Thinking Transportation: Engaging Conversations about Transportation Innovations
Thinking Transportation: Engaging Conversations about Transportation Innovations
Staffing the USDOT: Turnover, Teambuilding and Transportation Policy
When a new U.S. presidential administration is inaugurated, federal agencies experience changes in leadership and staff. Nicole Nason served as administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) at the U.S. Department of Transportation during the first Trump Administration. She understands as well as anyone the challenges of pursuing policy priorities in transportation while navigating the often choppy waters of politics in Washington, D.C. Ms. Nason joins us today to discuss her passion for public safety inspired by her father, who was a motorcycle cop in New York State; reminisce with Allan about their time together as agency leaders in Washington; and urge others to pursue a life in public service. | View the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions (Plum Book) mentioned in the episode
Howdy everyone, welcome to Thinking Transportation, conversations about how we get ourselves and the stuff we need from one place to another. I'm Allan Rutter with the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. When a new coach for a college athletics program is hired, that person has to hire staff, retain players, and recruit new ones. The coach is responsible for the team behind the team. The same thing is true for newly elected officeholders at just about any level of government, and it's particularly true for the federal government after a new president is elected. On today's episode, we'll discuss that team-building process for the U.S. Department of Transportation. So it seems like it was much longer, but just nine months ago, we've witnessed another presidential inauguration. When another president takes office, they will soon begin the process of nominating and seeking confirmation of cabinet secretaries. I remember that transition period being truncated somewhat after George W. Bush secured the presidency. As his transportation policy director, I was in contact with that presidential transition team for the next couple of weeks, helping them identify people to lead the mini-modal administrations within US DOT. Going through that process afterwards, I had the honor of being considered for interviewing and being nominated, and then confirmed as the federal railroad administrator. So this gave me an inside view of how one DOT gets organized and staffed. One of the folks I had the chance of working with within the assistant secretary for governmental affairs was Nicole Nason, our guest today. Nicole went on to serve as administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and then served in the State Department and as federal highway administrator during the first Trump administration. Nicole has much more experience than I do, both as a participant in and student of presidential transitions and how USDOTs get reshaped within each new administration. And that's what we're going to talk about today. So welcome, Nicole.
Nicole Nason:Thank you, my friend. Can I call you Administrator Rutter just for old time's sake while I'm here?
Allan Rutter:Yeah, we can both be honorable.
Nicole Nason:Or pretend to be at least. I think we always pretended. I am very excited to be here today. I really appreciate the chance to ... you know, I'll talk politics all day long. So you'll have to cut me off.
Allan Rutter:But before we get underway, help our listeners understand a little more about your journey both into transportation and public service. How did you find yourself becoming involved in Washington and in transportation?
Nicole Nason:You know, it's funny, like most people, I didn't grow up hoping to be a political appointee. And my father was a motorcycle cop in New York. That was his career for a long time. He worked his way up to be lieutenant in charge of highway patrol. And I used to tell people that my dad was getting up and going out to work at night while most people's parents were coming home from work and thinking about dinner and bedtime. And he would ride that motorcycle up and down the Long Island Expressway looking for dangerous drivers, drugged and drunk drivers. He was extremely passionate about lowering the BAC to 0.08 because he had seen and documented so many crashes and fatalities on the roads. But he was really personally passionate about it, as so many law enforcement officers and first responders are, because they see 40,000 plus fatalities on the roads [each year]. They're the first one on site and they're the folks that have to document it. And so when I joined the Department of Transportation in the Government Affairs Office, having worked on Capitol Hill for so many years, this was an issue that was incredibly important to me because I grew up around it. My father got us all excited and inspired about traffic safety. And so when I came into the U.S. Customs Service, I did a year running government affairs with customs. And then I moved over to DOT for the Senate-confirmed position as the assistant secretary for government affairs, which is, of course, where I got to meet you, my great friend. And I did three years there. And I was just about to leave. And Norman Mineta, who was the wonderful secretary of transportation at the time, said, "No, no, no, you have a passion for this, you have a family interest in traffic safety, and we have a job opening up that I think you're going to love." And I had gone in to him to retire. I had gone in to explain to him that I was about to send my letter to the president. I was resigning. I was going to have a baby. This has been a great experience, but I'm done. And Norm Mineta, sitting there with me, because he was pretty funny, as you undoubtedly remember, Allan. He took a blank piece of paper off his desk. And as I was talking and he was nodding his head, he tore the piece of paper up, just uh from the desk of Norm Mineta, blank piece of paper. He tore it up into a lot of little pieces. And then smiling at me, he took an empty envelope and he scattered all the little torn-up pieces into the envelope and he handed it back to me and he said, "This is what I would have done with your resignation letter if you had handed it to me." And I said, "Mr. Secretary, you can't do that. I'm resigning to the president." He said, "It's not happening. We have a job for you and you're gonna love it." And I always credit him for pushing me outside of my comfort zone and forcing me to take this bigger role. And really, I think changing the trajectory of my career. Plus, I loved the issue. So I feel very blessed to have worked for, now, seven cabinet secretaries at three different federal agencies, all of whom are really committed to government service. And I'm very thankful for that.
Allan Rutter:Wow, what a great story about Norm. I remember visiting with him for the first time when they were considering whether this young kid from Texas was going to be considered for something. And he had actually read my full CV, which not many people would do, on the back of which was the subject of my master's thesis when I got my professional bureaucrat degree at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, which was about public arts administration. So Norm goes, okay, how does a guy who writes his thesis about public arts end up doing transportation stuff? Norm was... Because he was a mayor first, I think he's always been that sort of people person and instantly going to "how can I find a way to connect with the person who's in front of me?"
Nicole Nason:Yeah, no, that was a huge priority of his, all the way down to the interns. That was a very important lesson I learned from him. Be kind to the interns.
Allan Rutter:And everybody else.
Nicole Nason:Yes. All the way up. He gave time to everyone. And that is, I think, kind of a critically important issue for all leaders, but particularly in government, because there's so much public scrutiny in government. And he reminded us all that even as we're feeling intense pressure, even as we're worried about the news we are making, there is a whole generation of people coming behind us that want these opportunities and we need to support them. So I'm always thankful to him for his support in my career.
Allan Rutter:Well, speaking of secretaries, a good way of segueing into talking about our current one. One of the things that I think Secretary Duffy tends to be dismissed by his critics of the administration who focus on his time in television, forget that he had a pretty prominent career as a congressman. What can you tell our listeners about Secretary Duffy's election and service in the House of Representatives?
Nicole Nason:Oh, sure. There's a long history of, and you know this, elected officials who serve as cabinet secretaries. I mean, if you look at DOT alone, you could go all the way back to Volpe, who was a governor. Norm Mineta was a member of Congress, Ray La Hood was a member of Congress, Pena was a mayor in Denver, I think. Of course, Mayor Pete was famously Mayor Pete before he was Secretary Pete. So this is nothing new. Even Andy Card, our White House chief of staff at the time, had served in the Massachusetts State House. So having, you know, political experience coming in as a cabinet secretary is extremely common. The thing that I find most impressive about Sean Duffy is his energy level. I mean, he can keep up with President Trump, and that's really saying something when it comes to being high energy and attending a lot of events. And I find it amazing what he's accomplished in his nine months, focusing on everything from a horrific plane crash at DCA.
Allan Rutter:... months or weeks after he got confirmed.
Nicole Nason:I think it was his first week or so on the job to moving people, restructuring the department, changing the grant programs. He's put out all kinds of new guidance and regs, and he's got to get all his nominees through. I mean, up until a day or two ago, he had only one other Senate confirmed official in the building, I believe. He had a deputy. And so he's been waiting for his modal administrators to get confirmed. He's been traveling. He takes meetings with executives from all forms of transportation. So he's been incredibly high energy. And I think for DOT, that's almost more important than anything else, is having a secretary who loves the job, who wants to get out there, and who wants to talk to community leaders and business leaders about their pain points. And that's really where he's focused his energy.
Allan Rutter:Well, and as you said, other people within the DOT building, other people working there notice the level of involvement and integration with the department's activities. So somebody who clearly wants to do the job, whether he, like you or me, had grown up thinking about it, once having it, doing it enthusiastically and thoroughly, gets noticed by other people within the department.
Nicole Nason:Right. And I think from the career perspective, I mean, there's been a lot of talk about career employees across government. But what most career senior officials want more than anything is a cabinet secretary who's passionate about the job he's been asked or she's been asked to do. And in transportation, that's particularly important because the domestic agencies historically have had to fight for attention. I can remember my time in Trump One at the State Department being shocked at the number of times that I was brought over to the White House for meetings compared to the number of times I had gone over to the White House as a DOT employee. Because, you know, the global news tends to dominate White House focus. Maybe it's Russia and Ukraine, the president's speech at the UN. It doesn't matter. There's global attention always putting so much pressure on the White House. And so to have a secretary of transportation who has a good relationship with the president and who's very enthusiastic about the job and out there getting things done is more important, I think, to many of the career employees than anything else. They want to know that he wants to know what they do and why they do it. And I really do think he's been very excited to learn about all of the different modes.
Allan Rutter:Well, let's talk a little bit about staffing the rest of the department. As we've talked about, the vast majority of people who work within DOT and other agencies are career civil service with some senior leadership positions that are part of the senior executive service. Higher level staff advance through a careful appointment process. But there's a small number of positions within each federal agency that are political appointments. Actually, those are listed in something that's often referred to as the Plum Book, both because the cover of the printed version is colored plum and because the positions are highly sought. The official title is the United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions. And it's actually published every November after the election by congressional committees, it turns out. (I thought it was a government printing office thing.) Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and House Committee on Government Reform alternately after each presidential election. And we'll put a link to that in the show notes. But the Plum Book lists all the appointed positions within the Office of the Secretary and each of those administrations. As you mentioned, a small number of those positions require Senate confirmation, but many more are political appointments that are made by the administration that don't require confirmation. Can you tell us a little bit about how Senate confirmed officials are identified and vetted before a formal nomination announcement is made by the White House?
Nicole Nason:Well, sure, and you remember what a joy it is to go through Senate confirmation. I bet that was your favorite part of serving government. Everyone always struggles with the idea of Senate confirmation because you have to put your life out there. It's all very public, and you need to testify before sometimes angry senators about why you're qualified for the job and what sort of enthusiasm you're going to bring to your work. So it's very intimidating. Probably you were not intimidated, Allan, I'm sure. You handled it with aplomb, but the rest of us find it intimidating.
Allan Rutter:Well, for me, filling out the financial disclosures was relatively simple because I was a state employee from Texas, one of the few people for whom a federal appointment job was a step up in salary. So that part was relatively simple. It was filling out the 35, 40-page committee questionnaire and asking for printed copies of every speech you've ever made.
Nicole Nason:Oh, sure. And now they would like audio links too, depending on the committee, which is another thing that's very complicated for people. So to answer your question broadly, there are the jobs in the Plum Book. I've had four presidential appointments, three of them requiring Senate confirmation. One was an appointment by President Trump for the assistant secretary role at the State Department. And then there are so many other jobs that are highly influential, advisor type jobs that don't require that level of scrutiny. But nevertheless, still a lot of paperwork and background investigations by the FBI. And so if you're a presidential appointee and you are lucky enough--because I really do think it is an honor and a privilege to serve--if you're lucky enough to get an appointment, what do you win? You win what you just talked about, scores of pages of documents to fill out, and your entire life becomes public. And every once in a while, even when I start as the assistant secretary of government affairs at DOT, I would have nominees come to me and say, hey, they have no right to ask this. They have no right to know about my divorce or, you know, something that they consider very personal and private. And I say, the White House feels strongly that it gets to know everything. If it's going to be public or could be public in any way, then the White House will know and Congress will know. And as you're well aware, sometimes people drop out of the process right there. They don't want to have a magnifying glass put over their life. And also all of your financial disclosures have to come out. So you maybe not coming from a state government job, but a lot of people don't come from state government jobs. And it's you know, it's challenging to list all of your financial assets, and then you have to sit through a Senate hearing and take questions for as long as the senators want to grill you. Sometimes they're in a good mood, sometimes they're not. And then you wait. And that's also very challenging for people. You wait for months, sometimes even longer, to get a vote. And a lot of people have, you know, they don't realize that they put their lives on hold, and the process moves at the speed of government, which is not always rapid when you're waiting for the Senate to take action. So it's an onerous process, and I truly believe it's worth it. I mean, I wouldn't have done it so many times if I didn't believe it's worth it, but it is an extraordinary opportunity. Once you clear all the hurdles to get into government and have a chance to influence public policy and decision making is a gift that people talk about for the rest of their career. So if anybody's listening and you're on the fence about joining the government, you should send a resume in. It's absolutely worth it.
Allan Rutter:Yeah. If anything, the gauntlet process makes you appreciate the end result that much more. Now, you talked about having both Senate confirmed and non-confirmed positions. So there's a bunch of people within those votal administrations. I remember my deputy administrator, federal railroad administration, had maybe two or three other political appointees. Tell our listeners about the process of finding and placose political appointees within DOT agencies and what kind of roles do they have? Where do they come from?
Nicole Nason:I think what this administration has done has been really admirable. First of all, they moved out very quickly, announcing names right at the transition, so that those people could get their paperwork through. So you could have cabinet secretaries get confirmed rapidly, and then deputy secretaries, and then roles like general counsel and you know, administrators like you and I, under-secretaries at the State Department, that sort of thing. But there are many other political appointees who maybe run a communications office. Or there are DAS's in a government affairs office, or there's staff in a government affairs office. There's staff in the secretaries from office, they're policy advisors, they're very influential and critical roles, and they're able to get in the building, and many of them have, more quickly than the folks who are waiting to go through Senate confirmation. And having all of those senior people in the building right away to assist cabinet secretaries, I think makes a huge difference and has already made a huge difference in this administration. Otherwise, you end up with cabinet secretaries sitting there like... am I allowed to say Maytag Repairman?
Allan Rutter:Yeah, twiddling their thumbs.
Nicole Nason:Twidling their thumbs, waiting to get some help. I mean, you need speech writers in the building. We don't expect our cabinet secretaries to sit down and write all of their remarks for every event that they get invited to. And I can remember with every cabinet secretary I've ever served, they have dozens of invites sometimes a week, and they can't do them all. They need to farm some of them out to their senior staff, and someone needs to help them write remarks. So the most important thing that this administration did, I think, was move out very quickly and getting those cabinet secretaries identified and then getting these senior people who didn't have the Senate confirmation role, but still are incredibly influential, chiefs of staff, deputy chiefs of staff, that kind of thing, into the building. And they find them from everywhere, from all walks of life. One thing that's been really great is this administration has, I think, opened the doors to people who want to serve, who support the president andor policy initiatives, but they haven't made them go through, you know, 20 pages of your resume and all of your public writings to explain why it is that you may be the best qualified person. They've said, do you have passion? Are you excited? Are you ready to work long hours right now? Come on in. And that's helped, I think, this administration move out very quickly to your point. You know, it feels like it's been longer than nine months, but it was really only nine months ago. And they make news every day across the government. So those roles are extremely important. And the Office of Presidential Personnel is where your listeners should go if they are looking to throw their resume in the ring for roles. Because what also happens, and this is not an attack on any particular administration, happens to Democrats and Republicans, is burnout. People work very, very hard in these jobs, as you know. And a year or two later, they're exhausted and they need replacements that have the same amount of energy.
Allan Rutter:Well, and as you mentioned, there's all kinds of routes to get there. I worked with an awful lot of people, both as staff people and political folks who came from having worked in congressional offices, as staff, as committee staff. That's always really helpful for somebody who's coming in from the outside to understand what the congressional process is like, what you can expect going into a hearing when you get invited, how to talk to members, how to respond to members' questions. So having people from the Hill be part of the administration makes a whole lot of sense. But also finding people with either industry backgrounds or commitment to the cause helps salt the whole process so that that new administration is populated by people with different kinds of backgrounds to make the decision making that much better.
Nicole Nason:Right. And I think, 100 percent, the mix is what's critical there. You've got, I mean, you could have people who come in from nonprofits. I've worked for senior leaders who led nonprofits who come into government and the state government employees, like administrative rudder, you've got private- sector leaders who come in who can explain to someone from Capitol Hill who may understand how the sausage gets made, but they can explain to them how the sausage tastes to the business world. So having that mix is crucial for success for any administration. There is no background that is not useful in government. So anyone with any kind of a background can find a place in the federal government where they can add value.
Allan Rutter:Well, and as we've discussed, there's plenty of opportunities and plenty of places for them to go to work. Each new administration has an awful lot of openings, opportunities, the discretion to place people at a place where they can get to work right away.
Nicole Nason:Sure. And by the way, you know, friends for life.
Allan Rutter:There you go. Speaking personally, as somebody who had been a staffer pretty much all my life, to be put in a place where I was actually going to run something and not just something, but something with 800 employees. And it's like you talked about how it made a difference in your career. For me, it created in large part my career. So grateful for that opportunity and for the people that I had a chance to meet, not the least of which was getting to work for Secretary Mineta.
Nicole Nason:No, absolutely. And you know, I look back at how nervous I was the first time I had to testify. And then somewhere around my 12th hearing, I was rolling into the hearing room saying, okay, what time are votes today? How long could the hearing be delayed? I mean, I was such a veteran compared to my first experience where I was a nail-biting, nervous wreck. It's incredibly important for professional development also. Being thrown into these roles, as you say, where now you're the person in the chair, you're not the person behind the person in the chair, handing them notes, but you're actually speaking about policy, I think helps develop not just a career, but your own personal growth. So that one day you're a you know federal railroad administrator and the next day you're hosting your own podcast.
Allan Rutter:There you go. Go figure, your career trajectory that nobody would have seen coming. You speak about that first congressional hearing. I remember mine was Senate Commerce, the chairman was South Carolina Democrat Ernest Hollings, who was very interested in goading the administration into having a passenger rail policy, which we were developing, but we weren't there yet. And so the senator asked about, "Well, Mr. Rutter, what would you like to do about inner city passenger rail?" And I said, "Well, we're working on that, Senator. The administration is in the process of that." "No, no, I'm asking you as Mr. Rutter, what do you think?" And I said, "Well, I think I just got this job. I'd like to keep it. So I'll just have to defer on that for you, Mr. Senator." So, yeah, that process of getting used to understanding that both the theater of it all and the fact that they're just people. They're behind those mics instead of in front of them, like you are.
Nicole Nason:Right. And when you're testifying as a nominee, you are testifying as yourself. But every time after confirmation, you're speaking for the president, whomever the president is. So senators will sometimes try to be cheeky like that and say, "No, no, no, I'm not asking what administration policy is. I'm asking what you think about it." And of course, that's not why you're there. Nobody invited Nicole Nason, random person who lives in Virginia, to come testify. They invited the administrator to come testify. So you're only speaking about your administration's policies. And it's hard. It's very difficult to look a senator in the face and say, "No, I don't think I'm going to answer that question the way you want me to." But it's a valuable skill. And if you can do it for the Senate, you can do it anywhere.
Allan Rutter:Yeah, I liken it to the opposite of the Harry Potter cloak of invisibility. It's almost a cape of visibility. People aren't asking you to appear, they're asking the cape to appear. And once you're no longer wearing it, you're not going to get asked to appear before a Senate committee ever again.
Nicole Nason:No, that's right. And I can remember, and I'm sure you can too, moments where it felt very personal. Um, I can remember Senator Barbara Boxer once accused me of being the perfect administration witness. She did not mean that as a compliment. And she said, "You know, you're sitting here, you're saying the right things, but you don't care personally about these issues." And you cannot take it as though she's attacking you, even though that's what it feels like in the moment. She's expressing frustration about the administration failing to move forward with the policy initiatives that she wanted the administration to embrace. And you have to learn to shake some of those things off. It was definitely not meant in a flattering way. You're the perfect administration witness. I've never forgotten.
Allan Rutter:Clearly not. So let's talk a little bit about one of the things that the administration of the new Department of Transportation has a chance to do once they have their people there. Surface transportation policies and programs and funding are set by Congress every five years or so by the authorizing committee. The current one, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, expires next summer in 2026. The appropriation bills can pass along instructions for USDOT about how dollars get spent. However, each administration has an awful lot of discretion to apply and how those congressional instructions are carried out. Particularly, this latest bill created a ton of discretionary grant programs, which means that this new administration can put its own stamp on how grant applications are requested, which ones are awarded. What are some of the ways each administration goes about influencing federal transportation policies and programs in how they do their job?
Nicole Nason:Sure. And in fact, I think one of the most admirable things about Secretary Duffy is that he's brought fresh eyes. He didn't run a railroad before he came in, or an airline, or any other mode of transportation before he came in. And he's really brought a fresh perspective. The department now, in this administration, and this is me speaking from the outside, is very focused on simplifying. How do we make it easier? For example, grants. How do we get grants out the door faster? And a lot of administrations will say that, but then they get caught up in all of the process. And this administration seems extremely willing to jettison a lot of the historical paperwork and review requirements and focus on alleviating those pain points with grant dollars sooner. You know, I've said it before and I will say it again because I've heard it from so many people, particularly in law enforcement, because law enforcement gets a lot of grants. If they're out there, they are spending money and hiring teams of people to fill out grant applications for them for these various programs. And then they've got more people that they've hired to do reviews. And then sometimes they hire people to help them get into the department so they can explain about how they would use the grant. Or what the purpose of the grant money is, they've spent more than in some cases they're going to get back from the actual grant. And a lot of them are shaking their heads saying, is it worth it? And the answer is no. If it's costing you more to apply for a grant, then the grant itself, why would you spend five minutes trying to navigate your way through the paperwork and the process? So I think what this administration is pushing Congress for and challenging themselves is to simplify. Can we collapse some of these grant programs, for example, into one? Can we eliminate some of the requirements that you need to go through before you even can determine if you're eligible to apply for the grant? Let's just presume you're eligible and then we'll do a review when turn in your grant. So that is the thing that I think is most important for states and for the private sector, is to figure out how do you make it easier for us on the outside to understand the process and to actually apply for these grants and then hopefully receive them.
Allan Rutter:Yeah, I think one of the things the previous administration had done was do some of that collapsing that you talked about of allowing for one grant application to be applied to two or three different grant programs. There were adjacent, fairly common places where the money could be spent, and to use one application instead of having three. The other thing that you mentioned is it's one thing to get the grant put in. It's another thing to decide who gets it. And then there's a whole other process about going from telling everybody that you won something to having a contract that actually allows you to spend money. Those two, review process and grant execution, each administration is challenged by trying to find ways of collapsing those time periods.
Nicole Nason:Right. And I think even back to your initial statement, if you take three different grant applications and you collapse them into one, but then you add 20 new requirements, you haven't helped the folks on the outside who are trying to apply for the grant figure out how to get themselves through the process because now it's one large grant, but there are so many more new requirements that everyone needs to make sure they meet. It's a little bit like the old joke about, a joke we used to teach in women leadership classes, about putting yourself out there and not letting yourself be limited by whatever the ideal candidate looks like. And it's the same thing for the grant programs. You can't limit yourself by saying, well, you're an ideal candidate, but you need to meet these 20 requirements before you can have the funding. And I think that's what this administration is saying. They're looking pretty hard at the programs and saying, how do we get good people, but not perfect people, because we don't want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And that's really hard. There are decades of history, as you know, that's working against them on some of this. It's it's really challenging to simplify.
Allan Rutter:Well, and that grant acquisition process that you mentioned is one of the reasons why we're seeing some of the transportation interest groups, particularly state DOTs, going into the reauthorization process saying, I don't know, we were real excited about all these new discretionary programs because money is money. I think we're now thinking it'd be better if we had a little more formula versus discretionary grants, because formula money, we know what we can do with it, and it comes rather than having to go beg for it.
Nicole Nason:Right. And I think from the grantee's perspective, from the state DOT's perspective, having that certainty is everything. More critical than any other discretionary, new or innovative grant program is the certainty that they're actually going to end up with the funding so they can plan in advance. It doesn't matter what mode of transportation you're talking about, they all require extensive planning. They all require environmental reviews. There's time and energy and elbow grease that goes into all of this work. So, from a grantee's perspective, from an awardee's perspective, letting me know quickly whether or not I am eligible for the grant, and then whether or not I receive the grant, and then how soon I'm going to be able to get the funding is more important than any new innovative program. And I do think, you know, all of us in government make that mistake sometimes. We want to come up with something new and innovative and fresh and interesting. And what we hear from the state governments and the private sector is could you just please get us this money faster? We know exactly how we want to use it. And it's humbling and it's also an important message.
Allan Rutter:So we've talked a little bit about appointment as staffing decisions, both in theory and in practice. Overall, what are some of the challenges facing this new administration in terms of staffing? And what are some of the opportunities they have in terms of policies and programs?
Nicole Nason:I think the opportunities are extraordinary right now, partially as we've discussed, because they're moving so quickly in this administration. Staffing has been very difficult for a team that came out very early with a set list of names of nominees. The process broke down a little bit in the Senate, and they passed a rule change that helped get a lot of those nominees through the log jam just a day or two ago. So many of those folks are going to now be formally sworn in and able to start working. And it's important too because a lot of those folks that are taking these presidential appointments act as the liaisons to Congress. Cabinet secretaries testify, of course, for authorizing committees and appropriations committees when they get called in, but otherwise, that's not their job. They are serving the president and they are supposed to be out in the country talking to Americans about what they need and how government can be helpful. And so getting many of these political appointees through supports the good communication that's necessary between the executive branch and the legislative branch. So you've got a legislative branch that's got to come up with a surface transportation reauthorization proposal. And they don't want to work without having some idea what the administration is going to request, what the administration's priorities are going to be, because then they have to, in some cases, completely redo their work. And so having those folks now in place and more to come-- I think the Senate's got more confirmations teed up for the week when they return-- creates nothing but opportunity for the executive branch and legislative branch to actually work together to craft some of this legislation, like the surface transportation reauthorization, to talk through changes they might want to see with the FAA. So much discussion around air traffic controllers and how do we reconfigure? Do we need to reconfigure our air traffic system? Congress is having hearings and doing reviews and having senior folks in place to be the important liaison. I think it's going to make a huge difference and it's going to accelerate the pace of legislation and potentially rulemakings too.
Allan Rutter:Yeah, it's always struck me as a little odd how members of the Senate might tend to forget that once somebody's confirmed, they answer as much to Congress as they do to the executive. And it's the act of confirmation that makes that connection. So failing to act on putting people in those positions is almost a little self-defeating in that it robs them of the opportunity of having somebody to answer to them.
Nicole Nason:100 percent. Every nominee for every committee, I've testified before multiple committees. And when you're a nominee, you get either verbally or you get in writing a question that says, Will you commit to coming before this body and answering questions when you are called? And of course the answer is yes. I will always, whether you want to or not. And most people do not, but you agree that you will come before them. And so you're spot on, Alan. If they're not in their roles, they can't come back to talk to senators and members of the House about what it is that the administration is planning or, in some cases, already doing. So having those folks in place, I think, will accelerate for the next several months the opportunity to improve and influence transportation policies and programs.
Allan Rutter:So I can tell from our conversation today and from working with you over the years that you have plenty of passion for making transportation better, both for practitioners and for travelers. What are some of the reasons that motivate you to do what you're doing each day?
Nicole Nason:Well, of course, I have three children. And I, you know, they're at an age now where they're perfectly willing to correct me on everything. And my oldest daughter is in Austin. She's a law student. She's working for a law firm in Austin. And she is in her Uber/ Waymo phase and was telling me how incredible it is that you can just click on your phone and order a ride with no driver. And she and her friends absolutely love the experience, particularly being, you know, young women at night in Austin. They think it's fascinating, but also that the technology clearly exists. So why isn't it everywhere? And we've had conversations about how the federal government doesn't control the roads across America. And these things are getting worked out, not even state by state, but really city by city, and how the infrastructure plays an important role in advancing technology. So I get to have these conversations with my kids, and it excites me and inspires me for what's coming in transportation. I think there's so many new technology advances that we're sitting on, and we've been saying it forever. So I always, you know, roll my own eyes when I say we're two or three years away, because we've been saying that since you and I were back at DOT the first time. But I'm very passionate about the idea that the technology has advanced and the federal government has allowed it to, stepped out of the way and allowed industry to move ahead. And now I think government is in a place, and this administration is in a place to actually create policies that are supportive of the technology, to create standards that instead of stifling innovation, are actually supportive of innovation. And I know a lot of people might think that supportive regulation is an oxymoron, but I actually think this is a moment where industry is saying, help us, help us set a floor for standards that we can meet. And that will even help us get more investors. It'll help keep the United States in the leadership role that it needs to be in in advancing technology and transportation relative to the rest of the world. And I think this administration is going to be really open to those opportunities.
Allan Rutter:Plenty of interesting things to watch. And once again, Nicole, thanks so much for taking time to be with us today and talk about how transportation policy gets put into action at the federal level. I really appreciate it.
Nicole Nason:Thank you.
Allan Rutter:I'm so glad Nicole was able to share her experience and insight into how this or any other USDOT is staffed and organized. We should be grateful for the people willing to serve in these positions, confirmed or not, as they will be doing a lot of hard work, managing agency staff, responding to leadership from the secretary, interacting with other federal departments, answering to Congress, and listening to industry and community leaders. Thanks for listening. If you liked what you heard or learned something, please take just a minute to give us a review, subscribe, and share this episode. I invite you to join us next time for another conversation about getting ourselves in the stuff we need from point A to point B. Thinking Transportation is a production of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, a member of The Texas A&M University System. The show is edited and produced by Chris Pourteau. I'm your host, Allan Rutter. Thanks again for joining us. We'll see you next time.