current events

ACEC Government Affairs Update for 8-20-21: A Conversation with Former DOT Secretary Slater and T&I Chairman Shuster

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.

Government Affairs Update Special: A Conversation with Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-6)

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.  

The Buildings We Live and Work In: ACEC Research Institute Panel Discussion

This is the second of three roundtables on the future of engineering presented by the ACEC Research Institute. www.acecresearchinstitute.org
The world today is full of extraordinary volatility, yet the engineering industry has risen to the challenge. Uniquely positioned at the forefront of designing buildings for work and home – engineers are solving for the new normal and exploring what is needed for commercial, high-rise, healthcare, and mixed-use buildings of the future. How do we design them? How do we rehab or retrofit them? What is really needed for the future when designing work and living spaces in this new paradigm. Join this exciting panel discussion that explores the future of the buildings we live and work in.
Panelists:
• Dino DeFeo, Managing Partner, AKF
• Peter DiMaggio, Co-CEO, Thornton Tomasetti
• Arathi Gowda, Associate Director, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
• Kate Wittels, Partner, HR&A Advisors
• Moderator: Joseph Bates, ACEC Research Institute
 
Transcript:
Daphne Bryant:
Welcome to our second roundtable in this series, The Future of Engineering. A big thank you to our donors who have made this session possible. We have a great group of thought leaders here today that are going to share their insights and expertise with us on the future of buildings, where we live and work now without further ado. It's my pleasure to introduce two of my colleagues at the ACEC Research Institute, Joe Bates, who will serve as our moderator for today's session and Kevin McMahon, who will be monitoring the chat box and fielding your questions during the session, Joe, it's all yours.
Joe Bates:
Thank you very much, Daphne, and thank you all for joining us today. First, I'd like to introduce you all to each of our panelists. We have Dino DeFeo, who is managing partner at AKF. Dino is a respected and admired leader whose market knowledge and passionate commitment to clients have formed the foundation of a 25 year career. He understands the importance of working as an integral part of a design collective with the express goal of realizing the direct client's vision. We also have with us, Peter DiMaggio, co-CEO of Thornton Tomasetti. Peter is responsible for defining, articulating and driving the firm's strategic vision. In addition to leading the development and execution of the overall business plan, he directs key strategic initiatives, such as identifying new markets and merger and acquisition opportunities, as well as instituting mentorship and professional development programs. I'd also like to welcome Arathi Gowda, who is Associate Director of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Arathi is a team leader for the company's Chicago's performance design group charged with researching new technologies and recommending integrated environmental design solutions that are substantiated with computer simulation for SOM project teams worldwide.
Joe Bates:
And finally, I'd like to welcome Kate Wittels, who is a Partner at HR&A Advisors. Kate specializes on the future of work and how to best shape places, train people and deliver infrastructure to make today's cities ready for tomorrow's opportunities. She creates strategic plans, public private partnerships, policies, and programs to guide governments, developers, and businesses on growing tech and innovation ecosystems in cities around the world. Thank you all very much for joining us today. I'm going to jump right into our questions. It's obviously no surprise that we're living through this pandemic and it's completely changed the way that we live and work. I think we have all within a blink of an eye, had to create new ways of working and communicating and, and some of the participants and viewers who were with us during the pregame show might have heard us talking about some of those challenges we live with. So my first question, I'd like Pete, to start out with Pete, are we going to see a fundamental shift in where we work in the future?
Peter DiMaggio:
I do. I think we're going to see a fundamental shift. What I think is less clear is what that shift actually looks like. Let me give you my example on this right before Kobe, we have about 1500 people and the large majority of them were working in the office. COVID hits. We send as many people as we can almost close to 1500 to work remotely. And early on, it really looked like as we were learning from this, that we were going to have this situation where more and more people want to work remotely. That was an early indicator. What we're seeing now actually is a lot of people want to be back in the office, whether it's for that social interaction, their ability to be more effective. And I think in the last two or three weeks, and this is how uncertain this future is, what we're getting from our employees is they want flexibility, which is a really interesting challenge.
Peter DiMaggio:
They don't want to be full time at home and they don't want to be full time in the office. And if I had to make a guess, I would think that that is going to be something that stays with us where people want that ability to do some time at home and some time in the office. And it's a really big challenge, right? It's a challenge to get people really effective in the office. It's also a challenge to get them really effective at home, but just think of what this means from an IT point of view, right? How many different computer systems do you have? Do you have monitors? Do you need the right working environment, both at home and in the office? The second challenge that comes from that is again, early on, it's really interesting to see how things progress over the last month.
Peter DiMaggio:
Early on, I think the immediate reaction was we're probably going to need less for real estate for our entire office structure because clearly people want to be at home. Now, all of a sudden we're saying, but if they want to be partially at home and partially in the office, you still need less real estate or do you just need different real estate? So the simple answer to your question is, yes, I think you'll see a fundamental shift, a much more complex question to ask is what do we think this is going to look like? And if you really want to challenge the group, I think it's going to look very different in suburban areas than it may look in urban areas due to the challenge of public transportation. So are people able to do both of these and still use public transportation to get to their office?
Joe Bates:
Kate Pete mentioned public transit. What do you think is going to happen with public transit and you're in New York city. So how's that going to affect people that are working and living in New York city?
Kate Wittels:
Yeah. I mean, it's a big, it's a big unknown about transit, but I think as Pete was starting talking about the mood changes so quickly, if you ask people a month ago, six weeks ago, you get on the subway? No. But if you asked me last week or yesterday and you're starting to hear stories and be like, I want, I'm taking the subway. It's clean, it's the cleanest it's ever been. And so I think to what Pete was saying is that there's going to be this half in half out experience and we're going to figure out how we best travel to the places. And it's really about, what's the role of the physical office in how we work and that's really what we need to figure out. And that will change how offices are laid out, but it used to be that we had to produce everything in the office.
Kate Wittels:
And now we're realizing that somethings that we can produce it's more effective to produce it, the knowledge economy stuff in our home, and maybe having recurring meetings in our homes, but the culture, brand, desire for you know, interaction. And I think as an amenity to employees for retention and attraction, the office will play a role in that sense. And so I think it's, it's really thinking through what the role of the office is going to play for businesses. And then what does that mean for neighborhoods? And then what does that mean for the need for transit? Cause maybe the demand will be actually less or only half of us are going in half at a time.
Joe Bates:
It feels almost like we've let the genie out of the bottle here with having people working from home that in the past, there was a lot of pushback from many companies that were saying, Hey, we don't want you working from home. And now everyone was forced to do it. And somehow they're making it work. So I don't know, Arathi, do you, what do you think about that? You know, have we just let the genie out of the bottle, not going to be able to put it back in?
Arathi Gowda:
I think so in a lot of ways, and I don't think it's necessarily about trust even though maybe sometimes that was an issue. I think it was about collaboration and so engineering, architecture, planning, we're very collaborative disciplines. And so there was always this idea that you had to have the groupthink in the office. And I think obviously now as Kate was mentioning some of the things that are a little less efficient remotely, but people are seeing that actually we can be very collaborative in our home environment. And I think this is actually very positive because we've been talking about that for a long time. There's an emissions reduction, there's a positive, personal benefit. There's a lot of good things that are happening or silver linings as a result of this. But we almost needed to have the push. And I think that does speak a little bit to what Peter was saying about, there's a little bit of a multiplicity of futures, but let's face it. We're a complex society and we'll, we'll keep going the way we were going if it's working and this has forced us to maybe shift faster. And I think in a good way as we're all seeing there's some benefits. I don't think we're going to go Back to the way we were.
Joe Bates:
Dino, any thoughts on this?
Dino DeFeo:
I think everybody has some good points. You know, you start thinking about what is the role of the office and in our environments. And you know, it has a huge impact on the culture of your firm, your interactions in the office, how you work with one another, your collaboration, but nowadays with the tools you have online and the collaboration that you can do online, it will change the way we work. And you will start seeing some more decentralized offices in headquarters might not be the size they used to be anymore, but you still might need the office space for more of a a collaboration area or a conference center, you'll see more hoteling, all the things that we've been talking about for years, this has really accelerated that.
Dino DeFeo:
And I think it's going to continue to accelerate and things are going to be like this until there is a vaccine. I mean, a lot of people won't be comfortable coming back to the office until that's the case. So until then, you know, we're still going to be experimenting with the conditions that we're in and seeing how things work and what doesn't work.
Joe Bates:
So Dino, I have one thought on that sort of a follow-up question for you, maybe dive a little bit more deeply into this issue of there's this near term, of course, but and then let's, let's assume we're going to have a vaccine and, and everybody is able to return to some level of normalcy, but what's the long-term implication on how buildings commercial buildings will look in the future. This pandemic will, I think be fresh in everyone's memory for a generation at least to come. And so what kind of design considerations will we need to make in terms of health and safety, you know, cleaning the offices, elevators, things of that nature?
Dino DeFeo:
Well, I mean, you know, we're an MEP firm, so, you know, I could just stick to some of the things that we've been dealing with in, with our clients on the MEP side, you're starting to look at buildings that are going to be much more robust in engineering infrastructure. We've spent a lot of time looking at the energy efficiency of buildings and we're going to start spending more time looking at the wellbeing of the occupants of the building. And there's going to be a push and pull there. There's still the energy codes we're going to have to comply with, but a lot of things that we'll have to do to make people feel comfortable with coming back post pandemic and let's keep in mind, this is not the only pandemic we've been through.
Dino DeFeo:
This is the worst by far, but we've had SARS and a number of others. And every couple of years, it seems like there's something else that we're talking about. So the infrastructures of these buildings will have to be much more robust, much more flexible, you know, greater ventilation rates, greater air changes, higher humidity because we're finding that, you know, humidification is great for the wellbeing of the person, regardless of during pandemic or not. So all of these things impact the energy efficiency of a building. So we will try and we will need to figure out how do we balance the wellbeing of the people within the building, and yet still comply with the energy efficiency mandates that are being required of us. So that's kind of where we're going to, we're going to have to be whether it's UV lights that we're adding into systems, greater filtration, decentralized systems, you know, there's going to be a number of challenges on you in the engineering world in order to make people feel more comfortable with how buildings are performing and how they're protecting the people within the building.
Joe Bates:
Arathi, what about the elevators? We were talking about that before we went live here, are we going to have, you know, elevators that are 10 times the size as they are now? Or are we, how are we going to move thousands of people up and down? You know, these high rise buildings?
Arathi Gowda:
Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, there might be some things even to Dino's point, there, there are things in the market that are already stacking elevators and others that increased capacity. But I think, you know, we haven't been able to always sell those on projects. So I think what's going to happen is these things that were harder sells before are going to become better or easier sells now. So this nexus of energy and wellness, particularly to elevators, you know, I think it's, it's touchless, it's called button sensoring, it's stacked elevators. I think there's also maybe a reality of a public health response. So by nature, these are more confined spaces. And what would be more like Asia, you know, look to our Asian friends and say, they're very used to masks. It's not an issue for them to wear masks or wear gloves.
Arathi Gowda:
Because some of those things can't be solved strictly with social distancing, but I do think it's a very important time. And even in the environmental movement, it's always been planet first and not people. And there's been a real problem with messaging with that, that mentality, because of course we know the eight ball is energy efficiency, carbon reduction, but until we connect that to stories that people can relate to, then it's very hard to change hearts and minds. And I think that this piece of wellness it's very relatable, people can understand. So I think there are going to be some very important conversations in the engineering community about how we can do the things we've been even talking about humidity for years and advanced filtration. And we're building on that with code policy and rating systems. These are not always things that our clients opt into. So I think there's a lot of opportunity for us to be asked to do those things more consistently have the cost of it dropped so that it can become more ubiquitous in the market, which is essentially what we want.
Kate Wittels:
I think what's interesting about this right now is this is an opportunity for building owners to become really creative and force them to really differentiate themselves and try the new systems that they we've been talking about and pushing for them. Because now buildings aren't just competing with other commercial buildings in their own sub market. They're competing with other sub markets. They're competing with residential products, they're competing with retail products. People are working out of restaurants now. And so I think this is a real interesting opportunity for what the building will actually offer in the long run to make companies want to continue to pay rent and to make employees want to come back in. I mean, you can offer up that you're going to have better air in your office, then you are in your home for example, or sound quality or other things. That's, that's where the building would have the opportunity to really keep, keep their asset as it is.
Peter DiMaggio:
I think that's such an important point. I, you know, as Kate was talking, it struck a nerve. If you think back to September 11th to 9/11 when, when that event occurred the first response was we're never going to build high rise buildings again, right? People aren't going to. And so of course that's not what happened, right? So it took a while. And then people started talking about how do we address this issue? And then people got creative and then people started to figure out how to build security. And, and one of the questions I just saw in the chat - what happens to existing buildings that aren't ready? You know, this was a really good example. People upgraded those buildings, they invested in them, and then they use that to try to draw tenants back in. And the big difference I see now is we're only a few months into this and already you have some of the smartest people on the planet talking about how do we solve this issue and get back to work.
Peter DiMaggio:
And to me, that's one of the biggest differences. It took us a long time after 9/11 to say, we're going to go back into a high rise building. How do we address this now? We're saying, and, and again, look, the first month of COVID people were staying in the office is that nobody's ever going to go back when, and I though the speed at which the design community has started to attack this problem to me is a really positive thing. And so I think, you know, to the point of how much is it going to cost and what are people going to do if groups like everybody on the phone, right? Even people listening in are already starting to try to solve this. I'm really excited to see where this ends up because we're not stuck on the problem. We're already talking about the solutions.
Dino DeFeo:
This is going to be a balance. I mean, there's going to be so many different solutions that are kind of come out of this to your point. I mean, there are a number of different ways to tackle this and whether it's you know, office space, that's spread out a little bit more, you're going to have social distancing within the office. You're going to need that office space to, in order to keep people. I mean, we used to talk about densification. We did a tremendous amount of studies about how many people we can put on a floor. You're not going to have that anymore. That's not really going to want to be what people want to do. So office space is going to be a necessity a long time. It's not going away. So it's a matter of, I guess the question came in. What do you do with the older building stock? We're going to have to figure out how to convert those buildings. So people feel comfortable again, just like after 9/11, just like after Sandy, you know, things are going to be different, but things will be, you know, we'll still need those that office space.
Joe Bates:
I want to come back to that issue and question in just a few minutes, but first Kevin, do we have any questions from the audience on the topic of the buildings that we live in our buildings that we're working in?
Kevin McMahon:
Yeah, we do. Joe. We have a couple of really good ones. The first one is about what we've been discussing. And the question is how much of the effectiveness working remotely is due to the fact that we know our colleagues. when we got put into the situation there, the audience members asking, what strategies would the panel recommend for bringing new team members into the group, collaborative culture effectively while they're working remotely?
Dino DeFeo:
I could start with that because we actually hired people pre pandemic and they started post pandemic. So it was a matter of introducing them to the people who they were going to be working with via something similar in zoom or via teams. And it's a daily and sometimes multiple times a day collaboration with them. And it's a challenge to make sure that the culture of the firm you're imparting that on new people. And we're going through something now where we're bringing EIT and interns in. So we're also working with our interns and it's again, multiple touches a day and making sure that they're, they're getting the education that, that, you know, we promise them and that they need as they go back to school. And also for the EITs that we're starting to culture and then starting to introduce the culture of our firm to them from the beginning. So you have to work with them daily, you have to make sure that they have someone who is their partner, that they can reach out to with any questions, but you have to make sure that there's a connection back to the firm consistently.
Kate Wittels:
I think, you know, we've talked about mentorship and collaboration and kind of those types of things are just going to have to happen even more so. And I think that's great, right? We, not, every firm really prioritizes mentorship and now it's going to happen and it's going to happen across offices. I think you'll actually get to know more people than you would of just the people that were within your team or on your, on your floor now. And so that's an exciting opportunity.
Peter DiMaggio:
And I think that that point that Kate has made is even more powerful if you are a very diverse spread out organization. So we have 50 offices. And so it's clearly more difficult for us when we onboard somebody now in that local office for all the challenges that come. But one of the things we've been really successful with is building a culture between offices. We've gotten very good at this kind of a call and getting to know people in the old days, what would happen is you'd be in your local office and everything would be on a voice, a conference call. And I don't know how everybody else feels, but I like it this environment so much more than the non facial conference call. And we, I think we build culture and get to know each other. So this Zoom call has been a clearly a challenge, but I think going forward, it's something we're going to use. We're talking about, you know, trying to keep the carbon footprint down, having a lot more meetings in this environment and being able to bring more people into those meetings rather than flying them from 50 places. So I think there's an opportunity to really take advantage of it.
Joe Bates:
Kevin do we have any other questions on the buildings that we work in before we move on to the buildings where we live?
Kevin McMahon:
Yeah. This is an interesting question, Joe. It's about the cost of, of the existing buildings in many cities that require retrofitting. And a lot of these retrofits may become too expensive and cost prohibitive. What will happen to these buildings?
Joe Bates:
Arathi? Do you have any thoughts on that one to start us out with?
Arathi Gowda:
I think we were talking about it or touching on it a little bit or, but I think obviously there's a lot of fun costs and we know the real estate market is, I mean, this is a, and one of the biggest financial engines and hard to move slow to move and change, but that makes, I think all of us believe that no, we are not going to abandon these, which is a good thing from a carbon sink perspective. And I think the technology is all there. And many people touched on that already in the panel, but there are a multitude of retrofits that are already starting to happen. I think at som we have a getting back to work plan. I'm sure Kate, you know, Peter has similar words, you know, we're looking at different things. How do we space out?
Arathi Gowda:
How do we have shifts? How do we have advanced filtration? How do we have flush out? How do we have twice daily cleaning? And you know, again, those aren't cost prohibitive measures for people to undertake. It's not talking about a whole a to upgrade or change. It's about how much extra outside air can we bring into this space. So and when we can in a certain space how do we socially distance more you know, and think about those other, other issues. So I think people are being very flexible, which is quite interesting as we get back into this space. And again, thinking, not build new, but how do we, how do we work with what we have, which is, is really important.
Dino DeFeo:
Yeah, the solutions are not a one size fits all. You're going to have, you know, air handler, retrofits
Speaker 6:
And upgrades that are going to be relatively inexpensive and some that are going to be very expensive to do. But, you know, let's be honest. The building stock is very expensive. Leases are very expensive. And if in order to attract people and charge the leases that you're charging, you're going to have to ensure that the occupants of the building are safe. So it's going to be probably something that is going to be demanded of landlords in order to make their building stock of value. So I think there's going to be ways to afford it. And as technology gets more affordable, it's going to be easier and easier to do.
Kate Wittels:
I also think there's going to be a lot of adaptive reuse. I mean, we're going to see, we were seeing a mix of uses that before this people wanting to live closer to where they work, people wanting to have more options. And so for some buildings that can be adapted really just because, and they can't be easily upgraded. They're going to turn into residential or they're going to turn into some other function. And that's just how we're going to continue on to live.
Joe Bates:
So what I'm hearing is we're gonna be doing a lot of retrofitting and not, not whole scale demolition of city blocks and making new buildings. It's just too expensive. I'd like to now turn to the next topic that we're going to discuss, which is the buildings in which we live, obviously we've started working from home, but what kind of w what kind of considerations are we going to have when it, when it comes to where people are living, making those buildings more healthy, especially multi-dwelling buildings RFP, do you have some thoughts on that one?
Arathi Gowda:
I think this is again, it's a, always listening for the glass is half full, but I think this is again, another opportunity in a market that's been really tough. So, I mean, when we look at the history, the historic trends of energy efficiency residential is the lowest in this country and globally even in multifamily housing. And why has the lowest energy efficiency? Well, it follows the cost. It's the lowest cost per square foot. And I think of course, right now everyone's rethinking. I mean, I personally am rethinking, why did I get that parking space when I do own a car, because I'm a greenie, why didn't I get the balcony instead? But it was resale value, right? And so those of us in cities are thinking about options like that. But I think people, again are thinking more about space gardens, other features that had people historically in the suburbs.
Arathi Gowda:
But I think it will again, drive up what the cost per square foot is that people are willing to invest. And what they're willing to invest in, which I think is very positive because they've gotten to this is the biggest investment of most Americans' lives. And it's very, very commodified in a way that's not good for health and it's not good for carbon either. So again, looking at this health and energy carbon nexus I think there's a lot that people are rethinking now. And I don't think that it's going to mean you know, an exited to the suburbs. It might be, people are looking at different kinds of cities where they can afford a little bit more space. It might be, again, it's not the parking spot anymore. It's something else. Or maybe it is the car because now I can move around. But I think people are thinking about it in a much more nuanced way than historically just bigger, bigger, bigger, bigger space, which was the, usually the driver.
Joe Bates:
Yeah. It seems like there's been this sort of initial knee jerk reaction of we're going to get outta here or we're moving out to the country. In, in my neighborhood, I live on a mountain and the Blue Ridge West of DC and four brand new houses have gone up in the last four months. So highly unusual. What, what do the rest of you think about that? You know, is this just sort of an initial reaction that people are going to leave the cities? Or are we, are we going to adapt and how?
Peter DiMaggio:
I'll jump in on that? I think one of the most interesting things about the cities and this may be, even appear off topic, but I don't think it is, is, is how much of the cultural institutions people come back to whether it's sporting events or Broadway or restaurants or bars or whatever you can think of. In a lot of ways that has been something that has drawn lots of people into the city, right? And so if that comes back and it comes back powerfully, I think you're gonna see a lot of people stay. And then that, to my original point, if people really want to spend some time in the office, they are also going to need to be, and those offices are in an urban environment. They can't really move so far to the country, which is why I think originally when we started talking about everybody's gonna move to the country, that was a knee jerk reaction to, I can work from home.
Peter DiMaggio:
If I can work from home, I don't need to be near my office. And I think people are rethinking that because they don't want to be so isolated. So I, I think it's a combination of, do you want to spend some time in your office, which I think the answer will be yes, for most people. And can we get these cultural institutions that have really, in my opinion, made our cities what they are, if we can get them up and running safely, I think you're going to see that, that draw to be in a city again, to that nine 11 quote, I think 10 years from now, we're still going to want to be in our urban environments for the same reason we want to be there now. So I think it will come back around what it looks like and how fast we get there. I'm not sure.
Dino DeFeo:
Yeah. To a, to Joe, your point about the homes being built. I've already heard a couple of stories in my area of bidding Wars for homes, which is, you know, unusual in the suburb of New York lately. I mean, we used to have that years ago, but not for quite some time. So we're starting to see that, but I, you know, I, I do, I do agree with Peter. I think you're going to start seeing people want to come back and just the, how long will that take? I mean, if we go through another pandemic, would you rather quarantine in a 500 square foot apartment without the balcony? Or would you rather quarantine in a 2,500 square foot house with a backyard? And maybe if you have a spouse who works two offices built into the house as well it's going to be a, it's going to be a little bit of a balancing act. And I think if, if you can work from the office part time, like we were talking about earlier, you might choose to move a little further away from the city, knowing that you're not doing that long commute every day. If you're doing it a couple of days a week or three days a week, you might be willing to sit on the train for longer than to, than to be close to work.
Kate Wittels:
I think this is a call for cities to work with their regional partners. There's been a long time of a us versus them, right? You want to keep the residents or the office workers on your side of the border and retain the taxes. And I think this is really now about a regional approach to to how we're going to be living. So it's not New York city. It's the New York city MSA and living in the Hudson Valley and working, you know, coming into New York city twice a week, instead of five times a week, it's all going to seem like we're all part of the same same community. And we need to work together more.
Joe Bates:
Kevin what, what questions do we have on this?
Kevin McMahon:
We have a great question that ties right into this discussion. Does the panel see more use in high rises of residential and commercial cohabitating becoming part of the same building, you know, leveraging the efficiency of elevators and heating and air conditioning systems addressing some of the panels that comment
Kate Wittels:
For, for a long time, I always was saying that office was going to become an amenity of residential and every tall office tower was going to have two floors of coworking in some sense. And you, you would subsidize that off some sort of check from your employer to work out of that for a couple of days a week, or what have you. And I think that office offering is going to be more and more offered in the residential products, especially the high rise, dense residential product. You don't have to get a bigger apartment, but you have a floor go to when you want to get away from your children.
Joe Bates:
Kate, I want to follow up with you on that one. Again, I'm, I'm sort of talking from the perspective of the DC area out in the suburbs. We have a lot of mixed use planning going on where, you know, it's required now to have retail in the bottom and apartments, condos up top. And, and the idea is that it will reduce traffic, et cetera. And it's not, you know, we're just seeing people who are, you know, they're still moving to the suburbs, but then they're working in DC and still have to commute. And there's just a lot more traffic going cross-ways every which way. You know, what are your thoughts on that?
Kate Wittels:
I think DC I mean, it's congestion, do you see as that people need to be getting out of their cars more and having more public transit options than just what the Metro is providing. Right? I think there's a example that people want to go places. We have to figure out how to get them more there, more efficiently without the congestion of single person vehicle travel.
Joe Bates:
And that's going to be a challenge, especially in the near term, at least because the CDC is saying, hey, drive, drive a solo now.
Kate Wittels:
Yeah, I think what's be interesting is bus. I think the advent of bus rapid transit and where, how we're going to be using buses differently is going to be really, really interesting.
Joe Bates:
Yeah. I saw a photo of a bus where they're, you know, they tape off various seats and the untaped seats you can sit in. So there's this weird, you know, social distancing thing going on. What do the rest of you all think on this question that Kevin proposed?
Peter DiMaggio:
I think for what it's worth from my side, I think you, you touched on one, that's absolutely critical caked in, and then you mentioned that, which is the public transportation system. And for many, many years, we said, it's going to work well, if there's a great public transportation, as far out as that goes, that's how far people will move. Right? So if the train line goes out 50 miles, people will be 50 miles out, 70 miles. And I think it's going to be really interesting to see how people respond to public transportation. The exact opposite is what's happening in our offices right now. We have 50 of them. So we have all these different kinds. The places where people drive to work are filling up very fast because they don't have to deal with that, that danger or the potential exposure. So it's an odd mix of the places where we don't have public transportation or working very well to get back in the office. I don't think that's sustainable. I think ultimately we'll figure out a way to safely transit and then, then we'll get back to where we were. But however long that takes and that's a tough challenge to, to keep the public transportation to some ways, for instance safe. That's why I think we're seeing in New York, which are very slow movement to come back to the offices.
Speaker 6:
Well, that is the issue. I mean, for, for our firm, I mean, we we've, I like all of us, we've probably sent out surveys to our staff to figure out what are some of the key drivers. And, and one of the ones that keeps coming up is public transportation. So that's why we're moving very slowly with bringing people back to New York, but our other offices are coming back much more quickly because they are suburban suburban offices for the most part they commute via or bus, or it's a little bit easier. A lot of people are in their own car. But Boston, New York, Philadelphia, where they're taking more mass transit again, it's coming back much more slowly. So we'll have to figure out how to do that safely. And and ms. Strategy is going to have to be a part of that equation.
Speaker 6:
And remember that's out of our control as office leadership, right? As, as from leadership, we know we can, we can really have pretty good control what's going on in our offices and we can work with our building management to even have pretty good control of what's going on. If we're a tenant, once you get outside of that and people control their own home environment very well. It's that piece right in the middle of that you know, Kate, you mentioned something that struck a nerve partner and you, you mentioned that on a regional level, I think we're going to have to really partner with, with the mass transit systems and the public transportation systems to, to solve this problem collectively. And I think we said it earlier, the subways have never been cleaner. I forget who mentioned it. Yeah. But you know, that's because there's not much use right now, you know, once we started having more people on the subway, so it'll be clean less frequently, there'll be more cars that are out in service at any given time.
New Speaker:
And it's going to be, again, something we're going to have to help manage, because it is a key driver to getting us to where we need to go. Yeah. I mean, there is some collectivism in here as to how we behave as a society that I think, again, it's out of our control a little bit, but I mean, not, not so much, I think individually we add up. And that's why I did say, like, if we look at our Asian friends in the beginning of this, the first question, I think how they behave in a very organized and very dense places you know, Hong Kong after SARS, they completely changed their mentality and they're in a completely different situation now. And again, it wasn't just the engineering community that responded is the public health, but it was also just the general public in terms of not having an emergency aversion to math, you know, using their elbows for buttons, if they didn't have gloves, you know, just, I think they're a little behavior modifications, as we said, that we'll all get used to.
Speaker 5:
But they do have that, you know, they've had a long mentality needed to have you know, live work half rezzy, half office towers. And you know, that wasn't necessarily a commentary like, Oh, I may about mixed use and I'll go to thing. There was a commentary about speculation in the real estate market. Like let's make sure the column spacing, the engineering can convert because we're building these cities so quickly. So I think there is something in that too. That's really it's very optimistic and it's about, you know, if we build it, people will come. And that we shouldn't, we should kind of borrow from that mentality to how do we engineer buildings that can be very flexible, you know? Kay. You had that great example too about you know, Rezi flexibility with office floors. But again, like how do we, how do we design ultimately very flexible spaces that can last a long time?
Speaker 6:
Certainly with RCI. Yeah, I was. I'm wondering if you have any specific examples you can share with us that you're aware of. You mentioned, you know, the SARS outbreak and what types of engineering changes were made, or is there anything that you, you know of that you can share with us?
Arathi Gowda:
Well, there were changes to their their wind code essentially. So they have one of the most aggressive code standards and people are following it around the world in terms of not just wins and the public realm that would blow people over, but also about contaminant control. So these are things that it's like being a good neighbor because one of the contamination points was in the vent stack of two adjacent rez buildings. So it was a plumbing stack. There was a re entry point. And so they were wondering like, it's not just a tooth, but it's also, if there's something in that vent stack going wrong, that you can contaminate amongst floors. But you know, again, it's even Peter, you had mentioned that it's, it's not just our disciplines, but there were many other responses from the public health departments, how people change their behavior. And certainly we have a very big contribution and particularly in dense environments, because there are a lot of engineering control points that could facilitate better health management
Peter DiMaggio:
Joe, to your point. I think there have been so many unbelievable advancements in fluid mechanics, which might be a strange question, but our ability to model how particulates move around and environment, and it came from the fire industry was doing work and the blast resistant design community was doing work like this ability to model really high end modeling of how people interact and how fluids interact with people really does exist today in a way that it didn't exist five years ago. So we have the capability, the question is, do we want to use it and adapt it and really go in that in that way, because I think we could really solve this problem on a technical level where at least address it in a way we couldn't previously.
Dino DeFeo:
Well, actually to that point, we are doing that already. A number of higher education institutions have reached out to talk to us about the way they use their classrooms and the placements of students with the air distribution and the air flow across those, the students in there, the people using a room so that they understand that there's a, there's a, an airflow. That's not hitting every single student. You're trying to space them out so that the separate airflows hitting separate groups of students. So you're not contaminating everybody in one shot. So you're already starting to look at the computational airflow in a, you know, in an auditorium or a classroom to see the impacts of having 10 students, 20 students, a hundred students, depending on the size of the room. So it's something that people are looking at and it's a, it's guiding their, the way they're bringing the kids back to school.
Joe Bates:
Kevin, what other questions do we have on this subject?
Kevin McMahon:
You have a question that I think impacts every business out there. It's how does the panel see the balance between densification or efficiency and hygiene? Will we be moving? We went from officers to cubes and we moved them back to offices out as the panel, see that sort of dynamic playing out?
Kate Wittels:
Well for a firm that's never had a private office. I don't see us going to private offices. So we will probably not be densifying as much anymore. And especially with a little bit of hoteling and a little bit of work from home and part time, work, home, and an office. I think it's very easy to densify and still maintain your office space or even a little bit less office space.
Peter DiMaggio:
I'll take the easy part of that question. I don't think you will see more private offices again, you know, a month and a half ago where we had older buildings, which had that we were able to get people back and then we realized, but why did they go back? Because the whole purpose of being in that office environment are at these point is to collaborate. And so I think that's the one easy one I can give you is my opinion. That's not the solution to have more people in private offices so that they can social distinction, you know, keep their air, their own environment clean. They may as well work from home at that point. So I don't know that you'll have none of them, but I don't think that's what you'll see. You're going to see people really trying to figure out how to keep their conference room safe, because that's why we go to the office.
Kate Wittels:
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that's a great point. It's about why are we going to the office? What are we doing at the office? Not do we need just another place to work. And it's a space spaces. They're going to be designed around those functions of collaboration and cultivating brand and selling to our clients and making employees happy and willing to, to work and stay at the company.
Arathi Gowda:
I mean, it's just you know, working at SOM we just went through a office renovation, which was quite interesting. So all of our major offices in North America are having a new office right as this was hitting, we were like, we have these beautiful spaces that we enjoy. We were all excited to go back. But I think, you know, Kate hit on this a little bit in some earlier points that you know, we all took as a value, almost less desk space and more collaborative and conferencing space. And also recognizing that it is also for us to not just be locked into our desk, only working like this, but we do a lot of you know, conferencing, more soft spaces, more areas to eat and then have more informal conversation. So, you know, Peter, your point is to how do you keep those spaces clean beyond like a, to a twice a day protocol. It's easy to do that at your desk. You know, you're just, you are wiping that, but I think it might turn into almost like a gym where you carry your towel everywhere and you wipe it down.
Arathi Gowda:
It just becomes a different office etiquette in these collaborative spaces. And we've seen that as obviously a design trend. It's a, nobody wants to see, or just always be an identified area, but everyone wants to be on the soft couch or, you know, in the sling chair in the conference room, like group thinking. So that's why people are going in and the cappuccino maker, which is far superior to anything we have at home.
Joe Bates:
Well that, that that's sort of goes to another question of those, those other shared spaces that we haven't really talked about, the kitchen, the bathroom, I was reading an article about how you can with the sort of power flushes. Now you aerosol you know, not to get too into it, but there's a health issue in the restrooms now. How do you all see addressing those communal space health issues?
Arathi Gowda:
We've started talking about that vacuum flushing, which has long been the con of the noise and it's annoying, but the aerosol is much less. We were talking about that on a recent airport. So it significantly reduces the amount of water reducing the aerosol, but for a long time, everyone was like, eh, sounds terrible, which it does, you know, but if you're in an airport and you're already used to hearing that on the plane but I think you've heard conversations. I think there's also, and again, an interesting social nexus with these conversations about gender fluidity and how do we plan? Because again, we often do our plumbing, this based on code counts. And we don't think about having more counts, you know, both for you know, for people to feel safe with gender fluidity, for mothers rooms and other things. So I think it's going to change the way we engineer and plan for these spaces to try to be not just code, but above that, you know, think about people first.
Arathi Gowda:
And how do you have, you know, an extra thing or two, and so people could be faced out, like you go into the bathroom, you don't have to be right next to someone because you just had the code minimum, you could go every other. So these are some of the things we're thinking about. And it's interesting. Cause even standards like the wells certification, or they've been asking about things like this, and now this is kinda coming up a little bit more like, how do you, how do you have more counts of these essential places to clean?
Dino DeFeo:
Yeah. I mean, you touched on it. Code was always the code minimum. And you know, when you're designing a building, you're looking at what is, what do I need to do to meet code? I think we're, we're going, we're getting to a place where we're going far beyond what code requires and what is appropriate now.
Kevin McMahon:
So we have a question that's specifically, I think it's from a designer, and the question is, can the panel discuss educational facilities and the challenge of social distancing among children with large classroom settings? What is the solution to that?
Dino DeFeo:
Well, you can social distance into classroom. I don't know if you're going to social distance in the quad and the bar and every place else the kids go. But as far as what a lot of the higher ed is looking at right now is, is limiting the class sizes. So if you had typically that you use a small classroom for a class size, you're using your medium sized classroom class size, and the medium went to a large and a large became a virtual class. So you're, you're using larger rooms for the, then the number of students that you had. My daughter is actually just entering college now and they just actually today emailed their list of what they're doing. And it's a masks are going to be required everywhere in common spaces when you can social distance. And they're looking at flushing out their HPAC systems much more often. So when you're running a school building, you're you're using, instead of ending the day at four o'clock or five o'clock and shutting the systems down, you're running it for an extra hour, with extra ventilation air to flush the building out. So there's going to be a number of techniques that they're going to be doing to in order to make sure that they can keep the spaces clean. It's just, it will be a challenge because kids don't always follow the rules as much as they probably should.
Peter DiMaggio:
I think one of the challenges will be the short term issue and then the longterm issue. And I think Dino just did a great job of talking about using very reasonable methods in the short term. The other one that we're seeing is, and as I mentioned with the offices, colleges are splitting classes. So if you have two classes a week, one time you're in the, in the class at one time, you're the remote person. So I think the next two semesters we'll see a lot of that. And the real question will be, let's say we get our hands around this virus, right? Let's say we get a vaccine. Do people go back to the way we did things previously and start packing people into classrooms? Or do we say, this is the first of many of these potential pandemics that we may have and are they all airborne and are the same solutions they are?
Peter DiMaggio:
So, you know, my, one of my partners wants to talk about the fact that we're in the fog right now, and we know some of our challenges, but the really big challenge for the designers is know you're designing a building right now and do you design it as if this isn't going to be here and we're going to solve it. And in the near term, you use social distancing and hand washing and masks. What do you say these kinds of pandemics may be coming again? And let's build something into this facility. And that's a really big challenge for the designers right now.
Arathi Gowda:
Yeah. I mean, I would, I would just add to this and I think people can tell already in the audience that I'm the engineer for a better social, social fabric, like keep making these points. But you know, this even gets back to classroom size or what we advocate for. Cause we get pushed. I think as engineers all the time to be code minimums, it's a lot of invisible things and there might be things that are very visible, like features that people want to pay for. And so there is a space in this too. There's a, a broader conversation about pedagogy and classroom size. But this moment is saying, you know, actually protect children, protect that institutional learning and have less children in a classroom that even though we're in the fog, maybe we can, we can be advocates for that after we get out of the fog.
Joe Bates:
Kevin, one last question. And then I'm going to ask everyone for some closing thoughts on this.
Kevin McMahon:
Okay. This, this question ties into the code discussion and the American Disabilities Act drove a lot of projects for all of us over the years. Does the panel see the government and different government agencies creating many more code modifications with this pandemic in all different facets of a project, you know, such as simple things like increasing the distance between bathroom facilities in the inside, the bathrooms, et cetera?
Peter DiMaggio:
I'll take a quick shot at that. I hope we don't do that. Dino alluded to it started out with, and I think Kate did also, my preference would be we go more towards a performance based design. We've thought it for seismic. We have a lot of structural engineers. So we like when the code specifies what kind of performance the building would need to have. And I think if we do see code changes, I'd love them to be performance based changes. And then you would have the engineering and the architectural societies really figure out the best way to solve that rather than mandating specific things. I personally would like to see that flexibility.
Arathi Gowda:
Yeah, I would agree. And it's, you know, going back to that was a perfect way to describe it, Peter, the fog, but we saw a similar thing with 9/11 and fire codes. And I think again, because we, we are seeing that the science is changing on what works best or not. And I also think what works best for this particular disease might not be the same as what works for flu or, or other things that we're still going to be concerned about. A performance based method would be really important versus being very reactionary to this specific instance of health concern.
Joe Bates:
So I'm going to ask the final question for each of you and Kate. I'm going to let you start us out on this one, give you a second to get your thoughts for repaired here. But so we thought we talked about a lot of things today. The, we talked about the buildings we work in, we live in public transit, educational settings. What are, what are buildings going to look like 10 years from now that we haven't included today? What are the, you know, I want you to put your crystal ball out there and tell us what's going to be standard in 10 years. That, that isn't today.
Dino DeFeo:
I think you're going to see buildings that to be much more flexible. You're gonna, I'm sorry. It was not directed towards me, but you know, I think it's going to have to be much more flexible. We've spent a lot of time. I think I started by saying, looking at energy efficiency and not so much the wellness of the people using the building. We're going to have to focus on the wellness part of the building and make sure that the occupants are, are safe and are taken care of. And it become a respite for them and not so much a place that is ready to go to, but a place they want to go to.
Kate Wittels:
I think well, I mean, it's hard to have a crystal ball. I think we're gonna, you know, adapt to new technologies and how we do it that are going to become commonplace. I mean, I think we we've changed so quickly from home, from working in the office, to working at home that I think we can change our behavior to do anything. So if we put our minds together and try to make our society better for women, whether it's climate or equity, I think we can force ourselves to have better behaviors in that sense. And so maybe it's more not about what, how the buildings will look differently, but maybe we'll have different people in the buildings and we'll be using them in a different way for betterment of our society. I hope
Joe Bates:
Peter, what do you think?
Peter DiMaggio:
I always have two words. Do you know, stole the first, which was flexibility? The second one I'll throw in is, is comfort. People are going to expect more from their buildings because they're comfortable in their home and they know they could be there. So the two things about coming to the office are first. What is your reason for being there? And I have a reason now I expect to have a view or, you know, I can open my window and get fresh air. So I think that was already coming. But I think the pressure on the design community is going to be huge to be comfortable in the office.
Joe Bates:
Arathi, I'm going to give you the last word here today. What's going to be different 10 years,
Arathi Gowda:
No pressure with all of these superstars. But I do think that to Kate's point, you know, the future, there's going to be a multiplicity. We don't know, but I mean, when do you know that we have an aging population? So health is going to continue to be top of mind. And Joe, you said it, well, that it's going to be, this is not something that we're going to forget tomorrow is going to be a generation of us being very mindful. But we also have the climate eight ball. So I think that there is in 10 years, I hope that both of these things have more of a symbiotic relationship as compared to what they've been in the past, where we've been exclusively efficiency and exclusively health. And that's been, I think, really damaging to the engineering of our buildings that it's like, it was never both when, when it was always one or so I'm, I'm pretty hopeful that we're looking at these solutions that are really quite clever and bring the costs down.
Arathi Gowda:
They become more ubiquitous. And they look at that nexus of efficiency in health. And I think there's a lot of things that are really quite exciting now, too. It's like all dirty. And everyone's talking about this filtration humidity, like very aggressively, and we've been circling the drain on that for a long time. And I think we're getting very serious right now. You know, Peter, even to your point about comfort, it's like, well, you know, we, we had because of code because of liability, but now we're getting serious in our forums about, okay, come on. Like what's, what's going to be the best thing. And I think that's the part where it's, it's really fun and geeky, and it's fun to hang out with engineers on those topics. So I'm very hopeful that people will come. What are the good conclusions?
Joe Bates:
Yeah. All right. Well, thank you to all our panelists day after he's going to have a final goodbye here for us, but earthy Peter, Kate Dino, and Kevin. Thanks for fielding those questions for us as well. Daphne back to you.
Daphne Bryant:
Thanks, Joe. And thank you for joining us today. Thank you to our panelists and our donors for making this session possible. Lots of great information and giving us something to think about. We have a short evaluation that we will send you this afternoon. So please share your experience with us and be sure to join us on July 16th for our next session funding and the new normal, have a great afternoon and stay well.
 

Government Affairs Update for May 21, 2020

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 that
Matt 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 U.S. Economy: What Lies Ahead? A conversation with Dodge Data & Analytics' Richard Branch

Richard Branch, the Chief Economist for Dodge Data & Analytics stopped by the program to talk about the current state of the U.S. economy during the COVID-19 pandemic and what lies ahead for the A/E/C sector.

ACEC Coalitions Update

Engineering Influence sat down with Matt Murello and Kevin Peterson to get an update on ACEC Coalitions.
Transcript:
Host: Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a Podcast by the American Council of Engineering companies. Today we are very happy to bring you an coalition update and to give us an update on what's happening in coalitions we welcome coalitions Chair, Kevin Peterson. He's president and CEO of P2S Incorporated out of long beach, California and coalition Chair-elect, Matt Murello, president of Louis S. Goodfriend and Associates. He's out of Chester, New Jersey. So welcome to you both and one of who, kind of start off with a update on advocacy and the coalitions, what's happening in advocacy.
Kevin: Thank you, Jeff. This is Kevin. And currently we're developing our 2020 coalition advocacy agenda in consultation with the ACEC advocacy and external affairs department. We're happy to report that our coalitions continue to be strong contributors to the ACEC PAC. Last year we were represented 55% of the total PAC dollars from our members, up a couple percentage points from the previous year.
Host: And that's really good news. The PAC is one of our strongest tools to advocate our position so that is good news. From the membership side of the coin, where are things looking at coalitions?
Matt: Thanks Jeff. This is Matt Murello. And so every year, one of our coalitions or sometimes too, we have a recruitment drive, which is steered by the the ExCom of that coalition. And this year we started a new drive for the geo professionals coalition in November, netted 16 new members. And we also implemented a recruitment drive for both CAMEE, COPS and Land Development, which got us six more community volunteers. So we're looking forward to continuing to increase our numbers. I believe we're up by another 2% this year. And continuing to spread the word of the value of coalitions.
Host: That's fantastic. That's, that's, that's key because membership into the coalitions, it's easier than people think. And we need to get the word out there for ACEC members that it doesn't take much to join. And recruitment efforts like that, recruitment drives are critically important to start getting more people involved. And one of the benefits one of the benefits once you are a member is education which is another big area that we're looking to work on. So what's happening with education sessions with coalitions and events?
Kevin: So let me, let me update you on what we did in the 2019 fall conference in Chicago and coalition sponsored seven education sessions. We had also had five member round tables during that conference. In terms of, in between conferences. At the end of this week we have our 2020 small firm coalition winter meeting, taking place in Dallas focusing on leadership at all levels. We expect that to be a very successful event and later this month we'll have our 2020 coalition winter member meeting that's going to be held February 27th and 28th in New Orleans. And it really will be exploring the future of design software technologies. And a lot of our coalitions are also doing ExCom meetings. At that meeting. So it should be a very successful event right after Mardi Gras.
Host: Ah, that's, that's a perfect time to be down there right after the party stops. When you can actually move around and registration, I understand us is now open for that winter meetings, is that correct?
Kevin: It is. And, and they can find the registration link on, on the ACEC website.Host: Fantastic. Publications are another area that we really focus in on. It's, it kinda builds off of the education piece. Have there been any updates on publications in the coalitions?
Matt: Yeah, there has. And you know, you hit the nail on the head when you talk about one of the distinct advantages to being a member of the coalitions and with all the coalitions being in one group a membership to any one of the coalitions allows you access to all of these documents. And if anyone from ACEC were to purchase them and were not a member of the coalitions, it would cost thousands of dollars. And the, the documents are constantly being updated since July 1st we have a seven new or seven documents, four that have been updated and three new ones. The new ones are come from our CASE and new Geoprofessionals Coalition on lessons learned as well as commentary of the ASCE design procedures and health and safety plan checklist. So this is a process that's always going. We usually have between five and 10 updated or new per year and we're continuing moving in that direction. We also have in November-December Engineering, Inc., we featured our coalition leaders talking about prospects in resiliency, changes in leadership and climate change. So we're, we're out there our leaders are out there and talking about industry trends.
Host: Yeah, that's a really good point Matt, because like you said, if you went off and you tried to source these publications on your own and you tried to buy them or, or just find them somewhere it would get expensive really quickly. And being a member of the coalitions gives you that amazing library of content that if you are a sole practitioner or a small firm and you're trying to get your leadership educated and you're trying to figure out, you know, different business strategies or contracts, you know, the coalitions just gives you a treasure trove of material that you can just get access to, which is just so beneficial.
Matt: Yeah. And Jeff, I mean, most of our most of our publications that come from the coalitions may be practice oriented. So you know, if they're for structural engineers or for the mechanical electrical group but a good chunk of them, I would say probably close to a quarter of them are business centered. So if you are, like you said, a small firm and you're looking for that HR document or you're looking for a basic on how to basic contracts and setting up a new office or some employee handbook issues, chances are somebody has already spent the time and capital in putting something that you might be able to at least make as a starting point as opposed to trying to reinvent the wheel. And it's, it's an invaluable resource for coalitions we find.
Host: And then I guess the last part is operations and how everything's being structured. Have there been any operational changes within the the coalition structure to note?
Kevin: One thing to note is when we started out coalitions years ago, some of those were councils to begin with. And we decided late last year that we wanted to have our, a consistent branding across our coalition. So the ones that had council in their name, we've, we've officially now renamed them to coalitions. So coalitions will appear everywhere in our branding and counsel is now being put to put the rest. We also last year recognized Mike Snyder from Dewberry as a recipient of our sixth annual Coalition Distinguished Service Award. That's something that we give out every year at the fall conference.
Host: All right. So that was kind of the top list of materials and things going on with coalitions. Is there anything else going on you guys want to add? A kind of free fire zone here about coalitions or, or anything you want to get across to our audience? Being our, our the leaders of our ACEC coalitions?
Kevin: This is Kevin and I, I would just recommend that anyone who's a member of ACC and especially new members who join, if they have any questions related to coalitions that they please reach out and they can find our contact information on the website. They can also contact Heather at ACEC headquarters. We're more than willing to share some of our personal experience in dealing with coalitions and how it's benefited our own organizations.
Host: Wonderful. Well, I want to thank you both for taking some time out of your day. And thanks again for giving us an update on ACEC Coalitions. It's all good news across the board and we're looking at growth and expanding our footprint of our coalitions in 2020. And thank you for being on the show and look forward to having you on again soon.

An Interview with Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-13)

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

Government Affairs Update: Senate Surface Transportation Bill & Water

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].