, we, I feel we we're, one of the leaders is converting our energy products into more of a carbon free type of environment. And we think that we will be an example for the rest of the country is how to do that, especially on a large scale like New York City. Yeah.Host: What do you think Congress should do this year that would really benefit the industry?Charlie G: Well, again, on a national level and also on a statewide level I think everybody has a background of thinking that we need to incorporate resiliency and renewables into every aspect of the infrastructure. And that comes in many shapes and forms and sizes and styles. And I think it's starting to resonate.Charlie G: It does resonate in a public and that ultimately resonates with the public and elected officials. So the engineers today are doing engineering, which was a lot different than 10 years ago. And it's with this kind of energy and resiliency and sustainability that is now part of every engineer's creativity and developing the infrastructure.Host: Any parting thoughts on the year ahead or, or what you hope to see?Charlie G:  I think that one of the challenges going forward is there is a lot of issues and we need to tackle them at the same time. Another big issue that's coming up as far as procurement goes and the prevalence of design build and other procurements of that nature it does have challenges to our industry and we have to really get a better understanding of how it's being used and where it's being used and how much is being used. And I think we are prepared to take on that challenge.Host:  All good points. Yeah, just gearing up for a very active 20, 20 across the board. And we'll be leading that discussion. And thank you very much for being part of the of the show today and look forward to working with you on a, on a very successful year.Charlie G:  Thank you, Jeff. Good luck for 2020. Thanks.  

Engineering Influence welcomed Rep. Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-4) to the program to discuss his career in engineering and in Congress.Transcript:Host: Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. It's a pleasure to welcome Congressman Bruce Westerman to the show. Congressman Westerman hails from Hot Springs, Arkansas and represents the state's fourth congressional district in the House of Representatives. He currently serves on the Natural Resources Committee and as Ranking Member on the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in the House. Congressman Westerman graduated from the University of Arkansas with a bachelor of science degree in biological and agricultural engineering. He is also a graduate of Yale University earning a master of forestry service degree or I guess master of forestry degree forestry. Yeah. which makes him doubly unique in Congress. He's not only an engineer, but he's also a Forester of which there are not many serving in the house right now. Pretty much just yourself, I believe. Just one. Thank you very much for coming onto the program.Rep. Westerman:  Jeff, it's great to be with you and a real honor to get to be on an ACEC podcast and talk about engineering and how that's benefited me with my service in Congress. You know, I had a nearly a two and a half decade career in engineering before I came to Congress and really enjoyed that. I always tell people I like my job in Congress, but I could go back in and be an engineer tomorrow and be perfectly content.Host:  Actually, I was here when you spoke to members of our senior executive Institute class last month here in DC about your background in engineering and how you've applied that to your work in Congress. And I think you made the comment of pretty much saying that, you know, members come up to you because you're an engineer and expect you to have answers on just about anything related to engineering. How has your professional work in the field of engineering helped you in your roles, both in your committee work and then also in the general work that you do as a member? And I believe you're also on the science committee previously how has that impacted your ability to be an effective Member?Rep. Westerman: Being an engineer in Congress is you know, it's a, it's a small group of us that are up here. There's not many engineers and like we already said, there's only one Forester in the, in the House. So if you've got a particular area of expertise, people really want to seek that out, especially your, your colleagues because you know, they, they generally feel like they can trust you if you want to give them, give them information. But also being an engineer probably has some drawbacks because of things like our code of professional conduct where we're not expected or we're expected not to comment on things we don't have expertise in, whereas a member of Congress, you're expected to comment on everything. So I after my freshman term, I got voted the quietest member of our freshman class, and I always told them this because you've got two ears to listen and one mouth to speak with.Rep. Westerman: So I'll try to try to be measured in what I say and try to be accurate in what I say. And of course Congress touches, touches everything from foreign policy to healthcare tax policy. And you really have to study and read a lot just to stay on top of the issues. But when those things come along, that engineering directly impacts it's great to have some history and background and the, the education and experience to be able to make pertinent comments on those those issues and add to the conversation. But I'll get asked to speak to a lot of engineering students around the country and I'll always tell them that the thing they probably don't realize now, but they'll will realize someday is that engineering is, is really glorified problem solving. You're learning a lot of science, a lot of math.Rep. Westerman: You're getting all the tools in the toolbox to go out and solve problems. But what you really learn going through an engineering curriculum and what you learned doing engineering on the job is how to analyze issues, define the problem, come up with a plan implement that plan and solve a problem. That's beneficial. Whether you're in Congress, whether you're working in a corporation, working in your own business or whatever you do. Those problem solving abilities are very valuable to have. And I think that's the best thing that engineering gave me and prepared me for to come here and serve in Congress.Host: That's really interesting point because one of the things that we talk about at ACEC and we're going to be doing a lot more with a new strategic plan that we just adopted on the role of engineering in society and engineer's not just as math side, the science side, but also the problem solving, the trusted advisor to clients of looking at a challenge and finding ways to innovative ways to solve those challenges and, and to apply their background and experience to, to those challenges. So that's a really interesting point. I do want to bring up the forestry side of things cause I'm a Penn State grad. We had a forestry program at Penn State. Not exactly Yale as far as, in terms of school, but I wanted to ask the question of how you got into and interested in forestry and where that kinda stems from.Rep. Westerman: Yeah, it's kind of a unique combination, I guess having an undergraduate in engineering and a graduate degree in forestry. But I grew up in, in Arkansas, in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where I still live today, beautiful area, lots of national forest, a lot of private forest. And the career that I had for two decades was working for an ACEC member engineering firm. And we specialize in the forest products area. So when people asked me about my engineering career, I basically say that if there's some process that takes a tree and make something out of it, then I got the opportunity to design one of those facilities during my career. So getting a forestry degree was very natural and beneficial in the the business that I was in because you always started with what's the resource, what, what resources available and, and what's the most valuable product we can make out of that resource and what kind of equipment and machinery best fits the resource to convert that resource into a product that can be sold in the marketplace. And plus, I've always loved the outdoors.Rep. Westerman: My Sunday School teacher was a world war II veteran. He, he flew in the bloody 100th bomb bombing squadron and he was just a fantastic guy, but he was, he was in the first forestry graduating class at the university of Arkansas at Monticello where our forestry school is. And I think Mr. Colepepper inspired a love for the forest and the outdoors and always wanted to go to graduate school. So it just, it worked out very well from a career and a personal goal standpoint to go study about trees. And another example of how being here in Congress and being the only, only person in the house where a forestry education and background, I work a lot on forest policy. And you know, the federal government owns a 193 million acres of timberland that's just in the Forest Service, but you throw in the BLM and the park service and you're between 250 and 300 million acres of public forest land.Rep. Westerman: You know, today we're seeing the extreme forest fires in California and there's a lot of work that could be just be done just on the forestry side. And I'm really excited about it because forests are the link between clean air and clean water, which gets into a lot of the things that we as engineers work on. And you know, forests are the natural carbon sequesters. They're the most - good forest trees, the most pragmatic approach we can have to clean environment. And it's the best offensive tool that we've got. So I'm doing a lot of work in the forestry side of things here in Congress. And you know, one thing that we're really looking at is this new concept of mass timber and it's a new building system that's been done in Europe for quite some time, but we can now build buildings up to 18 stories tall.Rep. Westerman: At my alma mater, the University of Arkansas, they just completed two five story mass timber dormitories. They had already built a mass timber library storage building. So it, it does a lot of, lot of things for you. Number one, it uses you can use locally sourced materials. These materials. Wood is on a dry basis, is 45 to 50% carbon, so it creates a huge carbon sink. It's a great insulating product, so you can build these buildings where they're sustainable and they don't use as much energy to operate and maintain. So a lot of positives with things like, wood, but then there's a lot of more research that can be done. We could use wood as feed stocks for chemicals. That's good feedstock for nanoparticles. I just saw something the other day where they've come up with a nano material made from wood cellulous that can be put into concrete that reduces the amount of Portland Cement and actually increases the strength and durability of the, of concrete. So the, I think the sky's the limit on what we can do with wood, which is a good renewable resource. And again, it, it's the lungs of the earth and the kidneys of the earth that cleans the air and cleans the water.Host:  And that's really an interesting point. And actually we covered the mass timber issue in our most recent private industry brief that Erin McLaughlin in our office puts together. And again, that was the change in December of 2019. The ICC loosened the restrictions to allow buildings up to 18 stories in height effective in 2021 compared to the limit of six stories and commercial structures currently. So that's, that's an interesting, that's an interesting nexus between the forestry side and the engineering side.Rep. Westerman: As a result of those projects they're in, in Northwest Arkansas on the University of Arkansas campus, a company just up the road, Walmart, announced they're building a new corporate headquarters. Now you think about you know, the largest company in the world building a corporate headquarters, 15,000 people, there'll be housing. So it'll be like a small college campus. I think they told me three and a half million square feet, but they're going to build the whole facility out of Southern Pine mass timber grown and manufactured in Arkansas. So that's a great story to tell, not only from the environmental stewardship side, but these local economies for timber has grown or in rural areas. And it's a, it's a good story about how we can help the autonomy in rural areas and do something good for the environment at the same time. And there's a lot of other, I've been told that Microsoft, Adidas I think Google, there's a lot of major corporations that are looking to use more of this mass timber in there Buildings.Host: You know, buildings like that would fit in perfectly in Seattle and, and a lot of the Pacific Northwest especially. I do want to stay with the whole idea of economic development, but shifting over to infrastructure. You serve as the Ranking Member on the Water Subcommittee and of course WRDA is probably the most, the big bill that subcommittee is going to be working on for the Congress. That's a critical bill for our ports, harbors, inland waterways, locks, dams, just all of that, not just the, the seaside ports like Charleston or Savannah, but also the interior - moving goods around the country. Now with a lot of the members who listen to the podcast, they're getting a lot of their news from CNN. They're getting it from Fox and they're not hearing everything that's going on. You know, at the granular level. Where does the WRDA bill stand right now and where do you see when you see as the prospects of getting that through?Rep. Westerman: So we've got a good track record going on WRDA and we certainly don't want to disrupt that. I believe we've the past six years or maybe eight years, we've got a WRDA bill through Congress. I know the whole time that I've been here, we've got WRDA bills passed on a two year cycle and there seems to be bipartisan support to get a WRDA bill out next year. And I will say serving on T&I, and actually being the ranking member on water and environment subcommittee. I was very fortunate in this Congress, which seems to be highly partisan with, you know, the impeachment issues and everything else going on. We've got a pretty good track record so far on the water and environment subcommittee. We just got a bill passed off the floor to use the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to actually develop and improve harbors as it was set in place to do you know, nearly, you know, nine to $10 billion in that fund.Rep. Westerman: But it wasn't getting used to maintain harbors and it was put strictly put in place for that purpose. So I'm glad to see we pass it off the House Floor in a bipartisan manner. I hope the Senate will take it up and get that signed into law. We also just out of Committee this week we passed the the, the loan fund for wastewater systems. And I think that's a great opportunity to go in and you know, have the funding mechanisms so that cities can, can borrow the money to repair these wastewater systems, which the, I believe it was American Society of Civil Engineers gave our wastewater infrastructure a D plus grade. And I know as I travel around in my district there's a lot of work that needs to be done on both wastewater.Rep. Westerman: And potable water system. So we're, we're getting bills passed out of committee off the floor. Those, you know, it doesn't usually make Fox or CNN when you pass a water bill out of the House, but it makes a lot of difference across the country. And I feel very fortunate to be working on that. I'm really looking forward to working with the, the Subcommittee Chairman Grace Napalitano from California, Peter DeFazio, now the Democratic Chairman, and then Sam Graves who is the Ranking Member. We've got a commitment to, to get this word of bill done. And as you mentioned, it's very important to many parts of the country. You know, our navigable waterways took a beating in the flooding this past past spring and summer in my district and in many other places in the country. We've got a lot of work to do on that.Rep. Westerman: There's a lot of work that needs to be done on again ports and harbors deepening channels and that sort of thing. So there's, there's no end of, of opportunities and good things that we can spend money on that are, that are good for the country. And I think part of the reason we have a federal government, you know, provide for the common defense and, and take care of interstate transportation systems and that's what T&I does. So those are the things we should be prioritizing and putting our funds towards because it helps grow the economy and and helps, you know, the country grow, which helps us be able to provide nice things and, and people to have jobs and find, make their own way through life. So excited about what we're doing on the, on the water subcommittee.Host: And then I guess just to kind of wrap it up, I mean it, with everything going on in Washington, you know, it's so dominated the headlines by intrigue and pretty much inside the beltway, kind of partisan squabbles because it, you know, gets ratings. But you know, for your constituents and for members in the engineering profession out there who are listening and saying, okay, what's Congress doing? I mean, what, what message would you leave them with? As far as what Washington is doing and, and how things are, are looking at the end of the year and may shape up for for 2020?Rep. Westerman: Well, right now I would, I wouldn't give Congress a very good grade on what we're doing. I mean, we're operating under a Continuing Resolution, which is been a huge pet peeve of mine since I've got here. If there's, if there's one thing I would, if I could change it and I've worked hard to try to change it that's to get us back to what I call regular order, where we do appropriation bills. We debate those bills in the open, we offer amendments on the floor, pass all 12 of them out of the House. And if the Senate would take those up and go through the same process, we know our fiscal year ends on September 30th every year. And we need a new budget by then. We know the timeline, we know what needs to be done. We're just not getting it done.Rep. Westerman:  And that causes all kinds of problems. When you look at, we don't even have a Defense Authorization bill done this year. And, and that's one of the primary reasons to have a federal government is provide for the common defense. If, if we can't get that done, if we can't get a budget done we really should be ashamed of the job that we're doing here. Now we can talk about some positive things on T&I. There's some small things that we agree on and they're getting done. And in the big picture, the politics are getting way too much in the way. And with the 2020 presidential election coming up with all the talk about impeachment it's really taken the focus off for the job of Congress. We've still got a huge, huge issue with healthcare in this country.Rep. Westerman: We've got huge issues with immigration we need to be addressing. But there are a lot of us that are working on those policies and we've got bills drafted and we're ready to go. But you just can't get it in committee. You can't get time on the floor. The USMCA, a trade agreement that would be great for our country has got bipartisan support. You know, Mexico is now our largest trading partner. So you'd have your first and second largest trading partners with a new agreement that would benefit farmers, benefit the whole country. And we can't get it on the floor for a vote. It could've passed two months ago with bipartisan support. So that's frustrating. But again, engineers are problem solvers and I keep looking at it, you know, how can I make a difference? How can we change this?Rep. Westerman: And it, a lot of times it's a slow change. And a lot of times it takes changes in leadership. It takes changes in which party is in control. But I see light at the end of the tunnel and you know, in on the positive side of things is the economy's doing quite well. We could do, we could be doing better and we see pathways to make that happen and I want to continue working on that and using hopefully what I learned studying engineering and doing engineering for a couple of decades and applying that here in the United States House of Representatives.Host: Well, Congressman, thank you very much. There's still a lot of work to do, but like you said, engineers are problem solvers and you're going to be here to help solve those problems. So really appreciate your time this morning and coming on the show and, and, and hope to have you on the future. And I guess today you have some votes and then you're out, right? The this is, this is the end of the week legislatively.Rep. Westerman: Yeah. This is a fly out day. It's a you know, I love my job, but the happiest day of the week are when I'm heading back to Arkansas, back to the real world. And the people I grew up with, the people I love and the people I get to represent here in this this great job in the U S so we do have a vote today actually a vote on the impeachment inquiry. So I wish we were voting on a WRDA bill or something like that, but it is what it is. And you know, I look forward to continuing to work is a lot of the things that people don't see that are here in DC is that when most members of Congress are back in our districts, we're working as much there as we are up here in DC. It's a different kind of work. And with, I've got a large rural district, so I spend a lot of time on the road, but always enjoy getting back.Host: Well, Congressman Bruce Westerman, thank you very much for being on the show. Again, this has been another episode of Engineering Influence from the American Council of Engineering Companies. 

We were pleased to sit down with Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-3), the Ranking Member on the Highways Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  Rep. Davis shared his thoughts on the prospects of an infrastructure bill this Congress and discussed the challenges and opportunities for bipartisan compromise in the weeks ahead.  Davis also discussed his participation in the biennial "Longest Yard" congressional football game for charity played by Members of Congress and the Capitol Police.  The Members won the game, and both teams raised $300,000 for local police charities in the process.Transcript:Host: Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast brought to you by the American Council of engineering companies. I am very pleased today to be coming from you in really the, I guess the hideaway office of Congressman Rodney Davis of Illinois. I'm a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, but more impo rtantly, the winner or, or the, at least the trophy holder of the 2019 a congressional longest yard football championship - which is a great achievement, which is a biennial football game being put on for charity by between the Capitol police and members of Congress. Tell us a little bit about the charity cause I don't think a lot of people realize that this happens outside of Washington, that this, this is a, this is a biannual event.Rep. Davis: Well for other reasons the baseball game has gotten a lot more attention over the last few years after the tragic shooting that we all went through in June of 2017. But we also have a congressional football game for charity where instead of like in baseball where Republicans and Democrats play against each other, we play on the same team against the guards. It's kinda based on, as you said, the longest yard movie. Uwe're supposed to be the ones, the convicts, but we bring some pros into some former NFL pros that help us coach and, and play with us. Ubut we really appreciate what the guards do on a regular basis. But there's a Capitol police Memorial fund that was started after the death of two officers in the late nineties here in Washington, D C where they were killed by a mentally ill gunman who came into the Capitol before. We had a lot of the security protocols that we now see in place that Capitol Police Memorial Fund gets money from this football game of what we raise.Rep. Davis: Also a couple of other charities that are dedicated to helping veterans who come home and maybe be suffering through post traumatic stress syndrome. These are the, the, the charities that are funded by the record, $300,000 plus that we raised last night.Rep. Davis: Yeah, that's fantastic.Rep. Davis: And I think it's a, it's a good lesson for everyone listening outside the beltway that at the end of the day members of Congress come together for a good cause. No, we really do. And, and in the midst of an impeachment inquiry beginning, we, Republicans and Democrats played together on a field last night for charity. And I just hope your listeners and the American people realize that there's a lot more of that than what you see and hear in the news on the 24 hour news cycle. That's a good thing. And I want to thank the Capitol police for what they do everyday.Rep. Davis: They protect millions of people a year that come through this Capitol complex. I also saw the Capitol police officers firsthand when in the midst of a, a shooting in the midst of a tragedy those officers ran toward the gunfire while we were all running away. That's courage. But that courage that courage exists to every day. And we know they're doing what they're trained to do. But also last night it was a night that although I respect everything they do, I'm damn glad we beat, them.Host: It's always good to bring the, bring the trophy home.Rep. Davis: Oh yeah. No, I'm not carrying it by any of those Capitol police at the guard stations.Host: Unless you have to get down on the floor of the house and do the special order to...Rep. Davis: That'll be tomorrow, tomorrow.Host: Um well like you said, you know, there's a lot going on in Washington right now.Host: A lot of it is political, but there's one issue which of course I think is, is largely bipartisan. Um historically has been, and that of course - that is infrastructure. You serve as the ranking member on the highway subcommittee of the transportation infrastructure...Rep. Davis: The largest subcommittee in Congress, 59 members, 59 members.Host: And of course, right now everybody is looking to see what's gonna happen with infrastructure next. The Senate has moved on their version of service bill before they broke for August recess. And now that they're back, you know, that process continues. What's your perspective and view in the house? What, where do you see this process going and what would you like to see come out of the session?Rep. Davis: Sure. I'm glad the Senate took the first crack at it because I think it sends a message to the democratic leadership who I believe are holding up Chairman DeFazio from being able to offer up a solution on the house side.Rep. Davis: You know, Peter DeFazio's, a good friend of mine Eleanor Holmes, Norton, the treasurer of the subcommittee that I'm the lead Republican on. And then our ranking member, Sam graves. If we were just given a chance to sit down and across the table from each other, we could have a bill done in a matter of days, if not hours. We can do that. The Senate did that. They did their work. We had Senator Carper over to speak to our transportation stakeholders meeting that Earl Blumenauer and I run on a regular basis. He was there today talking about their successes. But again, it all comes down to two things. Now. Number one, it's how do we pay for it? Because that Senate bill, it addresses nothing in the pay force. I mean, we can put good policies together on the, on the the authorizing side just like they did, but the appropriating side and the tax writing side that's going to be the most, the biggest part of our discussion.Rep. Davis: That's one issue that's holding up progress. The second one is impeachment. Look. I've been a staffer during the Clinton impeachment. I've never been here during an impeachment. And from what I remember, the 90s, nothing gets done during impeachment.Host: Everything just grinds to a halt.Rep. Davis: Absolutely. And that's unfortunate because we ought to be able to come together on infrastructure. That's why I asked to be the ranking member on the highways and transit subcommittee. I, I know we've got a highway bill coming. We got to get together and come up with solutions.Host: So even though, like you mentioned, things got even more partisan or more political last night with, with the announcement of this inquiry, there still can be work done by the committees by staff and the members. Um as you mentioned, T&I's an authorizing committee, you can only do so much when it comes to the question of funding.Host: Yeah. How is we'll have a say in that funding source. Yeah. But what do you think is, is how is Ways and Means approaching this on, on the house side? What do you think.Rep. Davis: They're not.Host: They're not at all right now.Rep. Davis: And that is a part of the problem.Host: Do you think it's at least on their agenda or you think there's some reason why it's, it's being held up or frankly I can give you my perspective and my opinion on why it's being held up.Rep. Davis: I think Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic leadership don't want to talk about infrastructure. They don't want to pass the USMCA right now because it gives president Trump a win against President Trump. Something to go talk about and being able to work together and get things done that matter to American families. And that's just as an ma matter to a group of engineers.Rep. Davis: It just doesn't matter to a group of road builders. It just doesn't matter to a group of transit officials or members of Congress. It matters to every single American out there to have a better transportation network to get to and from work. But what matters in middle America sometimes doesn't matter to leaders in politics out here. And that's what sad. That's what I think is holding this up. It's just a sheer will of the Democrats not to give the president in a win. And that's unfortunate.Host: Now I think going back home and, and for the perspective of your constituents back home, a lot of us talk about, and we hear all the time in Washington, the negative side of, of infrastructure, the roads are crumbling and the bridges are falling down. The flip side of that is what we could actually achieve if we actually invest in America's infrastructure. What kind of benefits would your constituents get from a well funded and longterm infrastructure bill?Rep. Davis: Well, they're, they're going to see updates to their local transportation systems that they in many of their local officials have been calling for for years, if not decades. It's, it's being able to implement those longterm visions that have been part of a planning process that may be out dates even as long as we've been alive in many cases. You look at, you look at a us 67, for example, in the Southern part of my district, that long term project could be completed with an infrastructure bill. We could get the rest of US 67 funded and then the new and then the new Delhi bypass funded around Jerseyville that could really then complete that four lane corridor from you know, basically from the quad cities all the way down to st Louis.Rep. Davis: That was a longterm goal that was put in place long before I ever got involved in politics and policy. But you don't have to look too far to see the benefits of what could happen. And we also can't forget how long of a, an outlook we have to have when it comes to infrastructure. Dave Bender and I have known each other for a very, very long time. And, and when I first started working right out of college, I was involved in an accident on route 29 that killed a young lady on December 23rd and I was a third car in the accident. I had went around, and got sprayed with debris, but that death of melody travelers started a group called project 29 in Taylorville, my hometown. And in 1992 and moving into 1993, when that group was started, if you would have asked us if we were okay with that project, finally getting done in 2016, we would have said, keep your money.Rep. Davis: But we didn't. We got the first ever federal investment that was invested in 1998 that helped put that project on to governor Edgar's five-year plan. Then we had Illinois first, they invested more dollars to get four lanes on both ends of that 18 miles. It still need to be four lanes put in place. And then as we moved federal dollars into that project and as we moved more state dollars into that project, it finally got done in 2016. 1993 to 2016 but nobody in my hometown that drives that road says we regret investing in that project, but we got to be patient and we've got to continue to invest because eventually you get it done. And that's what an infrastructure bill can do.Host: That's a really good point. And I think that the length of time from inception to project delivery is also something that is always on our minds.Rep. Davis: Clearly the engineering portion, that's what keeps it. That's what it takes too long.Rep. Davis: Do you see any, I'm moving on and making sure that we engineers don't have sense of humor. You didn't laugh at all. Terrible, terrible. A change order.Host:  But it's, it's, I guess the idea of cutting that project delivery timeline is something which the Senate address with one federal decision in, in, in their bill, in, in streamline of the environmental regulatory review process. How important will that be mirroring that or going further in the House?Rep. Davis: You know, it's a step more than what we've already done. I mean, look, we have had so many successes in the six and a half years I'd been here when it comes to water infrastructure, when it comes to when it comes to water infrastructure, rail infrastructure, road infrastructure, we've done everything we can to really lessen the regulatory environment and speed up the permitting process.Rep. Davis: Think about it with the Corps of engineers, when we first passed our first WRDA bill that we did when I got here to Congress in 2014, the average time it took from what I consider the paperwork process to the building process was 15 years average time. And I can only blame you engineer's for a portion of that. You know, so we, by law then what we did is we made sure that the Corps of Engineers knew that they had three years, three years. That's it. Otherwise, otherwise, you know, you're penalized. You got to three years by law to finish the project, that portion of the project. Then we get to the infrastructure investment itself much more quickly. Those are the types of things we've been able to do. So continuing down that process with what the Senate did I think is a great step. And we, we have to continue to identify where we lessen the regulatory burden and get to the point of laying concrete asphalt.Host:  I just have two more questions cause I wanna I want to make sure that we have votes coming up and I know you want to make sure that you hit them. The one question I have again on WRDA really is, is we're expecting that of course in 2020 and.Rep. Davis: That will be my third WRDA bill when, I take full credit for finally passing where to bills because before I got here in 2013, nothing happened. It was Oh seven. So you're welcome.Host: No problem. I guess question on process, and this might be speculative, but do you think that chairman DeFazio's going to keep the same process that chairman Schuster put in with the Chiefs Reports or you know, or that like that change?Rep. Davis: Well, certainly I'd like to go a step further. Look, I'd like to be able to have members of Congress try to address issues in their own district like we used to.Rep. Davis:  I think it's a tragedy that when we, that we can't ask for any language. When it comes to war to authorization authorization, we are only authorizing dollars to be spent. No dollars are attached to a WRDA request. But somehow before I got here, those requests were labeled earmarks when they have $0 dollars attached. And what that has led to is been zero investment on the locks and dams in the Illinois and Mississippi waterways because I couldn't ask for it during the Obama administration and the Obama administration wouldn't ask to spend any money on it. So we had no recourse. It's all executive branch driven. Thankfully the Trump administration began to invest in the Illinois, Mississippi waterways. They're spending millions to upgrade LaGrange now. Now the problem I have is our producers are worried they won't get done in time. I'm like, that's a good problem to have.Rep. Davis: Yeah, wait, we actually worried about spending money instead of getting money.Host: So the final question I have for you is, did we win the game? Yes, we did. We're champions. So let a little bit later we're going to be meeting with some of our executives, some of our senior executives, Institute members. Yes.Rep. Davis: Couple of them got to ride up on the elevator with me holding it.Rep. Davis: They already gave you the elevator pitch.Rep. Davis: They know I'm a champion.Host: Did you let them hold the trophy? That's the big question.Rep. Davis: I let them touch it.Rep. Davis: All right. There you go. Hey, did given the fact that we talk a lot about the value of engineering and kind of the broader context of its, you know, value to society what's going to be your message to them when you, when you talk to them.Rep. Davis: That we won the football game and clearly that's all I'm going to talk about.Rep. Davis: You know, my messages, engineers by nature, by job, our longterm planners understand that we wouldn't, as policymakers, we wouldn't expect an engineer to give us a product that was not a longterm solution for the project they're working on or the building they're building. Don't expect us as policy makers to settle for short term funding solutions that don't address the volatility and the lack of funding and the highway trust fund and the long term outlook for what are, what are our you know, systems of mobility are going to look like in the next 10 years, which is basically a fancy way of saying don't just tell us to raise the gas tax.Host: Got it. Well, Congressman, I really appreciate you being on the show. This is, you are the first member of Congress to appear on our podcast and it's a great way to kick it off.Rep. Davis:  Congressman Rodney Davis, he's a leader on and off the football field and good luck today.Rep. Davis: Can I give a special shout out to...Rep. Davis: Please do.Rep. Davis: Bender -Host: David our director of political affairs here is sitting out on the, on the sideline here.Rep. Davis: Well, David has been a longtime friend. You guys couldn't ask for a better advocate out here in Washington. Now. And I also want to give a shout out to his replacement. Kevin Hardell. Kevin and I have worked together for years. He's going to do a great job fill in the shoes that, that Dave left as big shoes to fill. But you know what? You guys couldn't have two better people representing you at the state and the federal level. And I appreciate being able to work with both of them and I know, I know what they're capable of. And you guys have got a long term bright future with association.Host: Dave's been great. I've been working with them since they came on and it's just been a fantastic experience. So I appreciate your time and thank you very much.Rep. Davis: Thank you. And remind Kevin, I'm a champion. I will definitely

ACEC's Government Affairs Update for the week of July 22, 2019.In this week's episode, Matt Reiffer and Steve Hall discuss the upcoming Senate Environment and Public Works Committee markup of the America's Transportation Infrastructure Act, as well as the current status of water related infrastructure bills in Congress. Transcript:Announcer: 00:00  Welcome to the first edition of the ACEC government affairs update for the week of July 22nd, 2019 we're coming into the last few days of session in Congress before the August recess and we're seeing action on infrastructure and water. Starting to heat up. Matt Riffer is our expert on surface transportation in our Washington office and he's here to give us an update on what's happening on surface transportation. Matt...Matt Reiffer: 00:34 Thanks Jeff. After a year where we expected a lot of activity on infrastructure and series of fits and starts from congressional leaders meeting with the administration. And you know, we got all excited a couple of months ago about a top line number of $2 trillion that hasn't really materialized in any subsequent meetings or conversations. Uh, now this week we're finally, as you said, getting some real action and legislative productivity coming out. We are had meetings today with the senior staff from the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, that EPW Committee has primary jurisdiction over federal highway programs, uh, and they are and have been working on a reauthorization of federal highway programs under the Fast Act, uh, and they are set to release that bill, uh, next week Monday. And they briefed us and other stakeholders on some of the high level content of that bill today which is very exciting as it's a first step in a long process to reauthorize the FAST Act. The FAST Act doesn't expire until, uh, next year, September 30 of 2020.Matt Reiffer: 01:47 But we want to get a head start on this, given the political dynamics of the election season and the time and effort it will take to get this over the finish line so that the EPW processes the first start, first step and it is a great first start. According to the committee, it's going to be a five-year bill authorizing highway programs at $287 billion, which is a 27% increase above the fast act level. It will also include, uh, a repeal of the rescission that's scheduled at the end of the fast act, which is gonna take 7.6, seven point $6 billion off the table from state and arbitrary. We lower the baseline for budget scoring, so that's an important step as well. And we're going to be supporting a standalone effort to get that done soon. The bill will be a threefold, a heavy emphasis on safety emphasis on, uh, bridges and on resilience.Matt Reiffer: 02:56 Uh, there's going to be new programs, both formula based for states as well as discretionary funding, a directed to those initiatives. A lot of issues that ACEC and our member firms had been very active and engaged on. A, what we've been hearing so far is very positive based on the priorities that we have outlined. Um, next steps after EPW marks up their bill they'll have to work with the other committees of jurisdiction in the Senate. They only have highways. Uh, the banking committee has transit programs. The Commerce Committee has, uh, highway policy as well as commercial vehicles and safety programs. And then the most essential, uh, the finance committee has jurisdiction over revenues that flow into the highway trust fund. Uh, there is $100 billion hole in the trust fund over the next six years that needs to be filled plus the additional funding that would be authorized in this bill. Um, the EPW committee leaders, uh, are expressing confidence and optimism that they can pay for these funding increases with the user fee revenues coming into the highway trust fund and they'll be working with their finance committee colleagues and Senate leaders to get that done after the August recess. So again, first step, but a very important step, the first tangible legislative product that we've got to rally around as an industry, uh, and a top advocacy priority for ACEC. So it's a very exciting, uh, and encouraging, uh, development this week.Announcer: 04:28 That's fantastic news and we're looking forward to seeing how the bill develops and what happens at the mark up and we'll be sure to hear about that more next week and leading into August. And Matt, thank you for that update. So FAST Act authorization is one of the highlight issues in Congress right now, but there are other issues moving forward, including water and related issues. And Steve Hall, our Senior Vice President of advocacy is with us to talk about those.Steve Hall: 04:54 Yeah, so progress on the fast act is very encouraging as Matt indicated and at, as we've been talking about, uh, may be the vehicle that pulls a number of other priorities, uh, forward as a larger infrastructure package. But beyond surface transportation, Congress wants to do water through the Water Resources Development Act or WRDA they've got to finish the appropriations process. And we recently had a deal, a two year budget deal that plugs in some additional resources for appropriations and we hope and believe we'll at least maintain the increases in the infrastructure accounts from the last two year deal. Uh, but in addition to the fast act, individual water components are starting to move. Uh, the house has a bill that would reauthorize and significantly expand the clean water act, state revolving fund program or SRF program. $20 billion over five years. Uh, grants for combined sewer overflows and other issues.Steve Hall: 06:01 They're still working through some issues with respect to, uh, the regulatory side, whether to extend, uh, permits from five years to 10 years. And we're providing some technical guidance to committee staff, uh, on that. Uh, there's other pending legislation that would create a water trust fund. All of these may find a home in a word, a bill that traditionally includes a new Corps of Engineers, project offer authorizations and other related matters, other things that are waiting in the wings. We have a legislation that would create a new category of private activity bonds for vertical projects. That's the sort of thing that could ride on a FAST Act reauthorization bill. We've got a couple of expired tax provisions that are critical for, uh, vertical projects, uh, and encouraging energy efficient building design. those need to be extended as well as another provision dealing with renewable energy projects. Again, these are the kind of things that could ride on a larger, infrastructure package. Uh, and then other issues, other priorities for ACEC...Reauthorization of the Export Import Bank. Interestingly, that was done in the context of the fast act in 2015. So could that be something that benefits from movement on a surface transportation in the house and the Senate shaping up to be a busy fall, uh, looking forward to getting some things over the goal line.Announcer:  07:31 So a lot going on in Congress. They're going out of session, but we will not, we'll be following all of these issues with staff and the members throughout August. Uh, and always, always encourage our member organizations to do the same when the members are back in their districts. Uh, just because they're not in Washington doesn't mean they're not working and it's a good time to meet with them there. That's the first government affairs update from ACEC, one of the first of many. Thank you for joining us and happy August. [inaudible]. 

Jeff Urbanchuk sits down with Bloomberg Government's Shaun Courtney to discuss current affairs in Washington, what's happening in Congress and the prospects for an infrastructure bill.  Show Transcript:Announcer: 00:00 Welcome to Engineering Influence, a podcast from the American Council of Engineering companies  with your host Jeff UrbanchukHost: 00:30 Welcome again, back to engineering influence, a podcast from the American Council of engineering companies. Very, very pleased to be joined today by Shaun Courtney of Bloomberg News. Another extremely good, example of reporting on infrastructure, which is timely, informative, and really matters, especially to the business community who we represent, the CEOs, the people who care about what's going on in Washington and how it affects their business. Shaun has appeared on the front page of the Washington Post. She's also written for investigative reporting workshop, Washingtonian, AOL news and Huffington post among others. So it's really great to have her on today. Welcome, Shaun.Shaun Courtney:01:12 My pleasure to be here. Thanks so much for having me.Host: 01:13 Oh, we are in kind of an interesting time because we've lived through yet another infrastructure week. Uh, we survived and were pretty much exactly where we were the last infrastructure week.Shaun Courtney: 01:26 Yeah. I mean it's, it is a, it feels kind of like a Groundhog Day almost, which is unfortunate.Host: 01:31 Yeah. Which, which kind of goes to, what's the mood like right now with, with the Hill? I mean after that meeting, what's the, what's the takeaway?Shaun Courtney: 01:38 Yeah, I mean I think anybody who was hoping that there'd be like a deus ex machina and like Trump would somehow come through with a magical funding, uh, suggestion. Um, it's pretty deflated at this point and resigned to the fact that if there's going to be any kind of infrastructure legislation, it'll have to be the surface bill, um, that they have to pass before, um, you know, September 30th of 2020,Host: 02:02 I guess the service Bill Fast Act II or Fast Act "plus" or how are they really want to call it. I mean that's still out there and that's probably the best mechanism to get this done. I know that Chairman DeFazio also kind of has an interest in a larger policy bill that kind of puts a lot of his ideas from, you know, the last congress and before that and then also potentially pennies for progress and things like that. Do you see that shaping up any way or does that kind of taking a sideline to we have to just focus on reauthorization?Shaun Courtney: 02:33 Yeah, I mean, I think that he wants the reauthorization to be his big policy bill. He wants it to be a game changing reauthorization. He's not looking for incremental-ism, which I think is more what the Senate is moving towards, especially given how quickly they're trying to advance their bill. And that he has just been starting with a lot of these hearings. Um, penny for progress obviously is in the end up to Ways and Means, uh, and so think he's looking to do a heavier lift rather than just, you know, I'm scrounging around for some funds to cover the highway trust fund, which is what I expect the Senate to do.Host: 03:08 Yeah. And that's, that's one of the things which was interesting, uh, for, um, some of our members who don't follow everything that closely is the fact that the policy piece coming out of the Hill and the special on the House side, that's, you know, T&I, and that's an authorizing committee. When you start talking about revenue, that's Ways and Means. Two separate committees, hopefully working together to try to come to some kind of compromise to get something done right and the same in the Senate. So it's a little bit more complicated than just putting together one bill in dealing with everything.Shaun Courtney: 03:40 It is. And I, you know, the other thing that um, people should be looking at or thinking about as the appropriations process, which we're going through right now just next week, um, in the next week or so, we're going to have a markup of the THUD - the Transportation, HUD spending bill for the next fiscal year. And that, uh, if you talked to any appropriators will, they'll tell you that's the infrastructure bill because that's where the money's coming from and that's what you remember. So we'll be seeing sooner than they'll see anything out of the Fast Act or reauthorization or anything along those lines.Host: 04:07 And even though the Senate kind of created the budget with kind of a carve out to address the highway trust fund, there is no guarantee that that's going to actually be addressed in any of the appropriations actions that they take.Shaun Courtney: 04:19 Well, no, that's true. And you know, the appropriators know we'll have to find funds from somewhere and it's up to Ways and Means to allow them, I suppose to, to appropriate from the trust fund or they're going to have to appropriate from somewhere else. So it gets messy really fast. Um, but you know, I guess if you're trying to be a little bit of an optimist and you know, worrying about what's going to happen, at least there's an appropriations bill that's in the process and there's some money that's coming along, which means something for business in the short term.Host: 04:48 Yeah. Uh, that's, there is something happening, which is the positive thing and it's, it's, it's, it's kind of interesting to see where things stand after that White House meeting where you had the president essentially saying, you know, I'm not going to play ball until you stop all the investigations. And of course you have, um, presidential politics kind of also feeding into this. Do you think there's anything that can happen that would get the president back to the negotiating table with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer? Or is that just kind of dead in the water?Shaun Courtney: 05:21 I mean, I, he would just have to have a change of heart. I don't see there being any internal pressure from within the administration to move anything. Um, you know, there were a lot of concerns with congressional leaders that Mick Mulvaney was going to kind of derail their infrastructure negotiations and, and, um, you know, it seems like perhaps he was effective in getting that done when the president decided to walk out of that meeting. So yeah, I mean I don't, I'm not entirely sure what it would take to get him back on board. I know it's unfortunate, but you know, the stranger things have happened. I think that's the one thing about this administration is that you can't always call something, um, you know, at the end of the story that things can always come back and, and he can change his mind. So, you know, there's always that, I think there's always that glimmer of hope and a lot of groups are, are kind of hanging on that at this point. Yeah.Host: 06:17 It seems like there, there's a lot of, you can never really tell week to week exactly what's going to be happening.Shaun Courtney: 06:23 Right, exactly.Host: 06:25 I, the one thing with the president never misses an opportunity to talk about is, you know, with the fact that he made his billions as a builder building things and how important infrastructure is. And the one thing that we heard, you know, we hear from the hill, from everybody from Steny Hoyer says it to, you know, rank and file, the Chamber downtown. Everybody says that nothing's going to happen without leadership from the White House.Shaun Courtney: 06:49 Right. I mean, everybody seems to agree that, that, um, it just seems like if you talk to essentially Senate Republicans, I think that maybe they weren't necessarily looking for leadership, especially on a gas tax from the president, you know, it might've put them in an uncomfortable position actually, if, if he had backed it. So I think while there are a lot of groups pushing a lot of strange bedfellows as you mentioned, you know, you have the Chamber of Commerce and then you have labor, um, and you have the trucking association and labor and like their whole pushing for the same thing. Uh, but it's, it's just seems to fall on dead ears. And part of it I think is its Congressional Republicans who are concerned about the, um, the optics of having passed this tax bill and then raising taxes on the average person.Host: 07:36 Which is an interesting thing because of course, you know, we know that historically, uh, there have been more Democrats in Congress had been pushing for a fix to the user fees and Republicans. And when the Republicans come out, they generally have to modify it or, or come up with another idea of asset recycling or something else, which is not directly an increase in taxes. But at the state level, we've been seeing a lot of activity, you know, over 30 states have dealt with the revenue question for them, you know, for their own states. And it's not all blue states. You know, there's a good amount of red there.Shaun Courtney: 08:11 Right? There's, there's a range in and you even see referendums and then maybe that's part of that. I mean, I guess we could have a national referendum on if we want to have the gas tax, but um, barring that, I think it's, it's hard, but I think that is part of the reason why you're seeing this is that people are signaling to their leaders that this is something that they're willing to invest in because they'd been told where it's going to go. And I think that some people would say that at the national level, there's a concern about they're not sure where that money is going. um, and because earmarks are not a thing anymore, I can't be like, hey, that, that extra 5 cents you're paying at the pump went to fix that bridge, uh, in your neighborhood or in your city.Host: 08:46 Which kind of brings up kind of two separate issues because at, you know, the, the question I always have is with all the states kind of taking it on themselves to do this, does it soften or weaken that age old opposition to increased taxes If you're a republican and a republican state with a Republican governor who's done it, you know, is that enough political cover to say, well maybe I can actually go in and vote for a user fee increase?Shaun Courtney: 09:12 Yeah. I mean, I think for some people it could be, there's been some suggestion from conversations and no direct, um, you know, confirmation from Senator Roger Wicker, but it seems like he might be open to the idea of maybe passing a gas tax increase and he's from a red state and he's a Republican, and he's the head of the Commerce Committee and he'll have a role in passing a surface bill. Um, but then there are others who are just, um, kind of look at the states raising their or their own taxes and saying, well that seems, that seems right. The state should be paying for the roads they own most the roads, so why shouldn't they invest in them? So good for them, leave it up to them to invest.Host: 09:49 Exactly. And that's, that's kind of the interesting balancing act. And you know, it's interesting because I think all the groups are coming together and they're saying the same thing that you've got to fix the trust fund, you have to increase the user fee or you know, index it, and it just doesn't seem to be moving the needle as much as we needed to. Is it, is it a question of the same old, same old or is it, is it, does something new have to happen do you see anyone out there that's kind of bringing up a new idea or is it just, just kind of, you know, the same thing?Shaun Courtney: 10:18 I mean it seems it's mostly at the same thing. I mean it's different groups, right? That or as you were saying there that are pushing for it. Um, but it's the same people that you would expect to be concerned about raising a user fee, especially in the Senate. Um, and I, I think a lot of it falls on the lap of, of leader McConnell who has said that if the president backed a gas tax increase and said that, that an infrastructure proposal was his priority, uh, that he would, he would support it if there was support within his membership, but he is not coalescing people around it. And that's a really key, that's a really key person. I mean, he kind of runs the show as much as Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House and she is, she is leading the conversation on a lot of these things, the house can only do so much and then, uh, and then it falls on deaf ears in the Senate. Um, and, and so that's, that's really the problem. And trying to convince him, especially when he's up for reelection, I think is, is a, a tough row to hoe.Host: 11:15 And, and that kind of goes into the personalities of the chambers because you're absolutely right. I mean, in the Senate really it's leader McConnell who would have to really drive the conversation and get his membership behind him and reached a consensus to get something done. And on the House side, it's a little bit more regimented, I guess that you have of course Speaker Pelosi running the show. Um, and of course Chairman DeFazio really, you know, working on the committee side. How much flexibility do you think that that Chairman DeFazio has to kind of follow his policy goals? I mean, has he been given a fairly lane, the move, or is he, uh, you know, being held back by leadership at all?Shaun Courtney: 11:58 Oh, I don't think he's being held back. Uh, I mean, I think he'd like things to be moving more aggressively than they are. And I think that maybe not with the house, but he's expressed some frustration, I think with some politics in the Senate. And I don't think he's just talking about later and McConnell. I think that there's a little bit of frustration perhaps with Senator Schumer based on just some comments that he is, he's made, uh, you know, Schumer was saying that if the president wants to raise the gas tax to pay for infrastructure, um, that they'd have to roll back the, some of the tax bill and DeFazio was like, that's a stupid 2020 talking point. I mean, so I think that within his own chamber, he feels confident that he has leadership behind him and that he can move a bill and, and he is able to work in a bipartisan manner, you know, he worked with, um, former chairman Shuster for years and they would, they would have their tiffs at the, you know, at the Das and then behind the scenes would, would work out a deal. And he knows how to do that and I think he's working closely with, um, now Ranking Member. Sam Graves. Um, so he is somebody who is capable of, of legislating and striking a bargain and being reasonable. And I think that his leadership and trust him to do that.Host: 13:06 On the House side of the T&I Committee with the new Congress. Has the dynamic shifted at all? Like how has the relationship with Graves and DeFazio and among the subcommittee leadership, is it still fairly cordial?Shaun Courtney: 13:20  It's my understanding that is, is that it's relatively cordial. Uh, you know, they're still working now, but I mean DeFazio's spent a long time in the minority and he knows what it's like. And I think that he is trying to be respectful while also still, you know, leading and, and pursuing his own policy goals. Uh, and so, you know, I, I think that so far he's been, you know, giving Representative Graves the heads-up when they're planning to do things, um, and, uh, giving them an opportunity to, um, to weigh in. So, and I think they are still working together on a surface bill and, you know, they've been working closely on these Boeing investigations, um, especially since Representative Graves is, um, you know, a pilot. Um, so I do think that they have a, a good working relationship. Um, and so we'll just have to see, you know, does that continue on, um, and for how long and, and, um, you know, there are going to be external factors that might affect their ability to cooperate.Host: 14:15 Was it surprising when the president came out in that letter before the meeting where you essentially kind of put down that marker saying that, hey, you know, we asked, we will infrastructures the goal, but we got to do the USMCA first. Uh, it seems like infrastructures an easier get than a trade deal, especially given the environment we're in.Shaun Courtney: 14:34 Yeah. I mean it, it seems, I mean when that letter came out the night before the meeting, anybody who's been covering this, this, uh, these negotiations, you know, it was just sort of banging your head against the table because they just realized that this is not going to go smoothly and, and it's going to become the, the joke infrastructure instead of the actually productive infrastructure week. Um, I don't think, I don't think many people anticipated that he would just walk out of the meeting and, and it's possible that that was being laid out there as like a bargaining tool, that he wanted to come into the meeting with some sort of leverage and was trying to change the optics because Democrats had been hammering on about how the president needed to come to that meeting with his ideas and his plan. Um, so it, it seems not like a good sign, but it didn't seem like a death knell or anything like that when it happened. Um, more of like a bargaining tactic, uh, and then, you know, things changed rapidly as they tend to do in these new cycles.Host: 15:33 Rapidly is putting it lightly. I mean, I think it was, it was indication that, okay, that could be a bargaining chip. Maybe, you know, looking at it saying, okay, in the last meeting of walked out and some, somehow a $2 trillion number was agreed upon and that was something which I guess, you know, caused some consternation within, you know, the Republicans in the House or the Senate. And then they had to kind of figure out how do we, you know, bring this back. Right. Um, it was just kind of interesting to see that being laid out right before, like the evening before the meeting.Shaun Courtney: 16:05 Yeah. And, and the letter itself, just the tone of it was, um, just on something you tend to see. Um, it was almost kind of measured in some ways. It was a, we're so used to tweets, you know, that it was, um, there was something about it that was kind of odd. It seemed like some, somebody else wrote it obviously, like the president wasn't writing and somebody in the staff is, but, um, somebody who is kind of more in depth on some of these negotiations, put it together. I don't, I don't know who did it, but, um, it struck me as something that might have even come out at DOT.Host: 16:38 Yeah. We, we kind of talk about infrastructure week every year. It's something else that kind of eclipses it. And you know, really the debate on infrastructure being really focused on deficiencies. Right. This is how many bridges are deficient. This is how many roads fixed. Right. Do you think that there's a, a lack of the positive, the kind of look at what we can do together if we actually got together and cooperated and you know, for example, you'll look at some of the projects which, you know, we talk about that our members are doing, which were fairly significant that it doesn't really get talked about much by Members.Shaun Courtney:17:18 Yeah. I mean, I think that it doesn't get talked about very much in Washington, you know, but they go home to their home districts and love a good ribbon cutting. You know I know somebody who was saying that they had a lawmaker coming out and to get them to come out, they had to put a ribbon around the bus stop this or that. Like, oh, he'd come out because it was a ribbon cutting and it was like, you know, we're celebrating that they added, I don't know, a certain number of new electric bus charging stations or something on those lines. Um, but you know, so they, they do like when there are projects that come out or anytime you see it like a grant notice DOT is constantly celebrating it and whoever gets it usually some appropriate or, um, it was very happy that they've gotten a new build grants, which used to be tiger or, um, in for a grant or something along those lines.Shaun Courtney: 18:01 Um, so I think that there is some positive conversation, but to be perfectly honest, from a media perspective, uh, I'm not necessarily going to write a story about, um, the fact that members, so-and-so was really happy about the bridge in their district. Right. Where it might come into play was a, you know, if somebody was saying that they don't want to fund transit cause they don't think that their system benefits and then they wind up getting a big grant well then like that's something that you'd wind up covering.Host: 18:30  Oh so it actually changed their mind or show that this could have a benefit.Shaun Courtney: 18:33 Yeah. Yeah. So I think, I mean part of the issue is probably just that at least national level reporters are unlikely to report on that kind of thing. Local, local reporters will, you know, when there's, when you got a new grant for a big transit way, that's something you're going to cover.Host: 18:46 Is there anything, I mean, for example, you know, our members are largely CEOs and they're really busy doing their job and monitoring their own businesses. Is there anything happening which they should really be paying attention to that may not be getting as much coverage as it ought to?Shaun Courtney: 19:05 I mean, I think it is a wonky area, but I, I've talked a lot about appropriations. I think that is something where you should be paying attention, where, where is the money going? Who's benefiting from it and, and how is it being justified? So, you know, is Congress giving DOT a lot more instruction on how they should be spending this money? Which would signal to your CEO's that they should probably be adjusting how they're pitching their projects. Um, you know, uh, are, do they need to use a different kind of material because it's sustainable? Um, there's sort of a push towards that. Um, do they need to be thinking about, um, getting their supplies from us based companies versus a Chinese company? There's a lot of drama around that on the hill right now, which if you're not paying attention to and you have any kind of, um, role in infrastructure that has to do with like connectivity. Uh, you know, Huawei has been a really big issue. It was ZTE or if you're looking at kind of getting, um, we all projects or anything along those lines. The CRC and BYD companies are two that are, um, have come up in the news a lot. So I think that there, um, there, there are places like that where money is moving. Um, and it's coming out of DoD, which is setting the policy on where they want money to go. And then appropriators are also trying to tell DoD how to spend that money.Host: 20:24 Yeah. And I think you raised a really good point, especially with when it comes to the technology side of things because infrastructure these days is not your old style, just bricks and mortar anymore. Now it's technology and are connected with everything else. So things that are happening in DOT yeah, that's important. But we also have to look at the other regulators.Shaun Courtney: 20:44 True, true. Uh, you know, if you want to look where, you know, Department of Energy is focusing their efforts and other agencies that are, are looking to, um, improve the way the country is connecting to each other and um, smart roads and um, you know, better charging stations and things along those lines.Host: 21:02 Yeah. The sustainability argument outside of the green new deal. I mean, that's probably the best example of somebody that's gotten a lot of attention. Has there been more of a focus or have a, actually, let me ask you, on the Republican side of things, have you noted sustainability? More resiliency was a big deal last congress has that kind of continued on. Is that, is is the idea of building in a sustainable fashion, a more resilient fashion something which is, um, caught a lot of traction.Shaun Courtney: 21:31 I don't know if it, it caught a lot of traction, but I would say that people are starting to look at it and each side has its own justifications for it, right So you have the green, new deal, sort of environmental push from the Democrat side. And then on the republican side it's like, let's not waste our money. Let's stop building things that we're going to have to rebuild and five years, why not just do it right the first time, make a better investment now and have a better long-term return. And I think that you are seeing some of that. Uh, you know, it's a little bit of a side show, but there's been all these objections to the disaster aid bill, which includes flood insurance and some of the more conservative Republicans, especially the Freedom Caucus folks are particularly worried about just pouring money constantly into communities where maybe it doesn't make sense for people to live anymore or maybe if you're going to rebuild those houses you should build them to be fire resistant. Um, and so they want to make sure that the money is being spent wisely.Shaun Courtney: 22:24 And so I think that there is a place on either side where they can come together and you may have some interesting folks pairing up on that.Host: 22:32 Which is an interesting area for us because being engineers, it's more just the question of if you're going to build something, you have to build something to last. So it's more like dealing with the world the way it is. Not really entering into the politics of it, but just saying, if you're going to build a structure, you're wanting to do it in such a way where it's efficient, where it's going to last. We're just going to be resilient to the environment and, and kind of making that argument. And it's interesting how it's developing on the hill and, and how that kind of plugs in because you have kind of both sides, like you said, more of the social consciousness side on the Democrats and more of the dollars and cents side on the Republican side.Shaun Courtney: 23:09 Right. And if you can get those two on the same page, then you might be able to get something done.Host: 23:12 Yeah, exactly. Um, so the, one of the questions that also we have is that, you know, we do a lot of fly ins. We do a lot of meetings, you know, our members come in of course, for the convention that we just had they flood the Hill, they're having members of the member meetings at the state level, uh, in districts. Have you noticed, I mean, does that still move the needle? Has anything changed from your view or is, you know, the prevalence of social media, digital communications, is that offsetting some of it or is it still, you know, you can't beat a knock on the door?Shaun Courtney: 23:48 I think it's both. Um, so I think that you need to both have a presence where you're knocking on the door and you're having a face to face time that you're getting, if not with the member or the senator with their Legislative Director, with the Legislative Assistant who focuses on your key issue areas. I'd like making it very clear to them why this matters to them and their district and the reelection. Uh, and then pressure on social media matters as well as you kind of have to partner both of those in order to be really effective.Host: 24:16 Yeah. So the, among the topics that you cover, what, what's getting the most attention from your readers? What are you seeing the most focus on from, from the people who consume the information you put out?Shaun Courtney: 24:27 Uh, I mean, this, this year there's been a ton of attention on airline safety and, well I should say aircraft safety really because of the, the Boeing crash in the grounding that that has been an important but a distraction to an extent from the agenda. I think that that, that they had had in terms of moving forward on looking at a surface bill. Um, and that's getting a lot of traction, you know, any kind of updates on that because it is a business focused and it's safety focused. You see, you kind of get just a ton of interest from, from both ends. You know, most people will fly at some point in the next year, you know, air, air traffic, um, has just keep kept increasing. Uh, and so, you know, people are thinking like, am I getting on a plane that's safe, you know? That's something you, you want to know.Shaun Courtney:              25:11                     Um, that's, that's getting a lot of attention. Um, and just because of Harvard leadership, um, anytime I write about something that has to do with the Gateway Project in New York, we get a ton of attention on that. And that's, that's the harbor bridge and tunnel that connects a New Jersey to Manhattan. And they're both in pretty dire straights. But trying to build a second bridge and build another tunnel and excuse me, uh, and, and, um, everybody's kind of saying like, oh, let's get collapsed at some point and trying to get it done. But there's a lot of politics behind that. So like the politics, the, the business in New York that, that's just the natural traffic driver.Host: 25:48 Do you think that's a standoff based on personalities between Schumer and Trump or is policy or,Shaun Courtney: 25:54 I think it's a ton of a standoff between Trump and, um, and she wore it and I think it has become a policy argument because of that. So I think that, um, DOT, you have seen them kind of a pull back a little bit on funding for transit projects and, and rail investment, um, especially in urban areas. And part of that was trying to choke off the funds for the Gateway Project and it happened to be that that also affected other cities. And then there wasn't necessarily a distaste for that. Oh. Among some conservative members and, and within the administration. So, um, it's kind of a little bit of both.Host: 26:32  Yeah, it seems like that could be a, I almost see that as a linchpin. You solve gateway and then we might have a clear path for a lot of infrastructure.Shaun Courtney: 26:43 Oh yeah. I think so. But I mean that's like a, that's the personality and then that's, that's the big question with the president. So, um, yeah, I mean, I think that if Schumer could get gateway covered, I don't know. I don't know. What do you give up for that? And I don't know. I mean, I think that he'd get a lot of pressure from Pelosi and others not to give like the wall for that. Um, but it is a huge issue for him and it's become very personal.Host: 27:07 Yeah. It's really interesting, the dynamics in Washington when it comes down to this stuff because it's, it's, it's the same groups that a lot of, a lot of institutional memory and there's a lot of, you know, this was when things get really personal or regional because everybody kind of wants to have their money or in their projects and their in their region.Shaun Courtney: 27:24 Right.Host: 27:25 Which goes back to the idea of earmarks because that was the easiest way. WRDA was easy to do when you had were earmarks and you had to kind of reinvent the wheel in a, in a post earmark environment and then, you know, used to have these bills. And do you see any inkling of a return to, you know, project specific funding?Shaun Courtney: 27:45 You know, uh, Chairman DeFazio is very open to that idea and was trying to get that approved early on that there could be earmarks. And Nita Lowey who's the head of appropriations, um, essentially said, no, we're not gonna do that. Um, but it's possible that he might get a special permission to be able to do that for a surface bill. Um, and, and he said he wants to do it differently from how they were done before. And it would be very transparent that each member would put on, uh, like post online, what they're requesting, their justification for it, have some sort of numbers from their state DOT's saying why this was something that they needed and, and, uh, how much local money was going into it. So that, so that if anybody had any questions, they could, they could see, you know, how the, how the sausage was getting made, essentially.Host: 28:30  I didn't, I didn't realize that that was, that was in the offing - a possible dispensation.Shaun Courtney: 28:36 Yeah. I mean he's talked about it and we'll see what it comes down to in the end. Um, but I haven't heard him close that door entirely. And, um, the idea that he might be able to get it just for a specific bill is interesting. Uh, it might've been easier or it might be easier if it's a bill that the president's backing. Right. Um, and so there's, there's, uh, you know, everything is in question. Um, but, um, I, I have not heard him completely closed.Host: 29:03 Well that's, that's, that's going to be interesting to see how that develops as well as everything else from appropriations to president and where he stands on things, the 2020 campaign and whether anybody's, I mean other than John Delaney, you know, coming out with his plan, right. If anyone else is going to be coming out with something and then just, you know, the clock is ticking on the schedule. We're getting close to August and then you know, things get a little bit tight.Shaun Courtney:  29:27 I know it, it's possible maybe September but um, everybody kind of thinks after that we're not going to see much activity. And so then do we get a extension on a surface bill or, or what happens and, and that's a big question I think that everybody has in our minds. Do you want to be in the same situation you are a couple of years ago where you're just doing an extension extension extension, right? Right. Yeah, exactly. And that didn't really work well with the FAA bill for a while cause it, we kept on doing that. It was just like, you know, plugging, plugging a hole and then call in and didn't create any stability or predictability for people to be able to plan out longterm projects. This is your members now, these things you need the predictability of the funding stream.Host: 30:04 Absolutely. Well, there's going to be a lot to look at. Um, and the news is going to be developing quickly. Uh, and you can definitely catch, uh, Shaun's reporting on this because you know, she'll be on top of it as it develops. So really, um, and also on Twitter, what's your Twitter handle again? It says, @SCourtneyDC. So follow her on Twitter, read her reporting in Bloomberg, um, and just, you know, stay on top of it because things can change very quickly in Washington and especially these days. You don't know what's going to happen from week to week. So, um, uh, Shawn, thank you again for coming on the show. Thanks for having me. And, uh, we'll be, uh, keeping watch on, uh, what happens in Washington.  

Co-hosts Howard Marlowe and Dan Ginolfi bring us the latest coastal news and analysis from inside the Beltway. This month, we dive into the Disaster Supplemental, discuss the Democrats big infrastructure plans, and the new WRDA guidelines.

Peter A. Ravella and Tyler Buckingham welcome Howard Marlowe and Dan Ginolfi to the show from Washington DC to introduce ASPN's newest show, the Waterlog Podcast. Howard and Dan are experts in the realm of Federal coastal policy and help local governments from across the American shoreline understand and successfully navigate this complicated and confusing - yet critically important - universe. Subjects discussed: expectations for the lame duck period; the NFIP extension; what's on the WRDA radar; the 2019 Corps work plan and process; and, what we can expect to be covered in future episodes of the Waterlog Podcast.

Week 5 Playbook: Vero Beach expecting stiff test from Pahokee: http://bit.ly/2xDij53 'Don’t know that there’s any guidebook' to deal with football player's death: http://bit.ly/2pbJb8l Memorial vigil held for Kamaree Lyons, Sebastian River student who died after basketball game https://bit.ly/2MR0dCb Environmental Learning Center expands mission, wants more people to get involved https://bit.ly/2PR33sA Body of missing man found at Stuart marina https://bit.ly/2xADQv7 EAA reservoir: Brian Mast urges Senate to approve WRDA, saying Stuart is 'literally dying' https://bit.ly/2xBxJXx

In this exclusive audio clip, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, explains why the Senate passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), is important for farmers in Oklahoma.

In this exclusive audio clip, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, explains why the Senate passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), is important for farmers in Oklahoma.

As House and Senate leaders head into a farm bill conference meeting this week, Sen. Amy Klobuchar provides keen insight on the negotiations. She says the challenge is to merge the reductions in spending, contained in the House of Representatives Farm Bill, with the more moderate reductions in the Senate bill and to mediate those provisions in the final bill. She discusses the prospect of rolling the entire farm bill into a larger budget bill and how large a reduction there can be in nutrition spending without risking a presidential veto. Finally, she discusses a provision of the WRDA bill that would permanently close the Upper St. Anthony Lock on the Mississippi River to block Asian Carp from penetrating northern Minnesota rivers and lakes.Sen. Amy Klobucharklobuchar.JPG