government

Catching up with ACEC Board Chair W. Arthur Barrett II

ACEC Board Chair W. Arthur Barrett II was in our Washington office for new officer orientation this week, so we asked him to join the podcast to give an update on what ACEC is doing and what 2023 has in store for the Council.

Podcast Special: Reps. Don Bacon and Brian Fitzpatrick Discuss the IIJA

Congressman Don Bacon (NE-2) and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1) joined the program for a discussion about the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and their votes that helped pass a generational investment in the built environment.  
Transcript:
ACEC: 
Welcome to the Engineering Influence podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. Today, I am very pleased to be bringing you two members of Congress who were instrumental in helping get the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act across the finish line. Congressman Don Bacon, representing Nebraska's Second Congressional District, and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, representing Pennsylvania's First Congressional District, join us today on the show. As a matter of introduction, Congressman Bacon was elected in 2016 and represents Nebraska's second congressional District. Now prior to serving in the House,, Congressman Bacon served as an officer in the Air Force, specializing in electronic warfare intelligence and reconnaissance. He served 16 assignments with the Air Force, including four deployments in the Middle East, including Operation Iraqi Freedom. He retired with the rank of Brigadier General and currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Agricultural Committee. 
ACEC: 
Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick represents Pennsylvania's First Congressional District. Prior to his election, he served as both an FBI special agent and as a federal prosecutor fighting both domestic and international political corruption and supporting global counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence efforts, including being embedded with U.S. Special Forces as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the 117th Congress, Brian was elected co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, having previously served as the vice-chair. He is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment, and Cyber, and was appointed by House Leadership to currently serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and as a Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission. Additionally, Congressman Fitzpatrick serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a committee near and dear to our hearts. Thank you both for joining us today. 
ACEC: 
I'd like to start off, with Congressman Bacon first, and then Congressman Fitzpatrick. For our audience, who may not be well acquainted with Nebraska or Pennsylvania, can you tell us a little bit about your districts? 
Congressman Bacon: 
My district is Omaha and the south suburbs, so we have about 700,000 in about a county and a half, but it's really Omaha suburbs. In the next cycle, with redistricting, I gain another county. It's an urban/suburban community. It's one of the most purple districts in the country, officially R plus one. It's a railroad junction and an interstate junction, so it's very infrastructure intensive. 
ACEC: 
And Congressman Fitzpatrick. I have to admit full transparency. I am from Doylestown, Pennsylvania, so I am Bucks County all the way. Of course I remember it fondly as the Eighth Congressional District, but tell us a little bit about the First. 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
I didn't know you were from Doylestown, but I knew you're familiar with the area. So, the First District is the Philly suburbs. It's all Bucks County, which is the county just to the north of the city line of Philadelphia. The southern part of my district borders the city line of Philadelphia. The entire east side of my district borders, the river, crossing over into New Jersey. And then about 12 percent of my district is the adjacent county to the west Montgomery County. So I have sort of the central part, that's adjacent to Bucks County. Lke Don, we have about 740,000 constituents or so,. We're actually losing a district in Pennsylvania, going to 18 to 17, so my district will grow by about another 40,000 or so., 
ACEC: 
Do you think you're going to grow west or north? 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
There are two maps. The House came out with a map that has me expanding my Montgomery county piece, and the State Senate came out with a map that has me picking up Northeast Philadelphia and also the northwestern part of Montgomery county. So two very different districts, 
ACEC: 
But two districts that were rely heavily on our infrastructure and the built environment. One of the things that I think is important to note here--and we hear it from our members, because I think that the way that this bill came to the floor and the way that House Leadership decided to tie the president's larger agenda together and to tie the infrastructure plan to Build Back Better--is that there's some misinformation out there that this is Build Back Better. It's not. This is a separate bill. This is hard infrastructure funding, that's both reauthorized funding and additional funding above that. There's some misunderstandings about the bill. What are the things you're hearing from your constituents that you really want to clarify, or misconceptions that you'd like to dispel? 
Congressman Bacon: 
I'll start off. Initially--and I think both Brian and I had this--we heard probably about 90 percent of the criticism was that it was a Build Back Better bill. Folks would say, "Hey, this bill passed amnesty for 11 million adults. You voted to support removing the Hyde Amendment and all the things that are in the Build Back Better bill." And I think we've done a pretty good job of poking that down. Another thing we heard was that only 10 percent of the bill is hard infrastructure, and that is not true. In fact, I've gone through it. I would say 94 percent of that bill is hard infrastructure. The rest of is doing toxic site cleanup on federal lands, which is also needed, by the way. And then we also heard this is a victory for Joe Biden. I think it's a victory for our country, a nd it could have been a victory for Republicans if our leadership would have responded more smartly, just to be blunt about it. 
Congressman Bacon: 
And I think the other area, which is more legitimate, is just worries about the deficit, and that's a legitimate area that we could go into. I have some perspectives on it, but those are the main areas of criticism, But early on, it was all Build Back Better. They are two totally separate bills, and which Brian and I both opposed. And in fact, Build Back Better has not passed yet out of the Senate, and it's probably going to be greatly changed by the time it does 
ACEC: 
Congressman, what are you hearing from your constituents in Pennsylvania? 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
Not surprisingly, all of us kind of heard the same thing. Don spelled it up perfectly. People confused and conflating the two different bills, which are two separate distinct bills. How anybody could argue that they're linked is beyond me. First of all, the Senate passed it on August 10th. House Leadership refused to put it on the floor because they weren't linking them, they were holding one hostage for another, and that's very different. But it passed and it's now signed into law, and the Build Back Better programs' fate remains very uncertain, at best. It has not been voted on. It has not been signed into law. A version was voted on in the House, which is dead on arrival in the Senate. That was more or less a messaging bill because reconciliation has to start in the House, so they just sent something over there to start the volley. But these bills are not linked. 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
In fact, I would submit to you, and you don't need to take my word for this, the moderate Democrat senators who are going to be outcome determinative in what, if any, passes the Senate with regard to reconciliation have told us that the passage of this bill actually will, in the worst case, lower the price tag significantly of the reconciliation bill, if not, obliterate it all together. So that's the reality. And yet there were so many people--and Don knows this--so many people who wanted to vote for this. The reason they didn't was because the politics wouldn't let them. And myself and Don and many of our other colleagues refused to allow politics to dictate how we vote. The easy thing to do would be to vote "No," and just go "Rah, rah, go party," right? That's not what we're about. We came here to help our country. And Don is absolutely right. If this would've been played the right way, this could have been a bipartisan victory altogether, but you can't make policy decisions based on who we win or loses politically. It's gotta be about whether America wins or loses. And if that bill came up tomorrow, I'd vote the same way. 
Congressman Bacon: 
Good policy is good politics. And our guys should have thought about that. I think in August, our team could have said, we want this bill on the floor right now, and we could have turned it to our advantage, but we, sort of ceded that. But in the end, infrastructure is needed for our GDP, exports, national security, public safety. and, as you mentioned, we haven't had a major investment in infrastructure in 40 years. And I'm the party of Lincoln? Also the party of the transcontinental railroad? And the party of Eisenhower, who did the interstate system? We should have embraced this. 
ACEC: 
That an important point to make. I mean, largely infrastructure investment has been a Republican core issue. It's constitutional, I remember when I was on TNI staff, we had that up there on the right side of the room, where in the Constitution on post roads, the constitutional underpinning for federal investment in infrastructure. And you're right, between the interstate highway system and the like, it's a core issue, and it was unfortunate to see it tied into this. 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
You hear a lot of talk about the big lie. I say the big lie this month was that only 11 percent of the infrastructure bill was real infrastructure. That is a provably false statement. Why anybody would say that, shame on them. Half of the bill, right off the bat, before we even get into the new parts, half of this bill was a standard five year surface transportation reauthorization, which sailed through the last Congress in 2016, when the GOP held the chamber. This has never been controversial. And the $550 billion supplemental, does so by recapturing unused COVID relief money, recapturing unused state unemployment insurance augmentation--that additional $300 a week that a lot of the state governors returned--and it doesn't open the tax code up at all. And just for comparison, we're talking about $550 billion additional over five years. China last year alone spent $3.7 trillion in infrastructure, outside of China. Outside of their country as part of the Belt and Road initiatives. So no matter how you want to slice this, we should all be focused in on the China issue. And look at it that way as well, because this is an investment in the nuts and bolts of our country. 
ACEC: 
You look at the numbers. Let's take Nebraska, for example. In the state, you have over 1,300 bridges and over 1,100 miles of highway in poor condition. You have commuting times going up across the country, Pennsylvania and Nebraska alike. You have money that's going to go specifically to improve surface infrastructure, that's going to improve people's lives, make it easier for economic development, open corridors for development, job opportunities, and growth. In our sector alone, we're looking at about 82,000 in direct employment, new jobs that will be created. And all the tax base that comes from that. If we don't invest in our surface infrastructure, we're we're pretty much shooting ourselves in the foot from a global competitive standpoint. During your discussions with your members and Congressman Fitzpatrick, I know you're part of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and you look at the issues. Did that resonate? Was there an understanding that this does actually create jobs and opportunity? 
Congressman Bacon: 
Absolutely. In our district, we have some of the largest trucking companies in the country. We also have the largest railroad company, Union Pacific. In other words, roads, bridges, railroads and very important.And we have the stuff for airports also in there, but I would also suggest that even the things that aren't part of Nebraska are still important for Nebraska. Ports and locks are very important for agriculture exports. We're one of the leading exporters for agriculture. Nebraska is the largest exporter of beef of all 50 states. It's very important to have good ports and locks for the agriculture sector. 
Congressman Bacon: 
As I look back, every major industry in Omaha supported this bill. The farm bureau were very much in support. The cattlemen. You had the Chamber, all the building trades were there. It's interesting to have unions and chamber together on this bill. The manufacturers were for it, the equipment operators and the equipment distributors. I can go through every major industry there, and they were supportive of this. But all of them, for the most part, maybe there were one or two exceptions, opposed the Build Back Better bill. So the business leaders and the economic folks, and the labor folks knew the importance of this bill for Nebraska and what means, and I mentioned to our leadership, you're asking us to oppose a bill that every major industry supports. I took two polls, in both around 70 percent of the citizens supported it. I said, we're on the wrong side of this issue. 
ACEC: 
Absolutely. And even the funding that's not directly to build roads or to restore bridges, such as resiliency and resilient infrastructure, those are things that also pay dividends into the future. I know anecdotally, you know, there are high rain events up in New York and that goes down the Delaware River and the eastern portion of Bucks County floods. And you have other issues, Congressman Bacon that you experience in Nebraska as well. If we're able to make our infrastructure, not only our surface infrastructure, but our communications and our electrical distribution systems, more resilient, and of course, resilient not just to weather events, but also for cybersecurity, we're going be more secure as a country. 
Congressman Bacon: 
Nebraska's rated 48th on rural broadband, so we'll benefit there. We have a lot of lead pipes, so the drinking water infrastructure part was also very important. And so literally these aspects of the bill are very important in Nebraska. 
ACEC: 
I think Nebraska is going to get an allocation of a hundred million dollars for rural broadband. That's a significant investment, especially now post COVID, it's not a luxury anymore. It's a requirement, not just for education, but for economic development,, and that's critically important, Pennsylvania, along the same lines, gets about one hundred million for broadband coverage across the state. There are about 394,000 Pennsylvanians who lack access to broadband, so connecting those people is going to be critically important. Congressman Fitzpatrick, I'll start with you. Is there a project in the district, or an area that you would really like to see improved, transportation-wise for your constituents? 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
Where do we begin? You know our region. The Northeast Corridor has the most infrastructure, the largest infrastructure and also the oldest infrastructure. We're heavily reliant on rail, on bridges, on tunnels, on ports. So certainly there's all of that. Obviously I-95 runs through our district. State routes, like 611, run through our district. But one that not many people realize, bit both me and my brother before me are very focused on the PFAS issue. There is a big PFAS remediation component to this. That's been a huge issue for the central part of our district, the area in and around, the Willow Grove Naval Air Station, where you had these AFFF firefighting foams that have PFAS and PFOA in it that have just wreaked havoc on the water supplies of so many people in that region. A big part of this bill finally addresses PFAS remediation, which was the big component of that problem. So the central part of our district is going to benefit tremendously from this. 
ACEC: 
Absolutely. That's been an issue for decades. And finally having that addressed is a significant real-life community improvement. It's going to impact people's lives, without question. Congressman Bacon, for your constituents, what do you see? 
Congressman Bacon: 
Well, our constituents are going to see benefits primarily in roads and bridges. As you said, we have 1,300 bridges that are in Nebraska, and some of those are right around Omaha. So the roads, the bridges, the rail, the airport funding is all going to have a direct impact. And of course for the rest of Nebraska, the rural broadband will be there. We have a lot of lead pipes in Omaha that we have to switch out. So there's 200 million to replace the lead pipes for drinking water. And that's also going be a big deal for our district. 
Congressman Bacon: 
But as already mentioned, I think more broadly, the ports and locks. They're not connected to Nebraska, but boy they're certainly connected to our economy. And I've got to give a lot of our folks back home this little tidbit on locks. Our locks are 80 to 90 years old. They're a third of the size of Brazil's that they're putting in right now. And we could grow corn and soybeans, beef and pork, more affordably than anybody else in the world, but if you can't ship it and get it to the right place for exports at a competitive price, you're gonna lose that competitive advantage.So if we want to lead the world in exports in these areas, our logistics have to be updated. And so I think more broadly that it's not just what's being put in our, district; it's our economy as a whole that's impacted. 
ACEC: 
That's a very good point that you raise. At the beginning of the month, we had a symposium down in Charleston on intermodal and logistics. Essentially dealing with all the supply chain pressures that we're having and experiencing now. The point you raise is a good one. When people of think of ports, you think, okay, you've got Long beach, you've got Charleston, and you have a couple of seaside ports. But you also have your inland ports. You have the importance of having a strong logistics system to actually move goods to market, so farmers in Nebraska can export out from areas on the East Coast. It's critically important. And it helps keep America competitive, and especially competitive in a fairly competitive global agriculture market. Congressman Fitzpatrick, you're a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This was, of course, a major accomplishment on that side of the committee's jurisdiction. Coming up, I believe the committee might be considering another Water Resources Development Act bill. What do you see coming up from the committee? 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
Water is something that they wanted to take on separately for a whole host of reasons. I don't know where that's going to stand now that we just passed a major infrastructure rebuild, if this is gonna be what's next for them or not. I know for Congress as a whole, obviously there are some other things that they're focused on right now. I can tell you our Problem Solvers are very focused on issues regarding the Chinese communist party and issues regarding the semiconductor industry, which is incredibly important. If we fall behind in that industry, we've got major problems going forward. Whoever owns the semiconductor industry is going to own the future. And that's not just with regard to jobs. Literally everything we use is now computerized and digitized, including vehicles, including everything, and we used to produce 35 to 40 percent of the world's semiconductor supply. We're now at 12 percent; Europe is at 8 percent. Asia is 70 percent, and of that 70 percent, 30 percent is in Taiwan. So that's obviously one of the many reasons why we have to keep our eye on the situation over there. Our caucus met with Pat Gelsinger, the CEO of Intel, a great domestic semiconductor producer and manufacturer. And he's begging us, to just allow them to be competitive in this country, both through our tax code, our regulatory code and things like the CHIPS Act, where we're going to infuse and invest in that industry, given how important it is to our future. So that's what I see as coming up next. 
ACEC: 
And again there's always an infrastructure angle. When I was with Congressman Schuster back in the ninth district of Pennsylvania, right in the center of the state, we would say, you don't get economic development unless you flush a toilet. You're not going to attract a manufacturing base, unless there is the infrastructure. and not just the surface infrastructure to get employees to their work, but to get distribution there. That's what attracts it. So, if we're able to build out and make it easier for goods to get the market, we might be able to attract more domestic manufacturing and have that stay in the United States. But you're right, tied to that is a favorable regulatory and tax environment. Congressman Bacon, what do you see coming up coming up next? 
Congressman Bacon: 
On the infrastructure front, I'll defer to Brian on that, because he's on that committee. For me, I have a lot of infrastructure in the Hass that we have to continue working on. We have five bases that were destroyed through hurricanes or floods or earthquakes. So we're continuing to try to get these five bases back up to speed. So, that's our military infrastructure. But if you look at what we did with this bill, and I've looked at some studies, I think we only bought about half of what we needed to do. It's a good half, and we're gonna work that half and it's going to take four or five years to get this money spent. But we have to realize that we only paid off about half of what it's going to take to get our infrastructure back up to speed. 
Congressman Bacon: 
One of the studies I was looking at, and we have to be candid here--and Brian touched on this before--right now we're spending 2 percent of GDP on infrastructure. Europe is at 5 percent, and China is at 9 percent. I think we have to reevaluate how we're going to do this over the long haul. It shouldn't just be a four-year bill, and okay, now we've caught up. I think we probably need to readjust our baseline for what we need to be doing for infrastructure. If you look back over 40 years, for the first 20, we were sort of hanging even, but when you look at the last 20, the gas tax has not kept up with the costs. Inflation has eroded the gas tax revenues, but the roads have gotten more costly to fix. And so, over the last 20 years, we've fallen behind pretty quickly. And so I think we have to reevaluate. What do we want to do to keep up with our infrastructure? We shouldn't just say to put duct tape on it and fix it, but let's find a way to sustain it. 
ACEC: 
Absolutely. And then the growth of electric car market, of course that doesn't directly pay into the user fee. And you have to look at different innovative financing tools to do that. 
Congressman Bacon: 
Our miles-per-gallon used to be 15 miles per gallon or something. Now a lot of cars, especially with the hybrids it's double or triple that. And so we're bringing in a lot less gas revenue. And you're right, electrical cars are not paying in at all. And our roads and highways, in the meantime, are taking a beating. Amd our bridges. So we've got to figure out how to fix it. 
ACEC: 
It's a good thing that we have two good members of Congress who are actually going to be working on the problem, doing the problem solving, and moving good policy forward. And for that, we do appreciate both of your leadership, 
Congressman Bacon: 
Brian is our fearless leader on the Problem Solvers. He's Mr. Chairman. 
Congressman Fitzpatrick: 
And Don's our fearless leader on Main Street. 
ACEC: 
It's nice because we hear so much about discord and disagreement in Congress, but there are members who are focused on tackling the problems that we face and creating solutions. I think that what you mentioned at the outset, that good policy like this should carry a lot of other members to support it. So your leadership is a welcome thing these days. 
Congressman Bacon: 
If you read about Abraham Lincoln, he was a big follower of Henry Clay and Henry Clay wanted the American system, which was focused on waterways and roads. And they took a lot of heat from the other party. If you look at the arguments back then, they're almost the same now. Our country needs to be tied together well, and again, it's all about interstate commerce. 
ACEC: 
I do appreciate your time today. It's getting close to the Christmas season, and everybody's trying to get their last things done and votes in, so I do appreciate it. Thank you very much for supporting the legislation. Of course, the engineering industry is very interested in getting to work on delivering on the funding that's been passed in the bill. And I do appreciate both of your time today. Thank you. And again, this has been the Engineering Influence podcast from the American Council of Engineering Companies. We'll see you real soon. 
 

Government Affairs Update for May 14, 2021

On today's update, we welcome Dan Hilton from the advocacy team onto the program to talk about ACEC's international work with FIDIC and the new Memorandum of Understanding signed between ACEC, ACEC Canada and CNEC in Mexico.  More information about the MOU can be found here. 

Government Affairs Update for January 22, 2021 - The Chamber's Ed Mortimer Talks Biden and Build by the 4th

 
The U.S. Chamber's Ed Mortimer (@ChamberMoves) joined us on this week's update, on his birthday no less, to talk about the Chamber's outlook on infrastructure for the Biden Administration and the importance of the Build by the 4th campaign to have Congress enact infrastructure legislation by the 4th of July.
It's time to keep the pressure on Congress to act on infrastructure.  Make sure to follow the U.S. Chamber's efforts on social media.
 

The Omnibus, PPP and a Senate Flip: The ACEC Government Affairs Update for January 8th 2021

ACEC's Government Affairs team joined Engineering Influence for the first Government Affairs Update for 2021.
Make sure to like and subscribe to Engineering Influence so you never miss a weekly update from our GA team.

ACEC Research Institute Special: An Interview with WSP's John Porcari on America's New Playbook for Infrastructure

Engineering Influence and the ACEC Research Institute welcomed WSP's John Porcari onto the show to discuss his work with the ACEC Research Institute on the New Partnership on Infrastructure and  Accelerator for America's new report:  "A Playbook for a new Infrastructure Partnership."
 
Host:
Welcome to another edition of Engineering Influence, a podcast by the American Council of Engineering Companies. It is my pleasure to welcome John Porcari to the program. John is a senior advisor at WSP and has an impressive history, both as the Deputy Secretary of Transportation in the Obama administration, where he was second command to then Secretary Anthony Foxx. And before that, John served two terms as Maryland Secretary of Transportation. His experience in program management, planning, design, and construction delivery is widely sought after by elected officials and policy leaders across the political spectrum. And it's fair to say that his insights and advice are of great value to presidential candidates, which comes up to a sharp focus this year with the general election. Mr. Porcari is now with ACEC member from WSP, where he oversees the firm's advisory services.
Host:
And not long after the ACEC Research Institute was established, WSP suggested that one of the first projects the group could undertake was the new "Partnership for Infrastructure," which is a program that's also supported by ACEC member from HNTB. Now, the Partnership's focus was to interview mayors across the country to better understand local and urban infrastructure challenges and develop a playbook of actionable recommendations. And when the project started in early March, there was a lot of buzz about the potential for an infrastructure bill, but no one could have imagined the disruptive impact of COVID-19. And on top of that, how urban protests would make us all think more about the state of America's cities. Los Angeles-based Accelerator for America interviewed the mayors for the playbook over the course of the Spring and assembled the recommendations and led the socialization of the recommendations and various online forums. The ACEC Research Institute participated in the process as an advisor and a financial supporter, but it doesn't necessarily endorse all the recommendations, but the playbook provides a great value for, firm executives and leaders in the engineering and the A/E/C space. It provides a lot of access to gain key insights into the tough local challenges facing our cities. The mayors are looking for problem solving partners to address complex societal needs. In some cases they want consulting help before they even have projects identified. Also the complexity of project finances, much more challenging today, and simply identifying funding for a list of projects. We all know what COVID-19 and the crunch on state and municipal budgets has really done to the industry. Now, this playbook is called the community serving infrastructure, a playbook for a new infrastructure partnership, and it can be found@acceleratorforamerica.org. The link to that document as well as supporting documents will be added up to the show notes on this episode.
Host:
That was kind of a long introduction kind of setting it up here, John, but I want to give you the opportunity. Number one, thank you for coming on. And number two, you know, for us in the beltway, you are well known as an expert in public administration, infrastructure transportation for those outside of the beltway who are politically active and are engaged in the A/E/C industry. Can you tell us a little bit more about your major interests and, and in, in, in the field and, you know, the turning points in your career that kind of got you to this point?
John Porcari:
Sure. Jeff, and thanks for having me here today. I, I've been very lucky in my professional career, in both the public sector and the private sector and in the public sector, as you pointed out, sort of at the local level, the state level is the Secretary of Transportation at the federal levels, Deputy Secretary of Transportation. And now in the private sector working to help clients get these projects across the finish line which is harder and harder. And we can talk about this a little bit, some of the things that are holding it back, but what's motivated me through my whole career is infrastructure is economic development. I started my public sector career as an economic development person working on major projects. And the more time I spent on economic development, the more there was a transportation and infrastructure linkage to it.
John Porcari:
So it's kind of a natural crossover into transportation. And that's especially true at the local level. We have this great system in the U S at the federal state and local level where each level of government has various responsibilities under our Federalist system, but we sometimes forget that the real actions at the local level. So the project decisions are at the local level, the priorities are established at the local level, and then you have to work your way through what can be sometimes some very difficult federal processes and regulations, for example, to get those local priorities built. So one of the reasons that we were very interested in working with Accelerator for America and the Research Institute to actually join us in that endeavor was we wanted to take a local lens to it and hear directly from mayors of big as the city of Los Angeles. And as small as cities like South bend and Waterloo, Iowa what on the infrastructure side they would like to change and this playbook we've put together some very specific recommendations through that local lens. That'll really help all kinds of infrastructure projects.
Host:
Absolutely. That's something which, you know, echoes throughout the country. I mean, my personal experience was in Congress with former Chairman Shuster, both in the personal office and then a committee and in the personal office, in his area of Pennsylvania, it was always economic development. It was always, you cannot have growth and opportunity without infrastructure, which naturally just tied directly into roads intotransportation networks, because the two are intertwined. And, and those decisions at the local level at the County municipal level really are the things that shape what that economic development is going to look like. So having a playbook, having some kind of a document, which looks and focuses in on the needs and the requirements of mayors and of people who are really active in local government is, is critical because it's not all at the top. It's not all federal. How, how did the accelerator for America? How did, how were they chosen to do this project? Why were they kind of the, the ideal group to, to undertake this?
John Porcari:
It's a great question. We began this discussion, this journey, essentially trying to take a local view to infrastructure by talking to some of the think tanks in the Washington area, some of the larger established organizations and it was such a different kind of view for them that they had trouble getting their heads around it. And so again, together with the ACEC Research Institute we had been working with Accelerator for America on specific projects. And as opposed to a think tank, the Accelerator is known as a do tank. These are mayors like all mayors and County commissioners and County councils that are out there working these issues every day. And, you know, if it works and, you know, if it doesn't at the local level, there's no hiding it. So a believer or not no one has done this before taking this local lens to infrastructure and tried to change federal regulations and requirements and programs to fit local needs rather than the other way around, rather than the experience of mayors and County commissioners across America is you have to kind of force fit what you're trying to do at the local level into whatever federal silo is out there.
John Porcari:
So we took the opposite approach Accelerator turned out to be the perfect partner for it. And the interviews, which were part of the process with mayors across the country, Republicans, Democrats, independents - party had nothing to do with it. Infrastructure had everything to do with it. And it truly is one of the bipartisan issues out there. We heard some common themes that turned into these recommendations in the playbook. Some are very specific, and frankly, some of them are relatively easy to do and would make the infrastructure work at the local level. So much easier, so much more freedom to adapt to local conditions.
Host:
Absolutely. It's really a paradigm shift because so much of the time we're focused on federal policy and programs. And those are developed, you know, with, with some thought and input from state DOT, administrators and such, but really it's, it's never given that focus from the local area because, you know, their needs should really bubble up and shape that policy, because if you're able to solve a lot of the problems with the local level, and a lot of the things that the consulting industry engineering consulting, engineering industry can come in and help in that process as well, understanding how to apply solutions to the challenges that are facing at the local level. It can speed project delivery can improve policy. At the national level, it seems like a natural model that hasn't been followed a lot by Congress. It's an interesting thing.
John Porcari:
That's exactly right. And, and the members of ACEC, I think could be very helpful in this and the the at the local level mayors and their counterparts don't have the luxury of thinking in the silos that the federal government operates in. And as you point out, the reality is that innovation doesn't trickle down from the federal level, it bubbles up from the local level and some of the more successful infrastructure work and infrastructure policies, and even projects have been local decisions that aggregate into a national system. And if, if you think about goods movement, if you think about moving people safely and efficiently they're really thousands of local decisions that together make the national policy not the other way around. We tried to reflect that in the playbook and make sure that the mayors were heard loud and clear on what their priorities were in our, in of course it varies all over the country based on local conditions, but to a person, they, they understood the fact that it's economic development it's quality of life, of their communities, it's building the economic future.
John Porcari:
So in one example, the highway right away is not just right away to them. It's, it's how their water and wastewater systems are conveyed as storm stormwater management. It's where broadband is bringing an economic future to these communities. And so they don't think of it as the state highway departments right away. They think of it is their economic future.
Host:
Yeah. And those, those city planners, those, those you know, local planners have to look forward on, on where's the growth and opportunity going to be, where can we actually create the economic development and how can we use all of those pieces of the infrastructure puzzle together to more effectively create jobs, or attract businesses? One of the big issues that we had in central Pennsylvania was trying to get headquarters with operations and, and trying to do it in such a place where you not only had right away or, or thoroughfare, but then you also have the actual wastewater, water, infrastructure, broadband, all those different aspects. And it's, it's, it's the, at the local level, you see more of the picture than you do if you're just sitting, like you said, in those silos, and you're just looking at one or two different things now, when this started, and we didn't have any idea of what was around the bend. I mean the focus of this project must have been impacted by the pandemic. And then, you know, the social issues layered on top of that kind of two part question, the first is how did it change scope, but then, you know, how did it, how did it also expand to, put a focus on to urban areas of, and their infrastructure needs and how they may have been underserved in the past and looking at what they might need to rebuild after the pandemic?
John Porcari:
It's a great question, Jeff. And we got some great direct input from these mayors. And so is one example. We talked to dozens of mayors across the Heartland of America small and medium sized cities where they're grappling with all kinds of issues, but, but again, trying to build an economic futureit makes sure they could do it. And as we started this project, the pandemic hit so it did change the infrastructure priority to some extent, for example one of the medium sized Midwestern cities that we were working closely with found that to do online instruction for their public school district almost 40% of their students didn't have access to broadband. You can imagine what that did to the priority of broadband relative to some of the other infrastructure priorities that they have at the same timethings like some of the transit service and planning for a future transit capacity changed as well, knowing that that economic lifeline of transit, connecting people to opportunities is, is every bit as important in some of these smaller jurisdictions as it is in large areas.
John Porcari:
And it was a go-no-go item for employment in many ways. So the, the it also at the same time with some of the storm events and natural disasters that we've had in the country while we were developing this, the whole idea of resilience, which really means something in practical terms terms at the local level resiliency is being able to operate your infrastructure, making sure your roads aren't flooded out and your water and wastewater systems work. And you actually have electrical power that can survive these events is something that is, is a very practical value at the local level and something that these mayors are very focused on. So as opposed to an esoteric discussion at the national level about resiliency and climate change the practical, nuts and bolts part of it is it changes infrastructure priorities at the local level. They see the facts on the ground and they have to respond to them. In real time.
Host:
I noticed in the last Congress near the end, the T&I Committee specifically was looking at a lot of different areas related to resiliency, and the word came up a lot more. But I don't think there was a complete appreciation for what it meant. Do you think that these stories and these recommendations from mayors can help fully flesh out federal law makers understanding of the importance of resiliency and what it means? It's not a political term, it's an actual, this is something that has to be considered.
John Porcari:
Yes, Jeff that's exactly right. It is not at all a political term. It's not some esoteric discussion at the local level. It's it's the practical impact of flooding where, you know, the prudent thing to do on the redesigned side is to upsize the the culverts. It's, it's where, you know, that having buried utilities makes them much more resilient for outages and storm events. The practical impact is something that we saw very clearly and heard very clearly from the mayors where they want to make sure that they're squeezing every bit of value out of harder and tax dollars for this infrastructure by making a durable. And future-proofing it to the extent that you can. So one of the great things about applying this local lens to infrastructure is it takes the kind of sterile Washington philosophical and political discussion out of this and puts the practical impact in there where these are people across the political spectrum, working side by side, acknowledging that building more resilient infrastructure is the smart thing to do from an economics point of view. And from obviously from a service delivery point of view for your city.
Host:
Absolutely. I know that there are four broad, which kind of form the focus of the document, and that's maximizing investment for a job and small business growth, empowering localities with effective tools and processes, funding, and financing for community serving infrastructure and making transformative investments for more resilient future, going back to the resiliency part, taking kind of that last one, since we're talking about that, like you said, the impact of, of, of looking at the local level and, and saying, like you said, you know, these power lines, you know, or what have you should be placed underground, or the covert should be made larger. I mean, that definitely will have an impact on those budgetary decisions. And, and especially with the way that the States are going right now having that cash crunch related to the pandemic how do you think the document's going to come into play with that?
John Porcari:
It's a great question. So there are some very specific recommendations related to resiliency, for example, that, that helped carry the argument for these cities to, to do things differently, but it also calls for a reset at the federal level. It's the, it's the local government saying, for example, that you need to form a federal infrastructure planning council. We have all of these federal agencies that don't even talk to each other, let alone work together on a regular basis at the local level, you don't have the luxury of, of building things in silos, organizational silos, this federal infrastructure planning council would be a forcing mechanism to get the different federal agencies like the Corps of Engineers responsible for all of our inland waterways, great lakes inland maritime transportation working with other federal agencies where they very seldom interact in practical terms where they do it's at the local level where you have local representatives and a local project that forces them to work together.
John Porcari:
So the idea is at the state and federal level to, to really highlight what some of those disconnects are, and in, in a very practical way, show how we can do a better job. And again, it recognizes the reality that's that's in our constitution and in the way we operate under federalism, but is not recognized in our institutional structures, which is those decisions and choices are made at the local level. And they should be but you don't have a federal partner that's necessarily recognizing that. And the federal share of funding in many cases in percentage terms is declining every year. So you have this ironic position of more local funding going into these projects, less federal funding, but federal regulation that makes it difficult to do business.
Host:
So how would that, how would that planning council be structured? Would that be executive level, or would that be kind of a congressional action? How do, how, how how's the playbook kind of see this happening?
John Porcari:
Well, it can be done a couple of ways, what the playbook focuses on are practical solutions. So for that planning council, the deputies level that the deputy secretaries and deputy directors in the federal departments by definition are the chief operating officers. And on, on important issues, they function is a deputy's council where they actually get together and work through issues. And what, what the playbook is saying is that for infrastructure planning at the deputy secretary at the deputy director level, we really should have that kind of coordination across the executive branch. Now, as you well know, from, from, from your background, these individuals report to all different committees of jurisdiction, but that shouldn't be the local government's problem. Right?
Speaker 3:
The whole idea is, is that you have the, the executive branch agencies working with each other to make it easier for the project choices and to build those projects at the local level.
Host:
So formalize the informal working groups into an actual council that meets and discusses infrastructure and creates a liaison for the States and for local governments to bring the ideas up, to be discussed at that operational level. That's right. And give them a specific agenda on where those barriers to cooperation are, where some of the loan programs are too restrictive and can't be used. The what you tend to do at the local level is try to get as much different kinds of infrastructure into every project that you do at the federal level. It's more of kind of a rifle shot approach where you have very narrow programs. So part of the agenda for that planning council for example, would be to broaden those programs to think more holistically to, again, frankly get better value out of these public investments by making the infrastructure more holistic and more comprehensive. It sounds fairly common sense. So, so how would, how would that, for example, you know, how would these policies accelerate, you know, improvements really that the brick and mortar infrastructure and the people really care about the, you know, you have the drinking and the wastewater, of course you know, Flint was, you know, still is the poster child for that, but then, like you mentioned earlier, we have, we have broadband, we have the issue with the gas tax and we have declining revenues, but have increasing, you know, via electric vehicle market, but we don't have a national electric vehicle charging infrastructure, you know, that's something which has to be addressed. And, and the other, those transformative areas that seem to be happening at the state and local level, of course, the States that are really ahead of the curve and trying to be centers of innovation and are starting to think of transportation, not in transportation sense, but as in mobility and, and, and as a holistic way of looking at things how would these policies help accelerate that the federal level?
John Porcari:
Yeah, it would do. It would happen a couple of ways. One I mentioned, which is most infrastructure projects of any size are not funded anymore. They're financed. And that's, that's a very important difference where it may be a 50 or 70 year lifespan piece of infrastructure that has a 35 year loan against it. Broadening the eligibility of those loans would be one thing, expanding the capacity of the federal loan programs, whether it's for highway or transit, water or wastewater. If you just look at the lead pipe and lead contamination issue, the, the existing federal programs capacity for loans is only a fraction of what you would actually need. And it's not just Flint, Michigan it's cities and towns across the country and rural areas. It's also other federal policies. So electric vehicle tax credits can be expanded, accelerated depreciation, all the kind of tax policies that actually trigger private sector investment in infrastructure or public private partnerships is, is something that can be encouraged through these recommendations. And the idea was to be w was, was to try to address the infrastructure needs and be agnostic on whether it's publicly addressed or privately addressed, or a partnership between the two but across the spectrum to try to identify some of these very specific recommendations that that can actually make these things happen.
Host:
Yeah, and that's a very important point because earlier in the couple of months ago, we did a, a round table discussion on the future of funding and transportation. And we had some, some policy think tank guys. We had Jeff Davis and Eno, and we had some thought leaders from Harvard. We had kind of a mixture and everyone agreed that, you know, reliance on farebox revenues especially now. I mean, you can't do it, you can't do it. There has to be a, there's not one solution. There has to be a number of different solutions to broaden the type of financing that you can actually go for for these projects that, you know, just relying on trust, run revenue, for example, is, is something which is, which is difficult in a time of declining revenues. Is there a recommendation on the trust fund within the document?
John Porcari:
It doesn't make a specific recommendation on the trust fund. The participants in this study, like everyone else acknowledged that's that it has to be changed. The system has to be changed. There's no, there's no trust in the trust fund anymore, right? If the Congress has to keep putting general funds and other monies into the trust fund, it's actually not a trust fund where and especially with the recession related to the pandemic, we're seeing trust, run revenues declining very rapidly. But the idea would be to at the local level and the federal level to open the aperture for more innovation on the funding and financing side. And there are jurisdictions that have limitations on how they can raise local funds. These local bond issuances and referenda and local other kinds of local self-help initiatives are limited in many places yet.
John Porcari:
They're actually the primary funding source of the local funds for many of these infrastructure projects. So opening it up across the board and making a better case that infrastructure is actually an investment. Yes, it's an expenditure, but infrastructure given its lifespan and given the economic activity that generates is actually a good investment. Whether it's airports and air service highway transit, the utilities that provide services you simply can't have economic growth and the quality of life we all want without that infrastructure investment.
Host:
And, and I know there, there are a couple of ideas about state local road transfers and federal funding for betterments. Can you go a little bit more into that? You know, what problems are we solving by transferring road ownership from, from state to local governments and, and what is the focus on betterments about?
John Porcari:
Sure, let me take each of those in turn so that the road transfer part of it is a recognition that the primary purpose of any given road may change over time. So in every state, there are state routes, the numbered state routes that were probably very important from a regional point of view maybe back to the horse and buggy days. But that state route is now main street for a town or city. And in that municipality it's serving a very different local function as opposed to the regional function that was originally built for. And so who would be the best steward of that? Who would use that right away most effectively for all the things we talked about, water and wastewater, broadband, burying electric utilities transit service, maybe dedicated transit lanes inductive charging in the next few years.
John Porcari:
The idea is that some of the functions of those roads, which were much more of a state function in the past local function now, it's not true in every case. The idea is to look at those individually and see where it makes sense it might have been for that state route example, 75% interest state regional traffic before. And it may be 25% now. So who would be the best steward of that? The betterment issue is a really interesting one, the when there's a hurricane or tornado or storm event that does significant damage for example, to our highway infrastructure. There's, there are emergency relief funds from the federal government to rebuild that in this highway example and until not too long ago about eight years ago, you could only rebuild that highway the same way it was built before you could not put in bigger storm drainage culverts.
John Porcari:
You couldn't raise the elevation. The idea of betterment is now accepted and it's federally funding eligible where you could rebuild that highway. And now you can do it with transit. You can pull it out of the flood, plain, you, you can armor it in ways where you're not rebuilding the same facility time after time with federal money, emergency relief money, every time it's common sense, but it's something that literally was not allowed until fairly recently. And so one aspect of resilience is to make sure those betterments rebuilding smarter every time is built into the core of what we do.
Host:
Yeah, that's a really good point and it makes complete sense. And I know, but it's the kind of thing that, that from an, you know, from an industry perspective, when, when a firm like WSP or a firm, you know, another ACEC member firm is brought onto a project, you know, they're of course working as a trusted advisor to their client to be able to say, okay, well, this road is built this way, but what we know of, you know, past events and you know, our expertise that we bring into it is that you should be improving it in a number of ways. And here is our expert consultation on how to, how to do that. And, if that idea is, is adopted by a broader swath of the States, that it means that you're going to have an improvement overall in the length and the value of infrastructure, like you said, stretching that dollar, that taxpayer dollar further, and just rebuilding a road exactly how it was. And it's just going to be washed away or destroyed in an earthquake, or what have you again,
John Porcari:
Right. That's right.
Host:
Now we talked about fund financing. We talked about the betterment issue. I know that the plan has a few deregulatory ideas on, on project delivery and cutting red tape. They include accelerated procurements reviews, the permitting, P3 processing. I, you know, we've heard a lot of these ideas from state officials. Did it really surprise you that a lot of these priorities were also coming from mayors who were interviewed?
John Porcari:
Not really the, the more time you spend with mayors, the more you see that they really are hands on problem solvers. So the one of the specific recommendations shortening the procurement cycle is basically the the city's asking the federal government to do what they've already done. We had a mayor for example, that during the pandemic cut their procurement times by 50% and just did it they're meeting all their legal criteria. It's there's no part of the procurement process that's been compromised, but they literally shave 50% of the time off. And the idea is if you can do that at a local level, it can be done at the federal level too. And it, if you do it at the local level and you don't have a federal partner that also cuts their response time and their review time, it doesn't help because you have to get ultimately get there. Okay. Anyway, so these are commonsense forms that don't really don't compromise the quality or the integrity of the process or the project. But what, what the recommendation is really saying is we can do it at the local level. We'd like our federal partners to do the same
Host:
Now to kind of wrap it up. I know the last areas, it really kind of goes into the job creation and employment issue, which is, which is especially important now with the effects of of the pandemic on, on employment. But the playbook discusses a number of of different areas. Here are the importance of training centers of local and targeted construction hires and support for small and medium sized businesses and, and the importance of, of expanding federal research into a lot of these emerging transportation and, you know, planning and such, where do you see this going? You know, what area in this kind of gets your attention the most?
John Porcari:
Well from a local perspective, this was a really pressing issue as well. So part of it is trying to squeeze again, as much value as you can out of tax dollars, by making sure the money stays in the local economy, to the extent possible. You know, at the end of the day, these infrastructure jobs or jobs you can't export, they are American jobs. And as an industry, there's a lot we can do to maximize that. But it also it also talks about taking projects as an opportunity to move people up the skill scale. So if you are learning a skilled trade from a laborer to say high voltage, electrician or welder is part of that project. You have brought someone into the middle class and doing that. And there's a whole ecosystem that could be helpful to that.
John Porcari:
The community colleges that are operated at the local level, we'll put together a training course for anything there's demand for. And there's a little bit of a chicken and egg aspect of this, where you need to make it, if it's clear, the demand is there for skills training, as part of infrastructure construction, the training will be there through private programs to community colleges, through unions and others, lots of providers but what we have not done and, and you can't do at the local level by yourself is systematically put, put that together into a system that lifts people up that skills ladder and provides better opportunities.
Host:
And that that's, you know, cross jurisdictional, because that's not just, you know, infrastructure or transportation policy, but it's educational policy at the, at the national level. It's how, how do you, how do you make the two kind of fit together, which shows, you know, the size of the task, but also the value of these recommendations to inform especially federal policy makers. Since it's an election year, I can't not ask the question. How has this playbook been received by the candidates have you or anyone else from, from, you know, who were leading this charge brought this to either the presidential campaigns or, or any of the the leadership and at the federal level to say that if, as you're, as you're developing policies, keep this in mind.
John Porcari:
It's a great question. At the beginning of this discussion, I mentioned that this is very much a bipartisan effort by bipartisan mayors. And so the playbook recommendations have been made available across the board people on both sides of the aisle have been briefed on it. I will just tell you from my personal perspective and personal experience and full disclosure, I'm a strong supporter of vice president Biden. The uptake of these ideas and, and concepts behind it has been very positive. There's a recognition that, that again, the innovation's at the local level, the decision making's at the local level, let's make sure we're letting our local elected officials make they know what the right choices are for their jurisdictions. Let's back them up and support them with federal policies that actually help them as opposed to getting in their way.
Host:
That's a really good point. And I think a good, a good area to, to leave it on. John, do you have anything else to add about the playbook? It, we've covered a lot of ground here. We know a lot of the recommendations, but is there anything, any, any final parting thought that our listeners should know going out of it?
John Porcari:
Well, I, again, this is, this is from a local perspective and it's very practical as mayors are. So there, there's nothing in here that can't be implemented ACEC members around the country should really think about how this can help locally. To a person ,the members are working at the local level, helping with those local choices, literally use the playbook for what it's intended to be, which is a way to help you with infrastructure, construction and, and in a more general sense, help make the connection between infrastructure and economic growth and prosperity. And the fact is, you know, if we're honest with ourselves, you can look at infrastructure coast to coast here, if you're honest with yourself, and you look at that infrastructure more than likely it was built and paid for by your parents, or maybe your grandparents, and in some cases, your great grandparents. So, it is just irresponsible of us not to invest in the future. It's the best thing we can do for the country going forward in terms of thinking about the future.
Host:
Yeah, really good parting thoughts there, because I think that one of the things that our members are very busy running their firms are very busy of course, with the work that they have ahead of themselves and running an office from the time of pandemic. But we can't lose sight of the fact that, that from an industry perspective, we're the thought leaders who can help drive these decision making processes at all levels of government that as an ACEC member, as a professional engineer and a business leader, there's a platform and there's expertise that our elected officials can't get anywhere else. And if they're able to use this documentthe playbook as a way to inform their thinking and develop their own thinking it'll help raise the profile of the industry as a whole, which is of course, one of the focuses of the institutes, you know, one of the key missions is to support the growth and the thought leadership of the industry.
Host:
But, you know, from a business sense, it'll, it'll make you more competitive when you're going for business, because you can put that economic argument behind it. You can put that, you know, like non, non partisan political argument to, to tie it all together and justify a project. I guess I do want to put a plug in because the, the ACC research Institute coming up in the, in, in, in next few weeks is going to be delving into aspects of the playbook. We're going to be doing some round tables on the playbook in conjunction with Accelerator for America. And we had our first series of round tables on the future of engineering. They were very successful and we look forward to another successful series coming up in, in only a few weeks but more information on that's going to be coming up shortly.
Host:
So stay tuned. We are going to post up the the, the program on the show notes, we will have a link to the, to the Accelerator for America website. And then of course, that will have the link to the playbook. John, I really appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. And I know our listeners really benefited from hearing your views and your expertise.
John Porcari:
It's my pleasure. And I do want to thank the ACEC Research Institute, and also everyone who's involved in putting this playbook together, because it took a lot of hands to actually get a nationwide perspective here.
Host:
Well hopefully we can have you back on the show a little bit later after we have those round tables and kind of maybe after once we get a better idea of what happens in November, and we get a better idea of, you know, what infrastructure policy might look like and either administration it might be good to revisit these issues. So until then, again, John Porcari, He leads advisory services at WSP, but he is also just a very, very knowledgeable individual when it comes to federal and state and local transportation policy. And thank you so much for being on the show.
John Porcari:
My pleasure, Jeff. Thanks.
Host:
And this has been Engineering Influence a podcast from the American council of engineering companies. We'll see you next time.
 
 
 

An Interview with Rep. Bruce Westerman, P.E.

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

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