technology

A Preview of the Fall 2020 Private Industry Brief

 
 
ACEC's Erin McLaughlin joined the podcast to discuss the newly released Fall 2020 special Private Industry Brief, which can be read here.  Erin will be presenting a detailed analysis of the brief during the upcoming 2020 ACEC Fall Conference later this month.  More information and registration details for the event can be found here.  

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

The Chairman's Corner with Mitch Simpler

Jeff Urbanchuk sits down with ACEC Board Chairman, Mitch Simpler, for the first in a series of quarterly interviews that we like to call the Chairman's Corner.
 
Transcript:
Host: 00:18 We are pleased to be joined by Mitch Simpler, ACC board chair, in what we hope will be the first of many appearances on our podcast as the chairman's report or the chairman's corner. Kind of figuring out what we're going to call it, but a on a quarterly basis hopefully we can get a Mitch on to talk about what's happening at ACEC and in the engineering industry. Mitch, welcome to the show and happy 4th of July week.
Mitch Simpler: 00:55 Jeff, my pleasure to be here and the problem you're going to have in the future is not getting me on. It's getting me off.
Host: 01:01 That's fine. I'd rather have more content than less. Um we were just kind of talking before we went on a that were coming off of a series of leadership orientations here at headquarters where we had staff from our member organizations who got some one on one time with the DC staff to learn more about the organization and what we can offer. And then of course, what they can offer us. And there seemed to be a good deal of positivity and energy coming after those meetings. What was your take?
Mitch Simpler: 01:29 Well, my take was exactly the same thing. The energy was, was amazing. I've been to probably to at least a half a dozen of these orientations, uh, retreats as it were over the past half a dozen years or so. Clearly the energy level was significantly different and better. Um, and I attribute that certainly a lot of it to Linda and her team, which are just highly engaged and very engaging to the, to the participants. But probably the big difference was that it was not a monologue. It was a dialogue. The fundamental change that was made is that instead of lecturing in front of a room full of 50 people, Linda and her team broke it up into small groups of seven or eight and each of the group leaders from ACEC now had an opportunity to sit one on one with the various leadership, uh, people from the from the MOs. And they had a chance to have a dialogue. And that was really impressive to see how much the, the leaders were engaged in the process. And, uh, and the positive feedback that we got has been significant. And the clearly a home run for Linda and her team,
Host: 02:41 It was definitely a different dynamic sitting around with the table and just talking to everyone and just getting feedback. And especially in the media side, you know, talking about how people engage at the state level and, and how we can help them. And then of course the policy guys, then membership and all the different segments of ACEC Washington being able to interact was, was great and it did provide that back and forth and energy and it kind of goes into the idea of, of of what we have to offer and ACEC's strengths, um, you know, coming in as, as chairman, what do you see as ACEC's greatest strengths that we can leverage?
Mitch Simpler: 03:21 Our strengths has been and will continue to be certainly in the DC area is our advocacy program. But one of the things that we've changed this year, um, and Steve Hall leads an amazing group of lobbyists and policymakers, but the big change was we've added another team member who was really part of our outward facing, uh, group. And that's, Mr Dave Bender, who was the exec out of Illinois. Dave comes with 20 years plus experience in dealing with members of Congress, uh, understands what makes them tick. And he may be a party of one at this point that does, but, but he certainly does. And I think his addition to the team has been absolutely a monumental and I think will significantly change not only how we are able to interface with, with Capitol Hill, but also, um, how they will view us. They being Capitol Hill will now look to ACEC because they will have a face literally, at their disposal. Um, and I think that we'll have again, a significant impact on what already is one of our greatest strengths, which is our advocacy programs.
Host:  04:31  Yeah. Dave coming on the team has been a seamless transition. He's come on board and hit the ground running. And of course he's coming to us after a massive victory in Illinois. The governor, of course on Friday signed in the largest infrastructure investment in the state's history for about, 30 years. Um, they have not touched user fees and this the first time in 30 years they've actually taken a proactive step to invest. And that was largely due to Dave's hard work at the state level. And if, you know, the picture of the bill signing, there's some hard hats. And on those hard hats there was an ACEC logo at the bill signing so that shows that we had an impact. So that's, that's a really good point with Dave coming on board. Um, and the fact that it will help with the national footprint. Um, you know, you mentioned advocacy, that's still one of our main, focus points. And you know, we have the debate over infrastructure, you know, the work that's being done in Washington. But we have to think about beyond the beltway and how much does, our work here kind of translate to your world in New York, of course, in the private marketplace? And does it have that much penetration of people's attention elsewhere?
Mitch Simpler: 05:45 Well, so this kind of put it in a, in a bigger picture. So what ACEC is doing in, in the Metro area, particularly on Capitol Hill, is continuing beat the drum as to how important infrastructure is to the country, not just to ACEC and the members of ACEC, we implement the policies that get executed. The key is to get the policies executed in the first place and and we're there to remind all of the legislators at this is an important component to what makes our country great. And if we want to continue the growth that we're having, we need to invest in infrastructure. It doesn't just impact, um, you know, the, the horizontal and the, and the transportation people. It impacts all businesses at all levels. And so even though I am a private sector predominant proponent, because that's the business I'm in, my, my businesses, the people that I work for will all benefit by improved infrastructure, whether it's highways, bridges, tunnels, rails in a modal, transportation, sea ports, airports, all those things improve business.
Mitch Simpler: 06:56 And that's what we need to do as a country. We need to do as an industry and what ACEC needs to promote or certainly continue to promote how important all that infrastructure is. Um, and New York City is not exempt by any means. Then in fact, we have the same issues that the country has as a whole. New York City and all the metro areas have the same issues and that they have not been investing in infrastructure on a continuous basis. It has fallen behind. The disrepair is costing all of us time and money. So investment in our infrastructure will help everybody, private sector, public sector across the board. And uh, and so that message has gotten through loud and clear. Uh, not only is it loud and clear from the federal level and from ACEC national level, but at the local level, both the state MOs and then those states that have regional MOs, that message is being driven right down to the grassroots because it is that important. And, uh, and thank God ACEC is continuing to wave the flag as to how important it is for all of us in order for our businesses to succeed, for our country to be successful.
Host: 08:03 Absolutely. And you did mention the fact that you come from predominantly from the private marketplace and I know that one of your, key focuses is broadening ACEC's membership. Of course, you know, we have a lot of focus on firms that do work in the public sector. Um, a lot of, you know, the work in advocacy has a direct impact on state DOT's, and agencies like that. But who do you think is underrepresented and, how can we bring them into the ACEC family?
Mitch Simpler: 08:36 Well, as I said at the last podcast, certainly, uh, my focus is to raise the awareness of what the private sector can do. And I say private sectors, it's anybody in the engineering industry outside of the horizontal transportation, Intermodal Transportation Industry, which ACC has done a spectacular job of bringing to our table. But, but as I said previously, that represents only 20% of the built environment in the u s the other 80% is the private sector. Um, what we hope to do, what certainly my mission is, is to raise the awareness of private sector firms and that ACEC exists and what can we do for them and as much as what we can do for them, can they do for us as an industry to help raise our overall voice. Um, and I've mentioned this previously that certainly in New York, Metro New York in particular has a very, very strong, upwards of 50% of our membership is private sector.
Mitch Simpler: 09:39 Um, what we refer to as the vertical component. These are people that design buildings, hospitals, hotels, residential towers, um, and the university work institutional. Uh, hospitals and those, those kinds of of projects. Uh, and what is the value that we bring? Well, the fact is that we all have so much in common with all other engineering firms. ACEC becomes sort of the, the, the, uh, the common denominator for all of us to be able to communicate to network. Uh, in addition to the traditional value added, um, programs that ACEC brings to its members, whether it's access to the trust, uh, but the single biggest thing for the private sector is the networking component. And where firms can have an opportunity to meet, discuss, uh, joint ventures and combining team efforts, uh, to become, you know, a greater industry representative. And it has been hugely successful.
Mitch Simpler: 10:41 Um, the other big thing that the private sector brings to the table is other means by which you can do project work, particularly doing lump sum. And I know lump sum and a lot of conversations with our traditional membership is like a dirty word. But the fact of the matter is that lump sum does now give you an opportunity to be more innovative, more ingenious, and, and, and come up with better, more efficient ways to bring a project to to bear and to the marketplace for your client and make money at the same time. It's a win win for all sides, but it's a different way to approach a project. What we hope the private sector can do is to bring that experience to the table so that both the public sector and the private sector can benefit.
Host: 11:27 You've also mentioned, um, ACEC New York's success in becoming really the go-to organization for, uh, the city, uh, when looking at building codes and looking at new standards for construction in the city. Um, and how really the expertise of ACEC membership is brought to bear and is reflected in construction that the city. Do you find that in speaking to your peers and ACEC, do you see that as unique, or is that something that is, replicated or, or could it be a model for other MOs to follow?
Mitch Simpler: 12:07 It's certainly a model. Um, and, and if you, uh, go back and my sort of, my opening statement at the last pod conversation was, you know, what are my goals, my goal? And one of the reasons that we, we liked Linda and her team and, but Linda particularly when we brought her on board as our new CEO, was that one of our goals is to become the voice of the engineering industry. We've accomplished that in New York, in New York City in particular. The reason that the city comes to us is because they know that the members of ACEC are, singularly, the most knowledgeable and unbiased voices to provide technical expertise to the city. So the key example that we use is that the chairs of all of the major code committees, I'm chair of the Mechanical Committee, the structural, the fire alarm, the plumbing and fire protection, the elevator, all those committees are chaired by members of ACEC.
Mitch Simpler: 13:05 Why? Because the the city came to ACEC and said, who should we use to chair these committees? Um, and it's because of their experience over the past 20 plus years that the ACEC team brings the best, most experienced, uh, people to the table to provide what needs to be provided to get this, in this particular case, a code rewrite completed. It would certainly be my hope that we can take that model and share that with all of the MOs so that at the end of the day, ACEC does become the voice of the engineering industry. That would be the ultimate end game. And, and then what it does for the membership is give them, um, insight in terms of the mechanisms and the thought processes for why things get done the way they do, whether it's in government, uh, whether it's for code purposes and just industry leadership in general from a business perspective. Um, and I think it is a absolutely realistic and doable goal. Um, it is something that, that we know will work. And the key is to be able to take what was done in New York and model that and get that out to the mos so that we can use that as an exemplar of what can be done.
Host: 14:23 And do you find there's a receptive audience among the MO executives to that kind of a message?
Mitch Simpler: 14:28 Oh, absolutely. And again, anecdotally, when we have conversations, we tell them this is the, this is what we do. And the Metro area, they said, boy, we would love to be able to do that. How do we do it? And the key is, and this is the beauty of the Federation of ACEC, is that we are able to share knowledge. Um, the NACE right, was just a national association executive, uh, directors for ACEC, the group of executive directors from all 51 MOs meet regularly. And the next focus is going to be what can we do in terms of best practices to be able to attract, the, the other, the non traditional, uh, ACEC firms and how do we leverage that to become a more vocal and respected member of our community so that the community then turns to ACEC as the voice of the industry and say, look, this is the issue. What do you think? Who Do you have on your, on your, on your Rolodex to be able to help us get to a solution? And that's, that's the place we want to be. And that's an enviable position to be sure. But something that is well within our reach.
Host:  15:41 And that goes right to Linda's idea that, you know, really it's not a question of being part of the conversation. It's to lead the conversation that we have the opportunity to do that. And it kind of goes back to the the leadership orientations that we've had, because we want to make sure that our membership, um, really takes advantage of all the tools that we have at our disposal between, um, the webinar educational series. Um, the advocacy of course, um, and just all of the different resources that are available to them to assist them in kind of developing themselves into being these, you know, being able to carry this message, uh, to their local governments, to, you know, their into their economies, uh, in their states.
Mitch Simpler: 16:25  Right. And again, we'll go back to where we started this conversation. And that was the issue of the leadership orientation. The big difference was now each of the, the MO leadership had an opportunity to meet with the various department heads on firstly a one to one basis and the veil of, you know, who is really the right person to talk to and who's, you know, what's the, what's the right conversation to take place? They were able to do that on a one to one basis. And, and, and because of that, the, the, the, uh, relationships started to develop between ACEC national and the MOs literally at the first meeting. And as the day went on, it became abundantly clear that there was clearly dialogues happening, that there was the MO leadership was less inhibited to ask questions. And one of the things that we mentioned that certainly, and, and, and, and I, and Charlie G who is the incoming chair and, and Linda, we were floaters. We just popped literally butterflies hopping from table to table to purpose to which we thought originally was to sort of be catalyst to help the conversation get started. And I will tell you with no exception, we walked into the middle of very active conversations and it was really, really rewarding to see how everybody was engaged. And my hope is as a result of that, that the mos will feel less inhibited about reaching out to national for information to, uh, to make sure they're not repeating a mistake that's already been made and for fresh ideas. And that I think was all the the takeaways from this orientation, which was all really positive and that will be a benefit to both sides.
Host: 18:05 Absolutely. Um, I do want to kind of pivot to another issue, which is also another hot topic. Um, both Linda and, and for yourself and really for the industry in general. And that's the commoditization of engineering. Uh, which is something, you know, we talk about internally, our members of course, talk a lot about, um, whether, whether or not that's actually seen as much by policymakers on the Hill. That's an open question which we have to work on. But you know, if you were meeting with, you know, let's say the chairman of the Transportation Committee in the house, you know, how would you put, how would you encapsulate the danger of commoditization for them to understand and what it means for, for just, you know, the economy for public safety, for everything?
Mitch Simpler: 18:51 Well, in the commoditization of professional services is probably singularly the one of the greatest threats to our industry. Because what it does, it does not reward innovation. Does not reward access and use of best available technology. It just lowers the quality of service and the performance and the product down to the lowest common denominator. Part of our job, our advocacy program is to educate not only the people on the Hill that make the decisions, but to raise the awareness of our own industry, of what we're doing to ourselves. We need to be sure that people understand that engineering is not a commodity in any way, shape or form. So treating professional services of engineering like a commodity is a huge mistake. Um, what we want to do is have them understand that we want, we want owners, we want, uh, uh, policymakers to appreciate that there are differences.
Mitch Simpler: 19:54 That's why QBS is so important because quality is a difference between firm to firm and we want them to pick the most qualified people. And what qualifies one firm over another? A, they're experienced certainly, but B, the way they do project works, how they approach it, what technology, what technology do they employ? Both internal for producing the documents but more employee. What technology do they employ in the actual design itself. If you want our infrastructure to proceed and a forward and upward way, you've got to, you've got to welcome technology, you've got to welcome innovation and commoditizing the fees is exactly the way not to do that. So part of our argument would be to explain to them, these are the types of differences that happen. This is why these differences exist and this is why you need to do QBS. And we are, we are, we are then the fact of the matter is we are the best people to have that conversation. Absolutely. I want to say the only people, but we're certainly the best.
Host: 20:58 I mean, well you are. Yeah. I mean, the best thing is that the member firms who are engaged with ACEC are the, uh, they are the people who are creating the innovation, who are breaking new grounds as we see in the engineering excellence awards every year of new standards of doing things, new ways of approaching problems. And uh, it's that work demonstrates the importance of engineers as the thought leaders and as professionals. And not just as, um, you know, providers of a service that can be just boxed up and replicated. And the idea that you can just easily just say, oh, let's in-source the work completely ignores the diversity, the innovation and the creativity of consulting engineers.
Mitch Simpler: 21:53  Absolutely. Right. And by the way, I'll kind of circle back to what can, what can the private industry bring to the table for the, for the, for the more traditional ACEC member firms and the private sector, because we do work for lump sum, the vast majority of the time we are rewarded for being innovative, for being ingenious, for being efficient. And those techniques ultimately do work their way down the food chain and over into other aspects of the consulting industry. But by welcoming the private sector firms enter the faults sooner rather than later. That that technology transfer can happen a lot quicker. And I think, again, that would be hugely helpful for ACEC to act as that, I'll use that conduit to get that, uh, that, uh, education process in terms of getting the, what the private sector does every day into the hands of the people that do the more traditional transportation, horizontal work.
Host: 22:57 Absolutely. Technology in general is an issue which is always out there, but you think that, um, ACEC could be doing more to position itself as a recognized voice on technology, um, both, you know, as its own subject, but then also to kind of reach some of the younger professionals coming up.
Mitch Simpler: 23:21 The answer is yes. Um, technology is the buzz word and will be for the next probably a hundred years. Technology today is changing at a rate faster than ever before in history. And, uh, and I'm getting to be sort of an older dog and I am absolutely amazed at how rapidly technology is changing. Um, and it's not limited just to engineering, not limited to infrastructure. It's across the board in every aspect of life. It's how we train our staff. I mean, that is incredible. Um, the amount of technology that's being literally showered on us every day. Uh, what is ACEC's role in my mind, our role is to be out there and we don't have to become the experts in the, and the, uh, technology market, but we'll, we need to do is be aware of what's happening and act as the, I'll call it the clearing house to make sure that the information regarding technology, where it's being used, how it's being used, where innovation is being, uh, taking advantage of the best available technology and get that information through ACEC out to the Mos and ultimately out to the member firms, not on how to use it, but to be aware of that this is where it exists and this is how it's being applied, that point the, the engineers need to be the engineers and determine whether or not that technology is appropriate for them and how can they best leverage it for their business or their client's business.
Mitch Simpler: 24:53 But certainly ACEC's role is to be the clearing house to get that information flowing from those firms that are, that are on the, on the, oh, I'll call it the bleeding edge of technology for the firms that are on the, on the following edge so that everyone can learn and take advantage of the technology, uh, and the quickest possible way.
Host:  25:14 Absolutely. And that's again, kind of underscores the importance of ACEC membership both at the state level of course, because we can have a better pulse on what's happening closer to you. But then also the national level because we can serve as that clearing house and help get that best practice information spread as far and wide as possible. And that we can kind of hopefully, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats and more people take advantage of best practices, for these technologies, you know, technology and its implementation. Um, you're able to raise the prominence of the industry and, and, and show that it's not a commodity.
Mitch Simpler: 25:49 No, but you know, engineering in general, the general public looks to engineers as the people that are the innovative, creative problem solvers. And if ACC wants to be the voice of the industry, we have to be out there getting the information to our members before they go and just find it out through the more traditional, you know, read about it in the paper, read about it, the magazine. Um, we really need to be out there, sort of, you know, plowing and, and pushing the technology up at, back to our members as soon as it becomes available. At that point they become industry leaders. And I think that's something that we as an organization can be. We can be, thought of as our members, as the people that do help them become better businesses because we are availing them of whatever technology is, emerging and we need to do that. Uh, we've done it, we continued to do it. Um, and I think we can do it on a bigger scale going forward.
Host: 26:50 Very well put. Um, I guess that's, that kind of wraps up, um, you know, really what we have. I just wanted to see if you had anything else that you wanted to add at the end here. Um, really just kind of like your perspective as a board chair. Um, and of course we're getting ready, we're gearing up in October for our fall conference in Chicago. Um, you know, what do you see on the horizon? What are you excited about coming up in the next couple of months?
Mitch Simpler: 27:18 Well, just in general, what I'm most excited about is this, the level of enthusiasm and the feedback that we're getting at both the grassroots level and up to the MOs. Uh, there's clearly a perception that ACEC is, I'll use my term lifting the veil, uh, that, that national is, uh, open from business and we are there to support all of our mos in any way that we can in any way that we, we are able to. And I think that message is getting through. Uh, and it's really exciting for me when I meet with our MOs, with MO leadership. And member firms, um, that, that perception is really getting down to the grassroots. And I think that's very exciting. Um, I, I am looking forward to, and I have a number of trips planned, the most recent will be next week I'm going to be down in the deep south and have an opportunity to meet with their leadership and, and to get their feedback. But certainly the reviews that I got at the leadership orientation, we had over 50 people at the, at the the one last week. It was all very positive and it's very exciting to see that people do recognize that the change in leadership at ACEC has been for the, for the better and they are looking forward to and moving this thing even and do a greater clarity and more transparency. And that's really what our goal is.
Host: 28:50 Well, we definitely have something to say. We've got great messengers to say it and we have the energy to really get the message out. So I think that we're well poised and energized to get this done. So I really appreciate your time again on a holiday week and look forward to doing this on a regular basis. Like I said, we want to try to get a regular quarterly show that is set up for you to come on and talk about really the issues that you care about and really appreciate you being part of the kickoff.
Mitch Simpler: 29:23 Terrific. And it is my pleasure and I wish everybody a very happy, healthy, and safe 4th of July.
Host: 29:31 Wonderful. Thank you very much.
 

An Interview with Bloomberg Government's Shaun Courtney

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

The Outlook in Washington with Politico's Tanya Snyder

ACEC sat down with Tanya Snyder, Politico's congressional correspondent covering transportation and infrastructure issues in the House and Senate, for a frank discussion about the outlook for an infrastructure bill and recent events in Washington.  

ACEC Introduces the Private Industry Brief - The Engineering Industry's Outlook for 2019

On this episode of Engineering Influence, Erin McLaughlin, ACEC's Senior Director of Private Market Resources, introduces a new data tool for the A/E industry: the Private Industry Brief. 
With each 4-to-6-page targeted issue, you'll learn which US geographic areas are trending hot and 'not' so you can make smart decisions about where to invest your resources. You'll also dive into sector-specific data relating to top clients, government affairs, and relevant education programs.
Download a copy of the Brief and subscribe for future editions here. 
 
  

Interview with ACEC President & CEO Linda Bauer Darr on WCCI-FM with Brian Rausch

An interview with ACEC President & CEO Linda Bauer Darr on WCCI-FM with Broan Rausch broadcasting in the quad cities, Illinois and Iowa.
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of the nation’s engineering industry. ACEC member firms drive the design of America’s infrastructure and built environment. Founded in 1906, ACEC is a national federation of 52 state and regional organizations representing more than 5,600 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide.

ACEC Interview with ACEC-Kentucky Executive Director, Sara Massey

ACEC's Alan Crockett interviews Sara Massey, ACEC-Kentucky's new Executive Director at the 2019 ACEC Annual Convention and Legislative Summit in Washington, DC.
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of the nation’s engineering industry. ACEC member firms drive the design of America’s infrastructure and built environment. Founded in 1906, ACEC is a national federation of 52 state and regional organizations representing more than 5,600 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide.