Engineering Influence from ACEC
Episodes
Tuesday Mar 07, 2023
Tuesday Mar 07, 2023
We were joined by Joe Bates with the ACEC Research Institute to review the newly released Q1 2023 Engineering Business Sentiment Study available at www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
Thursday Feb 23, 2023
Thursday Feb 23, 2023
On this episode of the Government Affairs Update, we are joined by Dave Bender, VP of Political Affairs at ACEC, and Nando Gomez, our VP of Strategic Initiatives, to discuss the road ahead for Congress and what to expect in the lead-up to the 2024 races.
Engineering Influence is brought to you by the ACEC Retirement Trust.
Wednesday Feb 15, 2023
Wednesday Feb 15, 2023
ACEC has joined the American Public Works Association and the American Society of Civil Engineers on a nationwide Engineering and Public Works Roadshow to demonstrate the essential value of engineering by spotlighting successful examples of design. In this episode of the Engineering Influence podcast, the three leaders of these organizations discuss how the Roadshow came about, its goals, its first event, and what is to come in 2023.
Featured in this podcast are:
Linda Bauer Darr, President & CEO, the American Council of Engineering Companies
Scott Grayson, CEO, the American Public Works Association, and
Tom Smith, Executive Director, the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Learn more about the Roadshow at www.infrastructureroadshow.org
Thursday Jan 26, 2023
Thursday Jan 26, 2023
ACEC Board Chair W. Arthur Barrett II was in our Washington office for new officer orientation this week, so we asked him to join the podcast to give an update on what ACEC is doing and what 2023 has in store for the Council.
Friday Dec 17, 2021
Friday Dec 17, 2021
Congressman Don Bacon (NE-2) and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) joined the program for a discussion about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and their votes that helped pass a generational investment in the built environment.
Transcript:
ACEC:
Welcome to the Engineering Influence podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, I am very pleased to be bringing you two members of Congress who were instrumental in helping get the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act across the finish line. Congressman Don Bacon, representing Nebraska's Second Congressional District, and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, representing Pennsylvania's First Congressional District, join us today on the show. As a matter of introduction, Congressman Bacon was elected in 2016 and represents Nebraska's second congressional District. Now prior to serving in the House,, Congressman Bacon served as an officer in the Air Force, specializing in electronic warfare intelligence and reconnaissance. He served 16 assignments with the Air Force, including four deployments in the Middle East, including Operation Iraqi Freedom. He retired with the rank of Brigadier General and currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agricultural Committee.
ACEC:
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick represents Pennsylvania's First Congressional District. Prior to his election, he served as both an FBI special agent and as a federal prosecutor fighting both domestic and international political corruption and supporting global counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts, including being embedded with U.S. Special Forces as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the 117th Congress, Brian was elected co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, having previously served as the vice-chair. He is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment, and Cyber, and was appointed by House Leadership to currently serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as a Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission. Additionally, Congressman Fitzpatrick serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a committee near and dear to our hearts. Thank you both for joining us today.
ACEC:
I'd like to start off, with Congressman Bacon first, and then Congressman Fitzpatrick. For our audience, who may not be well acquainted with Nebraska or Pennsylvania, can you tell us a little bit about your districts?
Congressman Bacon:
My district is Omaha and the south suburbs, so we have about 700,000 in about a county and a half, but it's really Omaha suburbs. In the next cycle, with redistricting, I gain another county. It's an urban/suburban community. It's one of the most purple districts in the country, officially R plus one. It's a railroad junction and an interstate junction, so it's very infrastructure intensive.
ACEC:
And Congressman Fitzpatrick. I have to admit full transparency. I am from Doylestown, Pennsylvania, so I am Bucks County all the way. Of course I remember it fondly as the Eighth Congressional District, but tell us a little bit about the First.
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
I didn't know you were from Doylestown, but I knew you're familiar with the area. So, the First District is the Philly suburbs. It's all Bucks County, which is the county just to the north of the city line of Philadelphia. The southern part of my district borders the city line of Philadelphia. The entire east side of my district borders, the river, crossing over into New Jersey. And then about 12 percent of my district is the adjacent county to the west Montgomery County. So I have sort of the central part, that's adjacent to Bucks County. Lke Don, we have about 740,000 constituents or so,. We're actually losing a district in Pennsylvania, going to 18 to 17, so my district will grow by about another 40,000 or so.,
ACEC:
Do you think you're going to grow west or north?
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
There are two maps. The House came out with a map that has me expanding my Montgomery county piece, and the State Senate came out with a map that has me picking up Northeast Philadelphia and also the northwestern part of Montgomery county. So two very different districts,
ACEC:
But two districts that were rely heavily on our infrastructure and the built environment. One of the things that I think is important to note here--and we hear it from our members, because I think that the way that this bill came to the floor and the way that House Leadership decided to tie the president's larger agenda together and to tie the infrastructure plan to Build Back Better--is that there's some misinformation out there that this is Build Back Better. It's not. This is a separate bill. This is hard infrastructure funding, that's both reauthorized funding and additional funding above that. There's some misunderstandings about the bill. What are the things you're hearing from your constituents that you really want to clarify, or misconceptions that you'd like to dispel?
Congressman Bacon:
I'll start off. Initially--and I think both Brian and I had this--we heard probably about 90 percent of the criticism was that it was a Build Back Better bill. Folks would say, "Hey, this bill passed amnesty for 11 million adults. You voted to support removing the Hyde Amendment and all the things that are in the Build Back Better bill." And I think we've done a pretty good job of poking that down. Another thing we heard was that only 10 percent of the bill is hard infrastructure, and that is not true. In fact, I've gone through it. I would say 94 percent of that bill is hard infrastructure. The rest of is doing toxic site cleanup on federal lands, which is also needed, by the way. And then we also heard this is a victory for Joe Biden. I think it's a victory for our country, a nd it could have been a victory for Republicans if our leadership would have responded more smartly, just to be blunt about it.
Congressman Bacon:
And I think the other area, which is more legitimate, is just worries about the deficit, and that's a legitimate area that we could go into. I have some perspectives on it, but those are the main areas of criticism, But early on, it was all Build Back Better. They are two totally separate bills, and which Brian and I both opposed. And in fact, Build Back Better has not passed yet out of the Senate, and it's probably going to be greatly changed by the time it does
ACEC:
Congressman, what are you hearing from your constituents in Pennsylvania?
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
Not surprisingly, all of us kind of heard the same thing. Don spelled it up perfectly. People confused and conflating the two different bills, which are two separate distinct bills. How anybody could argue that they're linked is beyond me. First of all, the Senate passed it on August 10th. House Leadership refused to put it on the floor because they weren't linking them, they were holding one hostage for another, and that's very different. But it passed and it's now signed into law, and the Build Back Better programs' fate remains very uncertain, at best. It has not been voted on. It has not been signed into law. A version was voted on in the House, which is dead on arrival in the Senate. That was more or less a messaging bill because reconciliation has to start in the House, so they just sent something over there to start the volley. But these bills are not linked.
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
In fact, I would submit to you, and you don't need to take my word for this, the moderate Democrat senators who are going to be outcome determinative in what, if any, passes the Senate with regard to reconciliation have told us that the passage of this bill actually will, in the worst case, lower the price tag significantly of the reconciliation bill, if not, obliterate it all together. So that's the reality. And yet there were so many people--and Don knows this--so many people who wanted to vote for this. The reason they didn't was because the politics wouldn't let them. And myself and Don and many of our other colleagues refused to allow politics to dictate how we vote. The easy thing to do would be to vote "No," and just go "Rah, rah, go party," right? That's not what we're about. We came here to help our country. And Don is absolutely right. If this would've been played the right way, this could have been a bipartisan victory altogether, but you can't make policy decisions based on who we win or loses politically. It's gotta be about whether America wins or loses. And if that bill came up tomorrow, I'd vote the same way.
Congressman Bacon:
Good policy is good politics. And our guys should have thought about that. I think in August, our team could have said, we want this bill on the floor right now, and we could have turned it to our advantage, but we, sort of ceded that. But in the end, infrastructure is needed for our GDP, exports, national security, public safety. and, as you mentioned, we haven't had a major investment in infrastructure in 40 years. And I'm the party of Lincoln? Also the party of the transcontinental railroad? And the party of Eisenhower, who did the interstate system? We should have embraced this.
ACEC:
That an important point to make. I mean, largely infrastructure investment has been a Republican core issue. It's constitutional, I remember when I was on TNI staff, we had that up there on the right side of the room, where in the Constitution on post roads, the constitutional underpinning for federal investment in infrastructure. And you're right, between the interstate highway system and the like, it's a core issue, and it was unfortunate to see it tied into this.
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
You hear a lot of talk about the big lie. I say the big lie this month was that only 11 percent of the infrastructure bill was real infrastructure. That is a provably false statement. Why anybody would say that, shame on them. Half of the bill, right off the bat, before we even get into the new parts, half of this bill was a standard five year surface transportation reauthorization, which sailed through the last Congress in 2016, when the GOP held the chamber. This has never been controversial. And the $550 billion supplemental, does so by recapturing unused COVID relief money, recapturing unused state unemployment insurance augmentation--that additional $300 a week that a lot of the state governors returned--and it doesn't open the tax code up at all. And just for comparison, we're talking about $550 billion additional over five years. China last year alone spent $3.7 trillion in infrastructure, outside of China. Outside of their country as part of the Belt and Road initiatives. So no matter how you want to slice this, we should all be focused in on the China issue. And look at it that way as well, because this is an investment in the nuts and bolts of our country.
ACEC:
You look at the numbers. Let's take Nebraska, for example. In the state, you have over 1,300 bridges and over 1,100 miles of highway in poor condition. You have commuting times going up across the country, Pennsylvania and Nebraska alike. You have money that's going to go specifically to improve surface infrastructure, that's going to improve people's lives, make it easier for economic development, open corridors for development, job opportunities, and growth. In our sector alone, we're looking at about 82,000 in direct employment, new jobs that will be created. And all the tax base that comes from that. If we don't invest in our surface infrastructure, we're we're pretty much shooting ourselves in the foot from a global competitive standpoint. During your discussions with your members and Congressman Fitzpatrick, I know you're part of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and you look at the issues. Did that resonate? Was there an understanding that this does actually create jobs and opportunity?
Congressman Bacon:
Absolutely. In our district, we have some of the largest trucking companies in the country. We also have the largest railroad company, Union Pacific. In other words, roads, bridges, railroads and very important.And we have the stuff for airports also in there, but I would also suggest that even the things that aren't part of Nebraska are still important for Nebraska. Ports and locks are very important for agriculture exports. We're one of the leading exporters for agriculture. Nebraska is the largest exporter of beef of all 50 states. It's very important to have good ports and locks for the agriculture sector.
Congressman Bacon:
As I look back, every major industry in Omaha supported this bill. The farm bureau were very much in support. The cattlemen. You had the Chamber, all the building trades were there. It's interesting to have unions and chamber together on this bill. The manufacturers were for it, the equipment operators and the equipment distributors. I can go through every major industry there, and they were supportive of this. But all of them, for the most part, maybe there were one or two exceptions, opposed the Build Back Better bill. So the business leaders and the economic folks, and the labor folks knew the importance of this bill for Nebraska and what means, and I mentioned to our leadership, you're asking us to oppose a bill that every major industry supports. I took two polls, in both around 70 percent of the citizens supported it. I said, we're on the wrong side of this issue.
ACEC:
Absolutely. And even the funding that's not directly to build roads or to restore bridges, such as resiliency and resilient infrastructure, those are things that also pay dividends into the future. I know anecdotally, you know, there are high rain events up in New York and that goes down the Delaware River and the eastern portion of Bucks County floods. And you have other issues, Congressman Bacon that you experience in Nebraska as well. If we're able to make our infrastructure, not only our surface infrastructure, but our communications and our electrical distribution systems, more resilient, and of course, resilient not just to weather events, but also for cybersecurity, we're going be more secure as a country.
Congressman Bacon:
Nebraska's rated 48th on rural broadband, so we'll benefit there. We have a lot of lead pipes, so the drinking water infrastructure part was also very important. And so literally these aspects of the bill are very important in Nebraska.
ACEC:
I think Nebraska is going to get an allocation of a hundred million dollars for rural broadband. That's a significant investment, especially now post COVID, it's not a luxury anymore. It's a requirement, not just for education, but for economic development,, and that's critically important, Pennsylvania, along the same lines, gets about one hundred million for broadband coverage across the state. There are about 394,000 Pennsylvanians who lack access to broadband, so connecting those people is going to be critically important. Congressman Fitzpatrick, I'll start with you. Is there a project in the district, or an area that you would really like to see improved, transportation-wise for your constituents?
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
Where do we begin? You know our region. The Northeast Corridor has the most infrastructure, the largest infrastructure and also the oldest infrastructure. We're heavily reliant on rail, on bridges, on tunnels, on ports. So certainly there's all of that. Obviously I-95 runs through our district. State routes, like 611, run through our district. But one that not many people realize, bit both me and my brother before me are very focused on the PFAS issue. There is a big PFAS remediation component to this. That's been a huge issue for the central part of our district, the area in and around, the Willow Grove Naval Air Station, where you had these AFFF firefighting foams that have PFAS and PFOA in it that have just wreaked havoc on the water supplies of so many people in that region. A big part of this bill finally addresses PFAS remediation, which was the big component of that problem. So the central part of our district is going to benefit tremendously from this.
ACEC:
Absolutely. That's been an issue for decades. And finally having that addressed is a significant real-life community improvement. It's going to impact people's lives, without question. Congressman Bacon, for your constituents, what do you see?
Congressman Bacon:
Well, our constituents are going to see benefits primarily in roads and bridges. As you said, we have 1,300 bridges that are in Nebraska, and some of those are right around Omaha. So the roads, the bridges, the rail, the airport funding is all going to have a direct impact. And of course for the rest of Nebraska, the rural broadband will be there. We have a lot of lead pipes in Omaha that we have to switch out. So there's 200 million to replace the lead pipes for drinking water. And that's also going be a big deal for our district.
Congressman Bacon:
But as already mentioned, I think more broadly, the ports and locks. They're not connected to Nebraska, but boy they're certainly connected to our economy. And I've got to give a lot of our folks back home this little tidbit on locks. Our locks are 80 to 90 years old. They're a third of the size of Brazil's that they're putting in right now. And we could grow corn and soybeans, beef and pork, more affordably than anybody else in the world, but if you can't ship it and get it to the right place for exports at a competitive price, you're gonna lose that competitive advantage.So if we want to lead the world in exports in these areas, our logistics have to be updated. And so I think more broadly that it's not just what's being put in our, district; it's our economy as a whole that's impacted.
ACEC:
That's a very good point that you raise. At the beginning of the month, we had a symposium down in Charleston on intermodal and logistics. Essentially dealing with all the supply chain pressures that we're having and experiencing now. The point you raise is a good one. When people of think of ports, you think, okay, you've got Long beach, you've got Charleston, and you have a couple of seaside ports. But you also have your inland ports. You have the importance of having a strong logistics system to actually move goods to market, so farmers in Nebraska can export out from areas on the East Coast. It's critically important. And it helps keep America competitive, and especially competitive in a fairly competitive global agriculture market. Congressman Fitzpatrick, you're a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This was, of course, a major accomplishment on that side of the committee's jurisdiction. Coming up, I believe the committee might be considering another Water Resources Development Act bill. What do you see coming up from the committee?
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
Water is something that they wanted to take on separately for a whole host of reasons. I don't know where that's going to stand now that we just passed a major infrastructure rebuild, if this is gonna be what's next for them or not. I know for Congress as a whole, obviously there are some other things that they're focused on right now. I can tell you our Problem Solvers are very focused on issues regarding the Chinese communist party and issues regarding the semiconductor industry, which is incredibly important. If we fall behind in that industry, we've got major problems going forward. Whoever owns the semiconductor industry is going to own the future. And that's not just with regard to jobs. Literally everything we use is now computerized and digitized, including vehicles, including everything, and we used to produce 35 to 40 percent of the world's semiconductor supply. We're now at 12 percent; Europe is at 8 percent. Asia is 70 percent, and of that 70 percent, 30 percent is in Taiwan. So that's obviously one of the many reasons why we have to keep our eye on the situation over there. Our caucus met with Pat Gelsinger, the CEO of Intel, a great domestic semiconductor producer and manufacturer. And he's begging us, to just allow them to be competitive in this country, both through our tax code, our regulatory code and things like the CHIPS Act, where we're going to infuse and invest in that industry, given how important it is to our future. So that's what I see as coming up next.
ACEC:
And again there's always an infrastructure angle. When I was with Congressman Schuster back in the ninth district of Pennsylvania, right in the center of the state, we would say, you don't get economic development unless you flush a toilet. You're not going to attract a manufacturing base, unless there is the infrastructure. and not just the surface infrastructure to get employees to their work, but to get distribution there. That's what attracts it. So, if we're able to build out and make it easier for goods to get the market, we might be able to attract more domestic manufacturing and have that stay in the United States. But you're right, tied to that is a favorable regulatory and tax environment. Congressman Bacon, what do you see coming up coming up next?
Congressman Bacon:
On the infrastructure front, I'll defer to Brian on that, because he's on that committee. For me, I have a lot of infrastructure in the Hass that we have to continue working on. We have five bases that were destroyed through hurricanes or floods or earthquakes. So we're continuing to try to get these five bases back up to speed. So, that's our military infrastructure. But if you look at what we did with this bill, and I've looked at some studies, I think we only bought about half of what we needed to do. It's a good half, and we're gonna work that half and it's going to take four or five years to get this money spent. But we have to realize that we only paid off about half of what it's going to take to get our infrastructure back up to speed.
Congressman Bacon:
One of the studies I was looking at, and we have to be candid here--and Brian touched on this before--right now we're spending 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure. Europe is at 5 percent, and China is at 9 percent. I think we have to reevaluate how we're going to do this over the long haul. It shouldn't just be a four-year bill, and okay, now we've caught up. I think we probably need to readjust our baseline for what we need to be doing for infrastructure. If you look back over 40 years, for the first 20, we were sort of hanging even, but when you look at the last 20, the gas tax has not kept up with the costs. Inflation has eroded the gas tax revenues, but the roads have gotten more costly to fix. And so, over the last 20 years, we've fallen behind pretty quickly. And so I think we have to reevaluate. What do we want to do to keep up with our infrastructure? We shouldn't just say to put duct tape on it and fix it, but let's find a way to sustain it.
ACEC:
Absolutely. And then the growth of electric car market, of course that doesn't directly pay into the user fee. And you have to look at different innovative financing tools to do that.
Congressman Bacon:
Our miles-per-gallon used to be 15 miles per gallon or something. Now a lot of cars, especially with the hybrids it's double or triple that. And so we're bringing in a lot less gas revenue. And you're right, electrical cars are not paying in at all. And our roads and highways, in the meantime, are taking a beating. Amd our bridges. So we've got to figure out how to fix it.
ACEC:
It's a good thing that we have two good members of Congress who are actually going to be working on the problem, doing the problem solving, and moving good policy forward. And for that, we do appreciate both of your leadership,
Congressman Bacon:
Brian is our fearless leader on the Problem Solvers. He's Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Fitzpatrick:
And Don's our fearless leader on Main Street.
ACEC:
It's nice because we hear so much about discord and disagreement in Congress, but there are members who are focused on tackling the problems that we face and creating solutions. I think that what you mentioned at the outset, that good policy like this should carry a lot of other members to support it. So your leadership is a welcome thing these days.
Congressman Bacon:
If you read about Abraham Lincoln, he was a big follower of Henry Clay and Henry Clay wanted the American system, which was focused on waterways and roads. And they took a lot of heat from the other party. If you look at the arguments back then, they're almost the same now. Our country needs to be tied together well, and again, it's all about interstate commerce.
ACEC:
I do appreciate your time today. It's getting close to the Christmas season, and everybody's trying to get their last things done and votes in, so I do appreciate it. Thank you very much for supporting the legislation. Of course, the engineering industry is very interested in getting to work on delivering on the funding that's been passed in the bill. And I do appreciate both of your time today. Thank you. And again, this has been the Engineering Influence podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. We'll see you real soon.
Friday Aug 20, 2021
Friday Aug 20, 2021
On this week's Government Affairs Update, we are joined by Rodney Slater, former Transportation Secretary under the Clinton Administration and Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Both are now with Washington, DC lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs. In a wide ranging conversation, we cover the status of infrastructure in Congress, how Secretary Buttigieg is doing, and the what lies ahead for Speaker Pelosi in the House as it returns from the August recess.
Transcript:
Host:
Welcome to the Government Affairs Update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, we are very pleased to bring you two experts when it comes to infrastructure to get some interesting perspectives on what's happening right now in Washington, as the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure moves from the Senate over to the House. And I'm joined today by Secretary Rodney Slater and former Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster, both of whom are right now with Squire Patton Boggs in Washington, DC. Secretary Slater was Transportation Department Secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Chairman Shuster, in full disclosure, I used to work with Chairman Shuster while he was Chairman of the T&I Committee. Both bring extensive experience here. And I thank you both for joining us today on the program. Thank you very much for coming on.
Secretary Slater:
Thank you.
Host:
I want to start off actually with you Chairman Shuster, because this is, this is kind of an interesting situation we find ourselves in because you spent a significant amount of time and energy as both a member of T&I, and then also as Chairman in pushing a long-term, substantive infrastructure bill beyond just highway authorization. How does it feel seeing this now to be so close to such a generational investment in infrastructure?
Chairman Shuster:
Well, I think it's good. The bill is, is this large - a trillion dollars, it has some positive, real positive things in it. Like for instance, taking the cap off the PABs, that is one thing they've done. They've done some procurement reforms in it. That's positive. And they've also put in a section, I think it's a hundred million dollars that goes to states and locals to help them analyze a big job, big projects, to see if it makes more sense to use the private sector dollars or to or to stay with traditional government programs. And I think that's a thing because I think they're going to find in many cases it may be a little bit cost higher up front, but when you get the private sector involved over a period of time, it usually drives the cost down because the private sector is very much focused on that.
Chairman Shuster:
They did some things in there that I wish they would have eased up on. Some of them, they put some regs in there too, and I believe it's going to make it a little more difficult to build roads and bridges because of some of the things that they put back in or increased. But I think overall the fact that it's a bipartisan bill, it's got a pretty big number. It includes some things that haven't been traditional like broadband, which I think is is something that you've got Republican support for. I just wish my good friend, Peter DeFazio, he didn't, he wasn't able to get a bipartisan bill out of the house. And, and I think we've seen over the last 20, 30 years at Secretary Slater knows transportation bills when they come out on a bipartisan way they pass. And that's what we've seen in the Senate. And I think the House will take it up to pass it also.
Host:
And Secretary Slater, I mean, looking at this bill and how expansive it is and how it goes beyond your traditional roads, bridges and highways and rail systems and the like, you know, what, how, what do you think this means, you know, for the economy?
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. Well, first of all, Jeff, I'm excited about the bill. I mean, it's taken them a long time to make infrastructure week something other than, you know, a tagline to a conference without the action to go along with it. And so I applaud the President, you know, I know the Vice President was involved, and clearly other members of this team Steve Richetti in particular and the entire Congress for really working hard to pull this off. Now I say the entire Congress. So you know, I'm being cautiously optimistic here, but I think with the momentum built by the action of the Senate, that that's a real possibility and I'm, I'm excited about it. I echo the sentiments that the chairman noted about the differences in this bill as relates to bills in the past. You know, this focus on broadband is just essential in this day in time.
Secretary Slater:
And especially in this post pandemic era that we're trying to bring online, but I also applaud the leaders for really giving us a bill that has a lot more resilience focus to it, sustainability focused dealing with some of the climate challenges we face and then issues as relates to equity. And so I think that it's a bill that is future oriented future leaning. There are those who might argue that more needs to be done clearly the Democrats and any Republican that might have that belief will have an opportunity to deal with that with the with the other measures that are being put forward. But when it comes to really doing something that is akin to what we've done in the past, and then sort of building back better, I think that this is an answer to that to that challenge,
Host:
You know, Secretary, you bring up a good point because one of the words has been used a lot is the question of resiliency, and it's just not resiliency against extreme weather, but it's also resiliency for critical infrastructure against external threats. I mean, we're seeing a significant increase in the number of cyber-attacks on computer systems and just critical hard infrastructure. And Chairman you also did a lot of work at T& I on pre-disaster mitigation getting the dollars there and getting things done before the next storm hits before the next tropical storm turns into a hurricane. Do you think the bill does enough? If not, you think that, that, what, what do you think needs to be done in addition, you know, to really what we're looking at here in this bipartisan agreement to really strengthen our infrastructure? Let's start with the Chairman.
Chairman Shuster:
I think the bill does. A good bit in it to help with resiliency, which, you know, as we were talking about back on the committee of how do we build things before they collapse or hurricane blows them down or whatever the case may be. And at the end of the day, you save money by building these things stronger, being able to withstand a catastrophic weather event. So I think it's positive. I think that there, there needs to be more streamlining to get these things done because I just, I feel that as we did in the past, we run into these hurdles to build these things faster and more effectively. But I think overall, it's, it's a, it's a positive thing. It isn't enough, probably not, but it all depends on what if the hurricanes and the tornado seasons and the earthquake seasons and the fire seasons over the next coming years looks like. But I, I think it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Secretary Slater:
I agree with that. And Jeff, if I may, I, I think that the members of the Council really have a big role to play here. I mean, this is not something that's across the finish line just yet, but you know, engineering companies that are in the business of giving us the kind of system we need and deserve going forward, actually spending the resources in a proper way. You have a lot to say about this bill about it's, I mean, people may say shortcomings. I just think it's to be applauded the fact that we've gotten it done. There are other things that could have been done. Maybe a bit more here or there that can be done later. We shouldn't allow the perfect to sort of distract us from the, from the good, and this is a good, good start.
Secretary Slater:
And when it comes to the issue of you know, security and cyber concerns, I mean, we, there's a report in today's paper about the rail system in Iran, possibly being attacked by cyber-attacks. And then just a few months ago some pipeline here in the US and also a ferry system up in the in the Northeast. So we've got these issues to be concerned about, and I'm very pleased, and we're starting to really come to grips with this, both the public and the private sectors to do something about it.
Host:
Yeah. You raise a good point, especially with the rail system in Iran. I mean as some of our larger firms and actually a lot of our medium-sized firms as well, you know, it's a question of designing the best infrastructure possible. And usually today, that means with the rise of AI and machine learning and the like, intelligent transportation systems, which are networked, which are, you know, have to talk to each other that are open up to potential external threat. So the question is designing it in such a way where it's hardened.
Host:
And you're correct to the point that it's good, that we're having the conversation that, that this has to be. And also the fact that our firms are designing not for what is today, but what will be 20 years, 30 years down the line, the bridge is going to last a hundred years for the building on a shore that's going to potentially see a sea level you rise or, or erosion from the beach.
Host:
And those are all things that, of course our members are very concerned about. On the question to pay-fors because this is something which is interesting because when we got the framework, when everybody's wondering, okay, how are we going to pay for this thing? And then through the debate and the amendment debate, you know, they really considered everything from unspent COVID dollars to changing regulations on reporting requirements on cryptocurrencies, but what wasn't really talked about a lot with the user fee and, and, you know, Chairman Shuster, I know, you know, from my experience with you, it was always that simple, very basic argument of saying that if you use the roadways, you should pay into keeping them in good repair, and that user fee consideration. Secretary Slater, you were with the Clinton administration. Of course I was the last time the tax, the gas tax was actually addressed. It seems like we're getting further away from the idea of that user fee model. What do you both see as the future of, of infrastructure funding chairman you know, where do you see things moving?
Chairman Shuster:
Think it's, first of all, look, we made a mistake when the Republicans controlled the house in 2005, I guess when we passed safety loo we, when we were doing this big tax bill, I, you know, what the leadership and try to convince them, instead of giving the average American a $2,000 cut in their taxes, let's do $1,800 or $1,750 and, and deal with the gas tax because that is a user fee. And again, I think they missed the opportunity not to do the user or the gas tax forever, but to do it for a period of time that they can't implement, implement something that's different. And that would be miles travel tax. And they, they, they put some big, they expanded the pilot program, but I really think they were going to be dealing in five years with how are we going to fund the next transportation bill?
Chairman Shuster:
And with this bill, they had to back fill the highway trust fund shortage. It's like $120 billion, and that's going to just keep growing. So, you know, and it's, I believe as a conservative that as you pointed out at the beginning, if you're going to use the system, you need to pay into the system. And I'll just say this for rural America, where I come from, the average, every dollar that a rural community puts in, they get back about a $1.70. So it's a pretty good benefit for rural America for roads and bridges being built across their communities.
Host:
And we also saw last year the number of states that took it upon themselves to increase their own state gas tax that state after state, you know, did something to improve the amount of revenue that was coming in to their own coffers. And no one seemed to pay that political price that everybody expected, that, that idea that boogeyman of saying, if you raise the gas tax, you're going to lose an election. At least the state level never actually materialized. Right?
Chairman Shuster:
I was going to add, I think that number's up to about 35. Yeah. Have done it. And then the real test case was California. Two years ago, I guess was two years ago. Was it less than a year, I guess was a year ago they had it on the ballot and they rejected repealing the gas tax, something like 57 to 43. So, you know, people understand, they want the roads and bridges to be uncongested and they don't want to bust their tires, break a tire, damage their vehicles. So I think people get it if you, if you pitch it in the right way.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. You know, I, I agree with the Chairman on this. And I, I would say, I was thinking about actually Kentucky, Arkansas, some of the other Southern states in particular where Southern governors, you know, have stepped forward to move these measures.
Secretary Slater:
I was pleased to hear about the reference to California. I mean, I think it makes the case that it's happening across the country. I would offer this in defense of the of the Biden administration in this regard. I think what the president is attempting to do is to sort of rebalance things. And he recognizes that there has been this inequity in the system where frankly, the burden of progress is placed on the shoulders all too often of those who can, you know, either least pay or have the hardest time paying. And I think what he's trying to do here is to say, look, we're not going to raise the tax burden of anyone making less than 400,000 as a couple. That's, that's pretty significant. And so he did not want to raise the gasoline tax for that purpose.
Secretary Slater:
Did not want to go with vehicle miles traveled for that purpose. And I think where he finds himself at this point, it probably is a policy. That is a good one. Now I don't think that it closes the door always to an increase in use of fees. I think it probably such it up where it, at a time in the future, it'll be a lot fairer to maybe do some of that. And I see that, that time coming, but I can see why the president would want to, at this point have significant lines in the sand about what he would and would not want to see. And then, you know, frankly keep his powder drive when it comes to negotiating at an end point where, you know, you have to find closure on these things. And so I think that's a pretty good position to take.
Secretary Slater:
I will note this too, that Jeff you're right, that during the early days of the Clinton Administration, the gasoline tax was raised but the president would note that he made the case that it should be raised to deal with the deficit to put our economic house in order in balance. And then four years later was actually when we had the resources transferred from the general fund to the highway fund. So as to take advantage of that 4.3% increase in the gasoline tax. So it was done in a two-step kind of fashion. And it may be that with the passage of time, we may get to a point where we can support more funding for infrastructure through user fees. I agree with that. But I also think we should test any number of other options too. And I know the chairman agrees with this because we've talked about things like an infrastructure bank. We've talked about other public private financing techniques. I mean, putting it all on the table and then selecting those that best fit the moment is the proper course, I believe.
Host:
It seems like today with the amount of innovative financing available that there are a lot more opportunities to break away from the paradigm of just a simple, you know, either a lockbox highway trust fund, or just all always pulling from the general fund to instead look at other options - P3's whether it's capture or that investment, the reinvestment of potential, you know, I forget exactly what was called chairman, but it was something that you were talking about when you were chairman. It was, it was when, when we bring somebody in to buy something or to lease out an airport....
Chairman Shuster:
Asset recycling.
Host:
Yeah, exactly. How a P3 or asset recycling, something like that. In your conversations with people in government in and out, is that something which seems to be gaining some traction?
Chairman Shuster:
I think you're always going to have to have some kind of governmental component, whether it's a fed state putting money into it, because these deals we're seeing around the beltway here in Washington, DC, I think the Virginia invested about 20% of the money into it to get a cost down where they wouldn't have enormous tolls on those, on those hot lanes or fast lanes. But so I think there's always that component that will always be there, but I think yes, looking at things like an infrastructure bank and because we look at an infrastructure bank and we've been pushing this during this bill, they almost had a piece. It was a very scaled back version of, there was a infrastructure finance financing agency was small and they, they finally pulled it out the end, unfortunately, but I think, you know, folks in your community the ACEC they deal with these TIFIA and RIFF programs.
Chairman Shuster:
And every time I talked to a contractor engineer, they tell me it takes 14 to 16 months to get through this process and it's painful and it's cost a lot of money. And so I think having a true infrastructure bank based on the federal home loan bank, it's a real bank, it's independent chartered by the federal government. They're going to be, they can make loans in 90 to 120 days. And if it's a good project or not, and it's only going to be a component of the, just like a P3 is a component of the financing package. So I think it's time for us to really look at these other ideas, asset recycling where it makes sense. And again, as the Secretary said, what comes next is probably a vehicle miles traveled, but we've got all kinds of barriers and hurdles because folks don't want somebody tracking them. But as far as my son, when he was in his early twenties, he held up his iPhone and said, they're tracking every moment of the day.
Host:
You're being tracked one way or another.
Secretary Slater:
And Jeff, Jeff, can I just say this, I should have mentioned earlier that even when we increased the gasoline tax and the chairman's father was actually in the Congress along with a former secretary and Congressman Norman Mineta. I mean Jim Oberstar, I mean, just a wonderful group of individuals on the House side. I mentioned the House because I want to put the heat on the House to do what the Senate has done that. But, but they also really gave us tools to create some of these innovative financing programs. The chairman mentioned the TIFIA program, the RIFF program, all of that came into being at that time. And again, it was because of a good piece of legislation that gave federal highways and federal transit and all the Department of Transportation and others, the Treasury the ability to, with the private sector to gain insights about how we might fashion programs that resulted in those programs. I think that there are likely to be some measures that can be used in this bill. Even though, you know, it may not be as clear now that will help us to tap some of those private sector dollars and the private sector ingenuity that you just have to have as a part of an effort like this. And I think ACEC can be a really big part of that of that effort going forward.
Host:
That's, that's a really good point. And thanks for bringing that up because that's something which, you know, our members need to be pretty strong advocates for this, and they need to take, take their own experience from the private sector, work, working with public sector clients and explaining how they can be more efficient. And that's one of the things we always talk about, qualification space selection. It's kind of that idea of saying that
Secretary Slater:
We are at the lowest price exactly. Qualification over, over cost.
Host:
Secretary Slater, let me, let me ask you as a former Secretary of the Department Transportation, right now, how would you, how would you rate the job that Secretary Buttigieg is doing on selling the agenda?
Secretary Slater:
Well, I don't think it could have been express better than in the post today. That was a, a love piece. Although I thought it was, was balanced as well, because it's all teed up. He still has to deliver it. And yet I've talked about that too. I said, you know, it's great to have a president. Who's talking about infrastructure is great to have, you know, the conduit team that you've got with Polly Totenberg and others there to help you make it happen. But at the end of the day, you gotta make it happen. And I thought what was very telling in the article today, and this is what I really want to underscore is the way that he's made himself available. I mean, to Republicans and Democrats this was actually, I thought set up in his hearing where there were so many members who, you know, they had their issues with him and they, you know, they would take him on, I mean, that's the responsibility I think of the Congress to test the administration.
Secretary Slater:
That's what our three branches of government separation of powers. That's what that's all about. But then almost invariably at the end of the round, you would have a member saying, and I hope that you will be able to come to mind my state. I know that the chairman has had that experience and, and, and to have a, a secretary or a member of the administration say that not only am I willing to do it, I look forward to doing it so that we together can be on the ground with your constituents, looking at challenges you face that's what really gets a member's attention. And that's what gains their respect, that rate. And throughout the article, you could just see just any number of people mentioned in that way. And you know, that they don't all have this, that they don't all agree on everything.
Secretary Slater:
And so I think that he is doing a tremendous job. I think that the article was correct in saying that there was always the likelihood that he would be in the president's cabinet or a member of his team where he selected because of the endorsement and the warm endorsement that he gave to Mr. Biden at a very critical time in his campaign. And then the president saying just off the cuff that he reminded him of his son. I mean, all of those things sort of lining up. And then it was noted that he had some interests, but, you know, the president gets a chance to choose. And he said, look, I think that you can best help me and help the country serving in this capacity. And I would say that that the former mayor Pete now, secretary Pete has not disappointed. I'm very, very pleased with the way he's gone about his work. And I think all of these relationships, they're going to pay dividends in the short term and the longterm, and they'll pay dividends for him or his team, and clearly for the the president as well. And so I'm, I'm very, very pleased
Host:
Chairman. You've worked with a number of secretaries. Where would you put him?
Chairman Shuster:
I, well, first I think the, you know, Secretary Slater is right on target saying, I think he's done a pretty good job. He's measured when he speaks to, you know, to the media. He's not, you know, throwing bombs out there, which I think is important, especially on an issue like transportation and infrastructure. I think, I think he's also, he's, he's obviously bright. I think we did. He demonstrate that in the debates, I was always impressed with them. Didn't always agree with where his policies were, but I smart he's young, hopefully that makes him want to think outside the box. It says to the secretary of Slater's point, you got to get it done, man. It's great. You got to having a bill here, but you're the guy that's going to have to make that department start to hum.
Chairman Shuster:
And I think too, that, and this is, I forget who said this - might have been Secretary Slater, or maybe Secretary Skinner said, this is the first time I can remember that the Secretary of Transportation was a presidential candidate. So he's got his own platform of followers. They're saying, Hey Secretary, Pete, you know, we love the guy we were with him when he was running for president. So I think that gives you a whole different platform to be able to get out there and go around the country, but to Secretary Slater's point, he's absolutely right. Going into members' districts, talking to members. I think I think what I've heard from a number of the, at least the moderate Republicans that said, he's great, great access to him, he would call them up. He would, you know, talk, talk through the issues, what they thought were important. So I think that's really important. I know the Secretary Slater did it. I know Ray LaHood did it. You know, through the years I named Sam Skinner, when he would have him out on a conference, he said, he sat down with a members' leadership of the House and the Senate different committees once a month and had breakfast with him. So he, you know, he stayed in touch with him. So I think that's important.
Host:
And I mean, if this does, if he does land this and like you said, you gets it done. He's going to be sitting on, I mean, Jeff Davis from Eno, kind of doing a rack up on Twitter. And it seems like he would have in competitive grant funding, almost the amount will be quadrupled over what is, what is, what has been in the past almost about 24 to $33 billion, depending on exactly what gets through appropriations. I mean, that's a massive war chest to sit on. That's a political weapon as well. Now I think you meet that point, you know, being a former candidate, he's young, he's got aspirations. I, you know, for the Secretary, I mean, how, how, what advice would you give to sit on that record amount of competitive grant funding?
Secretary Slater:
Well, I, I would say it a little differently. I would say Jeff, don't sit on it.
Host:
Yeah. Send it, spend it.
Chairman Shuster:
I would agree the secretary - right out the door.
Secretary Slater:
You know, all of the meetings up to this point where you go out and you say, oh man, this would be a great project to fund, that's one thing. When you can go back a little later with all of those resources and say, this is a great project to fund and we're going to fund it. That's a lot better. First of all, you basically say I'm here with the Congressman who is going to make an important now, because it's all about continuing to build those relationships. And I think that I think the secretary is going to really have a wonderful time with members of his team doing just that. And, and, and frankly, I think he'll be creating opportunities really for the president, the vice-president, you know, maybe even a secretary of grand home and others to do that same thing as well. Because the, the key is to not, you know, it's, it's not to sit on it and it's also not to gloat in it. I mean, it's all about really doing the business of the American people and getting everybody involved. And I, I think as a mayor, he's going to understand a former mayor. He's going to just understand that instinctively.
Host:
And Chairman, I mean, you were great at this. I mean, you made sure both as Chairman and then also back in the ninth district of making sure that everyone at every level of government was included in those announcements, because to underscore the fact that everybody from county commissioner all the way up to member of Congress had a part to play.
Chairman Shuster:
Well and that's the Secretary's point with the department that the Secretary of Transportation, he may not go down to that granular. When you're a member of the House, you need to go to the township supervisors, have them sit in there with you or whoever it is because it's you know, it, it helps it helps everybody out. And so I think this is, as the Secretary said, you get the stuff out the door. And I believe he's going to get it in places that need like rural Pennsylvania, if he does some good work in rural Pennsylvania, the next time around in elections. I mean, the Democrats win Philadelphia and Pittsburgh big, but if they can diminish how big they lose in the, in the center of the state than it, it's better for their candidates. And again, there's, there's good projects out there for everybody to be able to participate.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. And Jeff before, before we go on, I just thought about this. I do think that that Senator Schumer should be given some credit here as well. And I think it was very significant that you had, you know, 19 Republicans, including the minority leader. And I just think you know Majority Leader Schumer and Minority leader McConnell. I just think that they, they deserve a lot of credit here. And I know when the chairman was in office, these were the kinds of victories that you really relish where it was not just the chairman, but it was the ranking member and, you know, the other members of the committee and leadership and really down to the last person coming on because of seniority coming on the committee.
Secretary Slater:
So I think that manifested itself on the, on the Senate side as well. And, and look, you've got that Brent Spence bridge in the Ohio Kentucky area on I-75 that's going to get some attention now, much needed attendance. And that's very important to the constituents in that region.
Chairman Shuster:
And it won't be lost on anybody that Rob Portman was the chief, negotiator.
Secretary Slater:
No doubt about it.
Chairman Shuster:
And he's from the Southwestern and Cincinnati area.
Secretary Slater:
We were honored at one point that he was a member of Squire Patton Boggs too. I think I should, we should say that, you know, years ago,
Host:
Well, I have two final questions. One, I want to ask the Chairman, because now we're looking at the house, we've got the INVEST Act. You made the point that, that it wasn't as bipartisan as previous bills have been at least on the vote total coming out. You know, there's, there's some argument being made about, okay, take the Senate bill up and just get it done. Your experience working across from Chairman DeFazio for a number of years. I mean, he's been very vocal on some areas of policy that are not in the bill, dealing with climate, also dealing with resiliency, do you see him letting leadership kind of move this forward or use without the opportunity to amend it. Or do you think he's going to want to have that formal conference, he's going to want to have the opportunity for the house to put his stamp on it?
Chairman Shuster:
Well, he's already, he's already given up on a conference because he realizes you go to conference and this thing will never get done. So I think it's going to come over. I think there's the potential for being a couple of amendments, but they're going to be very few and they've got to be something that's agreed to by the, basically the 69 senators that voted for it. So it can be things that, you know, are correcting things and maybe the Senate didn't do right. Because that always occurs, but I don't think you're going to see anything major. And I think the DeFazio, Chairman of DeFazio is going to now focus on getting more dollars to put in these different areas that he has that he, that he supports very much. And that'll be some of these things like resiliency. And, but again resiliency and some of the climate change policies, but he can't change the policy and budget reconciliation, but he can plus up plus up the money or pick the money from one to another, but he can't change policy. So I think he's going to be very focused on that.
Host:
And just a state of play question for you both to kind of round out the conversation. So right now the current state of play in the House Speaker Pelosi has floated a dear colleague letter, but essentially says that she wants to try to twin both the budget resolution to the infrastructure bill in the rules package, which means that voting on one is voting on both. That's gotten some pushback from moderate Democrats. How do you see this playing out? Do you think that it is going to be a twofer or do you think that you know, there's going to be an agreement to allow infrastructure to go first and then the budget reconciliation? I mean, how do you see the state of play in the House coming at the end of the month?
Chairman Shuster:
I think she's in a very tough spot. She's got her progressives, they're saying they're not voting for it unless they vote on the big package. And she's got her moderates saying, we're not going to vote on that big package, you need to pair it down. And by the way, we also want to vote on this thing. So I think she's in a really tough spot. She can't afford to lose more than what, three votes, four votes? So she's in a tough spot and I'm not sure how to work out. I don't think it's going to happen. Well, I know for sure it's not going to happen at the end of this month because they're just coming back in the House, to vote for the budget, which will pass. And then they they're coming back September 20th. But I think if she's got this fight to keep them paired some way somehow you know, one goes, first, one goes second kind of thing.
Chairman Shuster:
She'd probably be, I would bet on Nancy to get it done, but I don't think it's going to look the same you know, at the end of August as it does at the end of October. I mean for these two bills. The infrastructure is going to stay basically the same. It's how big the other package will be.
Secretary Slater:
Yeah. You know, I'd pick up on the comments of the Chairman in that regard. I think that if I were going to bet on anyone getting it done, I would bet on the Speaker. But that doesn't mean that you cannot acknowledge that it's going to be a heavy, heavy, heavy lift. I, you know, I just think that first of all, I, I just, I don't think we, and I think, I think she took note of this.
Secretary Slater:
I, I don't think you can just dismiss the significance of the bipartisan vote in the Senate and the size of that vote. I mean, that was, that was very significant. I didn't know that the numbers would be that high. I mean, I would, I was basically counting on 10, 11 maybe. Yeah. But that was it signaled that they would, because I think the highest we got with those who were sort of saying, well, maybe it was about 11. And so I think it bodes well for a number of things that are important to a number of people beyond infrastructure. I mean, I think you've got a criminal justice reform opportunity here. I think you might have something on voting. And I think that you know, the, the Speaker has all of that to navigate and to balance and to negotiate.
Secretary Slater:
And I just think she ultimately gets it done, but it'll be very, very difficult. I'd also like to say just in support of a Chairman DeFazio, I think he's done a tremendous job as well. I think that his effort was necessary, even though it was a little partisan. And I think, you know, it cut against what his natural tendency was. I mean, and that was to work with your Ranking Member to kind of work through, you know, the process in a way that is, you know, institutionally sound and, and frankly an effort, a way that he'd been a part of for so many years. But I think that what he recognized was that he had to really help the Speaker in speaking to the progressive wing of the party in a way that would keep it engaged. And you know, and I think engaged is probably the best way to say it and they are engaged.
Secretary Slater:
Now you've got this process going now where the various you know, parts of the party will express itself and she'll have to hear all of that, not dismiss any of it. And then carefully, you know, bind it all together with, I think the ultimate argument and that is don't let perfect get in the way of the good, I really think that it comes down to that and let us survive for another fight. And, you know, it's, it's acknowledged that some of that fight in the future will have her being supportive of others who will be at the helm. And I think she will say, look, stay with me. And you know, I've just tried to be as open as possible to make sure that all opinions are heard, all arguments are given an airing and I believe this is the best we can do. And I think that's what it ultimately is. That's what the final question is. And then the votes are counted and I don't think you take a breath until the last vote is cast, you know, so, and as, as the chairman said, it's a three vote - I mean, she's got three votes to [inaudible].
Host:
Yeah. Well, it's going to be an interesting end of August. It's been an interesting August to begin with. I mean, so let's, let's get it done. Hopefully this can get this voted on and passed before the beginning of September. And, and that would be a great thing. So I really appreciate your time and your insight because you both been there you've worked on these issues. You have great insight that I know our audience of member firm executives loves to hear. So thank you for taking the time both of you. And of course, Rodney Slater former Secretary of Transportation is a partner at Squire Patton Boggs now. And of course, Chairman Bill Shuster, former Chairman of the House Transportation Infrastructure Committee, and representative of the of the ninth congressional district or the ninth as it were before redistricting - a Senior Policy Advisor at a Squire Patton Boggs as well. And again, this has been the government affairs update from American Council of Engineering Companies. Thanks for being with us. We'll going to see you next time.
Friday Jul 16, 2021
Friday Jul 16, 2021
ACEC was honored to welcome Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA06) to the program to discuss a variety of topics including infrastructure, her work as a founder of the Women in STEM Caucus in the House and her own experience as an engineer in Congress.
During the interview, Rep. Houlahan discussed a number of bills she is working on to get more people into the STEM pipeline, including the STEM RESTART Act, which she introduced along with Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN) and Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), and Mark Kelly (D-AZ), which is aimed at funding mid-career internships, or "returnships" for mid-career workers seeking to re-enter the STEM fields. More information on this legislation can be found here.
Rep. Houlahan is a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, which endorsed the bipartisan agreement on infrastructure. We discussed that, as well as the PPP FAR credits clause issue, which ACEC is heavily engaged on through our advocacy team.
Friday Jul 02, 2021
Friday Jul 02, 2021
On this week's update, Matt Reiffer discusses the House's passage of the INVEST Act and what it means for the larger infrastructure push going on in Congress right now.