Articles

ASCE Legislative Washington Fly-In 2014

ASCE Legislative Washington Fly-In 2014

Dr. Mark K. Boyd, PE, DWRE, ENV SP, M. ASCE

The following commentary reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily that of this publication nor the Dallas ASCE Branch membership and Board.

On March 18-20, I attended the  ASCE annual Legislative Fly-In Program in Washington, D.C. It was an intensive two-day program that provided an impressive gathering of ASCE leadership, with all 50 states represented, with an inside look at the political process. Texas had a large delegation, second only to California’s group. I joined the delegation with such noted participants as  Bob Stevens (ASCE National President Elect) and Curtis Beitel (Texas Section President Elect). With the looming insolvency of the federal highway trust fund and a projected 90% drop in federal transportation funding in 2015, the main purpose of the Fly-In was to convey the urgency of ASCE’s positions and key points on MAP-21 surface transportation re-authorization. A secondary objective was to reinforce what appears to be general bipartisan support for the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). ASCE’s national web site should be consulted for information about ASCE’s position and key points on these subjects. 

Right before making our way to Capitol Hill, Secretary Foxx sent us off with an enthusiastic keynote address. He quipped that everyone sitting in a traffic jam and hitting a pothole becomes an expert on transportation infrastructure. I would add that everyone that gets bad tasting tap water or can only water the lawn once a week becomes an instant expert on water resources infrastructure. 

I had quality time (more than 30 minutes) with twenty-something year old congressional staffers in the offices of Congresspersons Pete Sessions (north Dallas), Kay Granger (Fort Worth), and Lamar Smith (San Antonio). The youth of congressional staffers  should be no surprise to anyone like me that has ever participated in Texas Capitol legislative visits. I was surprised that Washington congressional staffers were not a great deal older than Austin staffers, albeit most did appear to be more seasoned and knowledgeable than their state level counterparts. Most staffers were generally aware of ASCE’s infrastructure report card and knowledgeable of  infrastructure issues and legislation.  

Theoretical support for infrastructure investment authorization is not lacking in Washington. Staffers did not convey any hard opposition to surface transportation and water resources legislation, nor did they convey any particular enthusiasm in support of specific legislation or funding mechanisms. All engaged politely in the conversation of smart investment in our nation’s infrastructure. Mostly, however, their stated positions were non-committal or undecided as their bosses are on the watch for “poison pills” in the legislation packages in committee (or about to go to committee). A “poison pill” is what they refer to as a legislation detail that would render a yes or no vote to be politically injurious. They were reticent to commit firmly pending a final version of the bill in question.    

What is lacking is a consensus on the tactical specifics of funding the HTF. For instance, how to backfill or prevent HTF insolvency is such a “sticky wicket” that ASCE has been forced to adopt the pragmatic position of, “all funding options are on the table”. ASCE’s non-position on HTF funding mechanisms avoids miring the conversation with partisan quibbling about unfunded mandates, creative complex funding strategies, and debates about wasteful spending in other programs. ASCE further avoids using a toxic phrase like “gas tax increase”, even though the 20-year-old gas tax should arguably have been indexed to inflation from the beginning. Re-labeling the gas tax as a “roadway user’s fee” does not seem to gain traction in Washington, from my admittedly limited point of view. One staffer described the White House plan to gain new funding sources from Corporate Tax reform as a “gimmick”. I came to understand why, but that will have to become the subject of another article.  

I cannot report an important revelation to you from my Washington Fly-In experience. There is overall support and understanding in Washington that Texas desperately needs federal funding to continue wise infrastructure development that is so critical to the nation as a whole. There is also overall understanding that states with lesser means need federal assistance because they are in the critical paths for interstate roadway systems so important to our economy and future job creation. I truly wish I could come up good suggestions for practically attainable, politically acceptable funding solutions.  Washington’s current political climate puts that beyond my intellectual reach. Until I have an epiphany, I’ll let other wiser, more politically savvy ASCE members come up with a solution to get Washington off the dime and provide the funding that is needed get our report card grade up toward building the proper vessel for our nation’s continued economic success.