 Well, thank you for joining today's Preservation Leadership Forum webinar on the post-election world. Can you advance it? Next slide. So I am Tom Cassidy. I'm the Vice President of Government Relations at the National Trust. And we wanted to gather several colleagues who are insightful political observers and participants in the key issues that we track in Congress. Also we will be taking questions at the end of the webinar. So please send questions through the question or chat function. Next. As you heard, we had an election. I think most people believe that Biden-Harris won the election. There's still some uncertainty as to the total number of electoral votes, 290 as AP calls it, or 306 as some other observers call it, which would include Georgia. Biden received more votes than any previous candidate, including 12 million more than Hillary Clinton. The President received the second most votes in history, including 10 million more than in 2016. Next. We are a closely divided political country. There was no blue tsunami. In the Senate, we have 50 Republicans. We presently have 46 plus two independents who caucus with the Democrats. And the entire political world is focused on Georgia's January 5 special election, which will determine how its two Senate seats presently now held by Republicans, how that will line up. Let's go to the next slide. In the House, we have a very small Democratic majority, one of the smallest in many, many years. A number of seats, 12 seats actually have yet to be called. One thing that's striking, I think, is that we'll have more, we'll have 23, 26 women, Republican women in the House, which is a new record. And I would just note for those of us interested in historic preservation, a new Democratic member from Congress, a female Hispanic, Teresa Leger-Fernandez, during the Obama administration served on the advisory council for historic preservation, including a period as vice chair. So next, I'm very pleased to welcome David Skillman, an attorney with the Arnold and Porter law firm. Before joining the firm, David spent more than a decade as the deputy chief of staff and council to congressman Earl Blumenauer, who in addition to his leadership role on the Ways and Means Committee, has also been the longtime co-chair of the historic preservation caucus. So David, what should we expect in the months ahead? Tom, thank you very much for the introduction. And it's really nice to be here. As Tom mentioned, this was a key part of my experience on Capitol Hill for a member who cares really passionately about these issues. And I think he and his colleagues really see preservation as a way of stitching together disparate allies and making investments in communities and building something up rather than tearing something down. And I think you always need to look for those opportunities with regard to Congress, because it's frankly it's very easy to tear things down and it's much harder to build things up. So I think you come to Congress in a good position sort of rhetorically and functionally. Looking ahead, so we've entered into what is known as the lame duck period of this Congress as a period following the election, but while the preceding Congress is still in power. So you have people who are otherwise still in power but quacking like lame ducks as the saying goes. There's a lot of work that still needs to be done at Congress. Congress, it won't surprise any of you, is masterful of pushing things off until the last possible moment. Tends to increase leverage in so you can sort of structure deals in a way that incumbent positions sort of find most favorable. The key one, the key date is December 11th. That's when the existing funding for the federal government runs out. Appropriators in both chambers have been making progress. They're actually sounding fairly hopeful at producing an omnibus, but that said, there's still some significant differences. Two areas in particular seem to be hot spots. One is House Democrats in particular pushed for substantial increased funding on pandemic response and relief efforts within the agencies. These funds do not appear in Senate Republican versions of these bills. Another is on whether or not there will be funding for Trump political priorities such as the Board of Law, which House Democrats almost universally oppose. You know, clouding, despite the hopeful noises from the appropriators, clouding the outlook is sort of where is the president, where's the White House on these topics. And I think there's a great degree of uncertainty as the president has sort of retreated from some of these areas to focus on the elections. Appropriators are a little unclear of what the White House opinion is at the end of the day on these questions. So those efforts fail on December 11th, the government would either go into a shutdown or Congress would have to step in and enact what's known as a continue resolution, which is basically flat funding on existing policy lines into some future date certain. They look to sort of the most frequently commented periods are sort of the end of Q1 2021. That would give the incoming president elect Biden some time to stand up the agencies before facing a budget play. Other topics that might take place in the lame duck. We've been seeing a sort of will they won't they on a pandemic relief bill since this summer. The negotiators basically House and Democratic leadership and Senate Republican leadership are like over a trillion dollars apart. So I find that hard to believe that that would manifest. It will certainly become a priority for the incoming Biden administration. So it's unclear sort of what those dynamics mean for for this effort in the lame duck. So I would probably put that as a less likely outcome. Another major bill is the defense authorization. Congress has passed an annual defense authorization every year since 1961. It's likely they do so again here. The House and Senate both released bills in July. They've been working as comperees since then. I think the bills are relatively close, but there are a couple of key key elements of a political challenge. One is they want to rename military bases to strike Confederate leaders and update the base names. The president is issued essentially a veto threat on that issue. And that divides the Congress. The second major issue is the president's announcements of force levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defense appropriated or authorizers basically on a bipartisan basis oppose those changes, that there's some nuance there. And it's unclear what that standoff will result in. Still, I think those issues will be resolved prior to the end of the year and we'll see an NDA. Finally, oftentimes there'll be an year-end public lands bill. I'm not sure I see that here. This president has been focused on reducing monument territories, expanding natural gas and releasing permitted activities. I think that that activity will really focus on the regulatory side. I think that will probably bring us up to speed with the major pieces, the major frameworks for the lame duck. And I think some of our other panelists are going to talk in more detail about some of the pieces that might fit within those frameworks, such as tax extenders and other sort of efforts that deserve to be a part of that conversation. But why don't I turn to the next 100 days or the first 100 days of the incoming administration just to sort of set the framework of what kind of the expectations are in the initial days of the Biden administration. But I think there's a few major changes. One thing is, and you've seen this in a lot of the coverage, is the Biden administration has to stand up. And so you need to see who these people are before you can understand really what the personal direction of these agencies winds up. I think you see with regard to preservation, and I think you'll see folks who understand the community. But we're going to have to see who exactly is there, what their agency leadership looks like, to understand sort of what the major direction of the agencies is. There are going to be two elements to the first 100 days, a legislative side and a regulatory side. The outline that Tom presented at the outset with regard to the Senate really complicates the legislative map for what I think we're overly optimistic, well, clearly we're overly optimistic, we have a lot of democratic projections about what opportunities you might have with the Democratic Senate. So that'll have to be restrained. But one thing I would like to say about Republican Senate, the Senate itself shouldn't be thought of as two religious blocks of voters. All of these senators have different approaches. I think there's something like 22 Republican senators who are going to be up for election in the next two-year cycle. There'll be a lot of nuance on key issues. And I think issues such as preservation might be able to find a narrow path through there. A major issue that will come up in the initial side on the legislative, speaking, is a pandemic response economic stimulus bill. And to the extent that congressional negotiators can't get off the dime during the lame duck, the Biden administration will pick up that ball in the first hundred days. I understand from Chairman DeFazio and the House that they've been working closely with the Biden, incoming Biden administration on what the infrastructure side of that would look like. I think there have been a number of conversations around the House on tax and environmental pieces that are going to be put in place. And I think they'll make a hard run at securing a major stimulus slash investment program. And that will really provide a framework to carry a number of legislative priorities. The other side of things will be a regulatory effort. And this is going to focus in the first hundred days on the pandemic response. Public health, consistent state guidance, increased testing, and a vaccine distribution strategy, which will be extremely complicated and hard fought. So that's what I think the first hundred days in the lame duck look like. Thank you, Mr. Skillman. It's good to hear your advice and your insights on these things. So next, we're going to go to Ashley Antoskevic, who is the legislative director and deputy chief of staff for Congressman Darren LaHood. Congressman LaHood is a member of both the Ways and Means Committee and the Joint Economic Committee. He was formal previously a member of the Natural Resources Committee where he handled many of the preservation issues that we care about. Ashley's worked in the house for nine years. And what we're going to do here is a little bit different than we had with David. We're also going to hear from Ashley and also Beth Bell, if we could go to Beth's slide. Beth has worked, she's tax counsel to the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. She's been there for about two years. And before that, she spent five years in the other body, the Senate, working for Senator Ben Cardin on these same tax and also some small business issues. So what we've done is we've asked Ashley to give her perspectives first on the lame duck and then followed that up by Beth. And then Beth will give us insights on the first 100 days followed by Ashley. I know that earlier Ashley was having a little bit of difficulty, but hopefully that's all been resolved. Are you with us, Ashley? Yes, can you hear me? We can. Thank you. I'm so glad you made it. I apologize that I'm not on video. I'm sure these issues are user-related, but happy to give an update regardless and then kick it over to Beth. Thank you. So for the lame duck, I have a few issue areas that I believe are on the table for Congress to consider. As a reminder, the House is in session this week, and then we will break for the Thanksgiving holiday and then be back for just two weeks in December as of now. The current continuing resolution, which is keeping the government funded, will expire on December 11th. So that is a major piece of legislation that we'll need to consider to make sure that the government remains open and operating. And the length of what that will look like I think is still being determined. The other big item that's been receiving a lot of attention is another potential COVID-19 release package. This is something that the House and Senate and the administration have been negotiating for several months now. And then other items that I would just mention that may take four time include tax extenders that are expiring at year-end, the NBAA, which the House is having a vote on today, and then also some items in the trade space, the miscellaneous tariff bill and the generalized system of preferences, along with some other items that may be priorities for various committees. So that's what I have on my agenda that I'm keeping an eye out for these next few weeks. So if appropriate, find a kick it over for best or let me know if there's anything else I should add at this time. If I could just pop in here, this is Tom. We included two of the public land bills that Mr. Lohud has been such a champion on. And do you have any prognostications on the path forward, whether this year or perhaps next for both the Route 66 National Historic Trail designation and the New Philadelphia National Historical Park Act? Yeah, thanks for allowing me the opportunity to talk about those. The HR 8240 would designate Route 66 as a National Historic Trail and HR 8224 would designate the New Philadelphia site as a National Historic Park. We have bipartisan support for both bills in the House and we've been working closely with the Natural Resources Committee. If there is a year-end land package or other vehicle where those could be attached to, you know, we're ready for that. But at this point, it's still pretty fluid and there are no guarantees on anything. But really appreciate the support of the organization on those efforts and Pam Bowman on your team has been fantastic. So happy to continue to stay in touch with all our interested stakeholders and see what we're able to get done this year. And if not, then we'll obviously reintroduce in the new year in the new Congress. Beth. Thank you. Actually, I'm sorry I can't see you, but thanks for being here with me. And it's good to talk with everyone on this panel. I have to give per my office the typical hill caveat that I'm speaking on behalf of myself and not on behalf of the committee or the chairman. That being said, the historic tax credit and other economic development credits are very important to him. And we're looking forward to continue working with the community as we go through a crazy lame duck or maybe not so crazy as the case may be in the first 100 days of the next Congress. So this is kind of the downside of going in the in the middle of a presentation because what David and Ashley have said is overlaps a lot with what I was going to mention. I think it's good that we're all on the same page in terms of what we expect in the lame duck and the unfortunate part for you all listening here is what we're really telling you is things are in flux. That's kind of our general theme. And it's really in flux for a few reasons, some of which have been mentioned before. But I think it bears going through them just to let you know how all these puzzle pieces are going to need to fit together. First, on the the Democratic side, you know, I'm sure across the aisle, too, there is a desire to get feedback from President-elect Biden's transition team on both the lame duck and the next Congress getting a transition underway and hearing what their plans are is a typical part of a transition. And it often influences, especially with the party that shares the presidency, what the agenda will look like in Congress to the extent that we can. We do like to work together. So that's an outstanding item. But negotiations are ongoing, as Ashley said, on a pandemic relief package. And so there are sensitivities to like the size of that package that could govern what, if anything else, can move through the House and the Senate in December. There is a package of tax incentives that expire at the end of this year in addition to new programs in the CARES Act that bill that Congress passed in March to to address the pandemic more at the beginning of this year that expire at the end of this year. So and then there's a whole package of tax incentives on top of that. So there's there's a lot of things that you could pile up theoretically at the end of the year. And that's really just I talk about tax because I'm on the Ways and Means Committee and just handle tax for that committee. But in my previous life, I was in a personal office. So I also keep an eye out on appropriations and what our appropriations committees are trying to work on. They are trying to work through an omnibus deal to fund the government into the next fiscal year. Like Ashley mentioned, we still have the NDAA conference outstanding and David mentioned this too. This is a must pass bill or it has been for the past 60 years or so. And so Congress often looks to that bill to see what can be added, what can be what can be moved along with it. All of these pieces are being worked on and in some cases voted on. But they all really depend a lot on high level political issues that probably, except in the case of NDAA, they probably won't be resolved until after Thanksgiving at the earliest. So the range of possibilities we have in the lame duck is pretty broad. And that's not even getting into maybe the metapolitical things that are going on in terms of what the White House is going to insert into the equation. So on one end of the spectrum, you basically have what passes as a clean extension of a continuing resolution that takes us to some date uncertain in the next Congress and nothing else gets done. On the other end of the spectrum, at least on the spending and tax side, you have a big on the package, maybe carries or moves in parallel with a COVID relief package. So there are still a lot of opportunities for advocacy on your issue and on a lot of other issues. It's sometimes frustrating even to us, I find myself apologizing for Congress constantly for the way that we do business. As David said, it takes kind of these this political leverage to kind of sort itself out. You know, the staff behind the scenes, I do want to assure everybody it does do a lot of work before we even get to that point so that we're ready to go. We just probably won't know where we're going on a political level until early December, really at the earliest. And that's what I've got for the first the lame duck, excuse me. And I don't know if you want me to keep rolling into the next hundred days, but I can do that. You're on a good roll there. Well, thank you. And I should say, please do feel to feel free to write questions in the in the chat. If anything I'm saying is unclear, as you can tell, I can get on a roll. And so I'm maybe babbling too much and too fast. Anyway, the first 100 days, it really a lot of the same questions as you might be picking up apply to the first hundred days is applies to the lame duck. It's the same factors that are on play. And it also depends on the kind of added layer that we don't know. And what happens in lame duck? So for instance, did we pass a did Congress pass the pandemic relief package in lame duck? If a pandemic relief package wasn't passed, what have the winter months done in terms of the pandemic and what are the economic effects? Often, you know, I find myself on these panels talking a lot about the political impact of certain things and how it guides our work. But really, like we are taking a close look on at what is the especially in in terms of emergencies like the pandemic, what is actually happening on the ground to the extent we can get a sense of that. And things might change quite a bit over the next couple of months. If if we do or even if we especially if we don't do something in the lame duck, even if we did pass the lame duck package, for instance, are there outstanding legislative issues that are related to the pandemic still like vaccine production and distribution is one that you hear floating around a lot because those developments are ongoing. We try to react to them in real time, but it's a very big body of folks with a lot of different opinions and a lot of different constituencies that they represent across the country. So we'll have to continue to monitor that. Another question we will ask ourselves is, you know, did we pass extenders in lame duck? Are there expired extenders that we even need more urgently to take care of if we didn't pass the tax extenders of COVID relief extenders package that we even more urgently need to take care of before the tax filing starts season starts at the end of January. Did we pass a CR? Hopefully we did. I'm not predicting a government shutdown. So hopefully that that gets done and how long do we have until it expires? These are all questions that depend on lame duck action. And, you know, on the political front, what happened in the Georgia runoff races, as you saw in the introductory slides, the balance of the Senate does depend on those races. Now, you know, the poll, I think it would be maybe overly optimistic of me to say that I think the balance of the Senate will flip. But 2020 is kind of the year of you never know what's what's going to shake out. And so that's a question that does really, as David mentioned, I think complicate a lot of the planning, at least for the first 100 days. So all of that will be influencing an agenda. I can say, since we're living in all this uncertainty, I can say that the two things that we have been focused on on the committee in preparing for that first 100 days is really, like I said, at the outset of this part of my presentation, we do try to monitor what is needed in terms of pandemic relief. So even so that means not only kind of saying, what can we do in lame duck? If something doesn't happen in lame duck, what do we need to put together? And how much longer do we think we need to extend these programs? I think when the CARES Act passed back in March, you know, I don't know, maybe some folks in the audience had this experience, but I thought, you know, I left my office in March and I thought I was going to be back in May. And we were like, well, let's let's carry these programs at least until the end of the year. It turns out we might need a lot more robust investment in relief. And those programs might need to last a lot longer to get an economic recovery on track. The second thing I'll mention is that our members and I think this is a bipartisan desire are very interested in tackling an infrastructure package that could be combined with a COVID economic relief package, or maybe it could travel on its own, just depending on how things shake out. And that's where I really would love to to hear from from you all, especially on the historic tax credit and adjacent issues. Infrastructure means a lot of things to a lot of people. So it can be a bipartisan effort. I think some of the things that will restrain us are say at the overall cost of the package, understandably. But and as, you know, David mentioned, well, we may be in a split government position. It will likely be in a split house and Senate position, but there are still a lot of thoughtful folks on both sides of the aisle. And fortunately for you, all you work on a very bipartisan issue. I think people can come together on something. A prime example is the bill on historic tax credit expansion, which I know actually might talk about standalone, but we have that in our in the House infrastructure package that passed this year in June. That was more of a marker package like in anticipation for doing something in the new Congress. There's just a lot of bipartisan support for the program. And that really keeps me going on this issue, I have to say, admits all the partisanship. And I would love to keep in touch with you all as the as the lame dot progresses. And especially as the new Congress progresses, I think the members will be ready to really you get a lot of energy in the first 100 days. And I think people will be really ready to legislate again or at least work on things that can lay the ground for for legislating. So I'm looking forward to it, actually. Well, thank you, Beth. And maybe we can go back to some of Ashley's observations of the first 100 days, but before Ashley starts, I would just urge people as as Beth suggested, if you have questions, do submit them through the chat function and we'll get to them at the when we're all after after the rest of us are done speaking. So, Ashley. Great. Thank you for all of that helpful insight, Beth. You know, I associate my comments with most of that. Um, you know, I think that as unclear and fluid as things stand for the lame duck, it probably double that for the new year and the new Congress in the first 100 days. You know, so much is dependent on what happens in the Senate and also how long the funding bill is that we are going to pass to get us past December 11th and whether or not we're able to get a covid relief bill done before year end, or even if we do, if we end up needing another one in the new year. And I also have infrastructure on my list as something to look at for in the first 100 days. I think that that is typically a bipartisan issue and probably what have gotten more attention this year had it not been for covid. And I'll also mention the HR 2825, the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act. As Beth mentioned, it did was included earlier this year in the house and that's something that we're going to continue to push in some shape or form through the rest of this year and into the new year if needed. And looking for vehicles where that could be attached to. I think it's another good bipartisan issue. So I'll sort of stop there, but happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you, Ashley and Beth. That was fun. So now we'll go to another another fun, loving guy, Patrick Robertson. Patrick is the let me see. Patrick is the principal at Confluence Government Relations. He has been in D.C. for 20 years, his first nine years in Washington where was Senator Jay Rockefeller, including five years as his deputy chief of staff. He has spent the past 10 years in the private sector, including, among other things, representing the Historic Tax Credit Coalition. So Patrick, it's all yours. Thanks, Tom. I appreciate you all having me with you today. I always enjoy talking about the HTC and with our friends in the preservation community. Before I get into my general update, which I'll do here in a second, I'd just like to take a minute to thank everyone else on this webinar. Beth and Ashley have probably talked to me over the last few years more than they care to admit, and they're always both super helpful and usually have better ideas than I do about how to help the Historic Tax Credit and the preservation community. So I very much appreciate their guidance and counsel as we work through ways to improve the preservation work that the federal government does. As far as the topics I want to cover today and, Tom, I want to leave plenty of time for questions or for discussion with everybody else as well. I want to step back for just a minute and and sort of put a bow on some of the things that Ashley and Beth have talked about. They mentioned the infrastructure package that the House passed earlier this year. That included the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act that Ashley mentioned Mr. LaHood is a sponsor of. Chairman Neal has been a long time supporter of the HTC. It also included some temporary COVID relief for projects that are affected by the pandemic. And we all know that there are many and the effects are significant and varied. It also included a provision that allowed some extra time for a substantial rehab test to be met by HTC projects. And the IRS already did that sort of on their own between the time that the Moving Forward Act passed and now, which is a great thing to have happen. Again, thanking both Chairman Neal and Mr. LaHood for their leadership and Mr. Blumenauer as well for those things. And then as we take sort of a further step back to talk a little bit more about the election and the outcome that looks forward a little bit to the Senate next year and what's coming, I want to say a couple of things. Tom said at the beginning that the country is still very divided. I think at the end of the day, as the result of the election come in, the country is probably more divided than a lot of us hoped it would be. I think a lot of people on both sides were hoping for a knockout blow for either the Trump presidency or for Republican orthodoxy or for Democratic orthodoxy. And very clearly that did not happen during this election. There was very much a split decision. Joe Biden won by some number of electoral votes, but his time notes remain to be counted. But his coattails were shorter than almost any modern president in that Republicans gained seats in the House and the Senate remained pretty equally divided. So while you watch the news and listen to the pontifications of the president and others, the contesting of the presidential election seems to be winding down. A number of the ongoing legal challenges are playing themselves out in the court as they should. If there are real allegations of fraud, then obviously courts will litigate them. If there aren't, then we will end up moving forward at some point. But I think the one place that the election is still very much being litigated and contested, frankly, is the United States Senate. Tom's earlier graphic noted that there are 50 Republicans and 48 Democrats decided for the 117th Congress. You know, in fact, it's a really interesting dynamic where new senators will be sworn in the third or the fourth of January, and then Georgia will have its special election on January 5th. So senators Perdue and Loeffler, who are waiting for that special election in Georgia, will still be in their seats until that special election happens. The votes are counted and the results are certified, and either they get sworn back in or new senators get sworn in. So there's this extra little bit of limbo, which is always a strange period because the president then doesn't get sworn in until January 20th anyway. So there will obviously be lots of back and forth in that notion or in that time period, excuse me. And then when you look at the Senate, if it's 52, 48 Republican, 51, 49 Republican, 50-50 with Vice President Harris breaking the tie, what remains true is that there's no mandate in the Senate. It's very closely divided. Two or three senators are going to wield an enormous amount of power for a 50-vote threshold and to try to make deals for a 60-vote threshold. So the split decision in America really, I think, plays out most starkly in the Senate over the next two years, regardless of what happens in Georgia. And for those who didn't hear me prognosticate about the 2016 election or didn't hear much about what I said about 2020, you might now be interested in these two elections. If you heard me, you probably have no interest in hearing what I have to say. But generally, I think the conventional wisdom is that Republicans would hold an edge to hold both seats in Georgia in January, but it's not a wide edge. So we'll talk a little bit about the Senate as if it were going to be a Republican. Chuck Grassley, who's the current chairman of the Finance Committee from Iowa, is term-limited by Republican conference rules. So he cannot remain chairman of the Finance Committee. He has to move over to a different committee. He's 87 years old and president pro temp of the Senate and has significantly more energy than I do, frankly. So I give him a lot of credit for that. But as he moves on, Mike Crapo from Idaho will be the new top Republican on the Finance Committee. Lisa Murkowski is also term-limited at the Energy Committee. And that has jurisdiction over the National Park Service and a lot of the programs we care about in terms of oversight. So there are changes coming to leadership and more people to get to know. The other point I want to make about the first hundred days that David and Beth and Ashley talked around a little bit is the fact that the Biden administration will be restaffing all the political appointments in the federal government. You know, there's this thing that is sort of beautifully called the plum book. And many people think that it's called the plum book because it has plum jobs in it. In fact, it's called the plum book because the cover that they've printed it under for many years is plum in color. And that has all the political appointed jobs in the administration. That will include Park Service Director. It will include some of the sub-NPS jobs that oversee the HTC and some of the cultural resources. It doesn't get down to the level of the technical preservation services with which administers the HTC. But there will be new political appointees at Treasury and at the IRS and all over the government who will be coming in and evaluating policies and deciding what a Biden-Harris administration priority is and sort of moving forward from there. So there's a lot of changes coming, which means from an advocacy perspective, what we really need is to make sure we're educating. So if you know new members, tell them about your project. If you've got a project that's hung up by construction restrictions or material difficulties or generally by what's going on with the pandemic, tell your members of Congress, tell your senator. Beth said to call her, I won't give her. I won't give you her number, but we know how to find her if you're looking for to tell your story of what's going on and why relief is needed. And as the preservation community, that's sort of our number one priority over the next few months as the government sort of takes a step back and does what it's going to do in December and looks forward to January. We'll keep advocating for inclusion of our priorities in what happens and we'll get great feedback from people like Beth and Ashley and dozens of other Hill staffers like them who are always so helpful to us. But we also need to be ready to make the case for the next big thing. So, Tom, I think I was I think I've got time to give back to you for questions. And I'll be here if you want. But one question, I know that you're you were a long time creature of the Senate from which I say in the most admiring of terms. I wonder if a lot of people, a number of commentators are suggesting that there is a very there'll be a special Biden-McConnell relationship. Can you just give us, like in a minute, your react, your immediate thoughts on that? When Tom says creature of the Senate, I think what he means is I scurried around the hall, so I'll leave that there. But Vice President, President-elect Joe Biden and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell served in the Senate for a long time together when deals were made between the Obama administration and the Senate, Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell made those deals. They've both been in Washington a long time and they both know how to get a deal done. I mean, if you want to look at upcoming COVID relief negotiations, the Biden administration and the Speaker, I think want the maximum amount of help for Americans that they can get. I think the Majority Leader wants a few other things, including business liability protections and the contours of a deal are there, right? If the Senate's at $500 billion and the House is at $2.2 trillion and you want to put liability protections in, this number comes up and you want to get something else, this number comes down and all of a sudden you're together. And there aren't two better deal makers. However, I will caution that the Senate is a very different place than it was when Joe Biden left it in January of 2009. It's not unrecognizable. It's not worlds apart, but it is different. So just because they have a good relationship, they both have their own constituencies and their own politics that they have to deal with, which will make making a deal hard, but not impossible. So at the end of the day, I'll give you three quick takeaways, Tom, right? But then it's different than it was in 2009. Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden will pick up the phone when each other calls, when they call each other. And the third is the circumstances of our country will really decide whether deals are made or not. And, you know, if the pandemic worsens and the vaccines aren't ready and those kind of things, it'll push a deal one way. If people start getting vaccines in a week and a half and we start coming out of an economic funk, it'll push negotiations the other way. So there are some things that are outside their control, but they'll be able to get together if they need to. Well, I'd like to thank Patrick and really all of our panelists for your insights. And then I wanted to share a new project here at the National Trust. Paul Edmondson, our president and CEO, announced at our past forward conference that 4,000 people attended virtually three weeks ago that the National Trust would work with partners to develop a common agenda for action that is equity focused. And please participate in our three questions survey. The link is there and it'll be distributed also to you and provide your input on these three issues. What is the what is historic preservation's purpose today? What shared values should guide and inform our historic preservation practice? And then what actions should historic preservation take individually and collectively at the federal, state and local levels to positively impact all people? So we look forward to your engagement in shaping this agenda. And now let's go and see what questions we might have. And I will turn this over to you, Christine. Great, thanks, Tom. We had a few questions regarding the timing of potential COVID relief legislation. I think we have pretty much covered that. And I'm going to to group some of these questions into themes. The first theme is is infrastructure. And we've had a lot of good discussion already on infrastructure and how it's likely to be a bipartisan priority moving forward. If our panelists could give us a little bit more insight into what they think about the timing of infrastructure bill or the reintroduction of H.R.2. Why don't I leap over on that and suggest that Mr. Skillman give us a hand on that? You bet. Yeah, I mean, I think the infrastructure question is one that has been looming for probably a decade now. People were dissatisfied with the past two reauthorizations in the infrastructure community. And I think they are looking for a robust reauthorization here. The challenge with infrastructure, I'm not breaking any news and I don't think my co-panelist would disagree, has always been funding. And it is surface transportation in particular tied to excise tax revenues that have been static for a number of since 1993. The declining balance that this generates to sort of offset the cost of making these investments has hamstrung these reauthorization efforts. In a economic recovery, you know, scenario where you have a president-elect Biden coming in with a lot of grand ideas about infrastructure, a pent-up enthusiasm from House Democrats with the expansionary sort of H.R.2 that sets the stage. And honestly, some willing partners in the Senate. It went unremarked earlier, but bearing on infrastructure, Senator Barrasso and Tom Carper have collaborated on a surface transportation reoff that was unanimous out of EPW in the Senate. It doesn't do nearly as much as H.R.2 did from the House Democrats' perspective. But there's an important sort of foundation in bipartisanship and a sort of shared enthusiasm for a number of these programs. And that included, I mean, I don't know too much to Tom Carper's credit, but it included a significant investment in electrification and climate corridor. So there's some there's some opportunities there to merge these two. But that will be a major priority for the incoming president. And I think that when connected with an economic recovery package, there's a real opportunity here. So that might move early in the year. I believe that would be the intent. I, you know, I think Patrick and Beth and our panel say, you know, there's no no secret that working with the Senate is going to be challenging. But if you, you know, if you were able to merge the infrastructure investments with a recovery package in the in the early section, early stages of the new administration, I think you could have a win-win for the president. And I think a number of members on both sides of the aisle would also see that as an opportunity to to have some wins for their districts and states. This might make one note of great interest to the preservation community. And that is the bipartisan Senate bill and also the House bill on uninfrastructure. Neither of them included a provision that would threaten preservation reviews through section four of the Transportation Act or through section 106. So that was we were very, very gratified to see non-bad things happen. OK, Christine, do we have another good question here? Sure, yes. So pivoting a little bit to focus more on the historic tax credit. Patrick mentioned that the IRS rule extended historic tax credit deadlines from our friends on the Hill. Are you are you hearing from developers about projects stalling because of covid? And are you looking to take action on the best? What are you hearing as a committee? So thank you for that question. But on the committee level, often through our offices, we do hear about the, you know, extension of deadlines, the road and not only the deadlines, but the relief that's needed as the pandemic's ongoing. I will say that there is I would if if there is a concern that, you know, the folks who are grouped into this question category have that they would like to convey, do it because it's like you would be really maybe you would be surprised. But our members are very motivated by hearing about various projects. I can't I can't emphasize that enough. There's there's so much that gets done because members really want to represent their constituents at what that is their bottom line. I know we have all this kind of political stuff floating above us. That does affect the agenda. But to the extent that there are things going on that we should hear about, do not hesitate to reach out. I will say that we heard a lot more about various problems with projects and extending deadlines when we were putting together the infrastructure package in the middle of the year. We know that there are outstanding issues and we know the pandemic has been lasting longer than we all would like. And we do have a line into the IRS and Treasury on the regulatory front. So if there is something that we should know about, definitely definitely reach out. Christine, another one. Thank you. Yeah, so this this combines a few different questions, but essentially about positioning preservation priorities in the Biden administration. We we believe that there will be a focus on sustainability and climate change, affordable housing, racial equity. So to really all of our panelists, how can we best position our preservation priorities within these areas of interest in the Biden administration? Well, I'd be interested in what our Republican friend from Illinois might offer. Or not, you know, if actually, if you don't want to go there, we can we can have one of the the folks who deal with the Democrats on a daily on a daily basis, if you prefer. No, I'm happy to weigh in. You know, I I think a lot of it remains to be seen to be totally honest. You know, obviously, Republicans are going to have a stronger minority in the House next Congress that potentially have a Republican Senate and then a Democratic White House. And so, you know, I think there is an opportunity to where we maybe could come to the middle on some big issues and really get some significant things done. But I think that it could also go the other way. And if both sides dig in or if the administration is pulled to farther left, then maybe there there really won't be an opportunity to find common ground. So I know that's very vague and maybe doesn't really answer the question. But I mean, I think those are some of the things people are talking about is, you know, where people are going to stand, what types of positions they're going to they're going to see and what the politics are going to be. So maybe David, again, if you could just offer some some observations, you're dealing with a lot of issues and you've been doing some your firm has been doing some spectacular webinars. You're plainly exceptionally well connected on a political and personal level with a lot of folks, not so much you personally, although you are too, but, you know, the firm, what are your thoughts on that? I mean, I don't think, yeah, no, I there's only one way forward in D.C. on policy matters, and that is through engagement. And, you know, you have to work hard to to get your ideas in front of the right officials and you have to go back to them and bring them up to speed. Yeah, I just think that is the that is the process here. And it's tried and true and it's successful. And, you know, the preservation community has done that before. I mean, I think Tom's point about surface and, you know, you know, the fact that we're not fighting old fights is testament to that. I think with regard to engagement here, one aspect that I think the preservation community really has in spades and as you look at the Biden administration is coming in, is is the fact that climate issues are a major driver of the sort of rhetorical framework of the administration. And when they're looking at these regulatory questions, there's going to be a lot of focus on climate and sensitivity towards those trends. And I think to the degree that you can structure your asks in a sort of climate sensitive framework, I think that really will help open the door. You want to do it in a in a plausible and, you know, grand test way. But I think that is going to be a very helpful way of framing out your issues. And I think it's one where you legitimately can demonstrate. You know, a lot of substance. Thank you, David. Christine. Sure. So we had quite a few questions on this topic. And Tom, I think it's addressed at least first to you. So the questions were about updates on the proposed changes to the national register where where we are in the process. And if we anticipate Congress or the Senate or the incoming Biden administration might drop this issue or do something with this issue moving forward. Well, there's there's a lot going on amongst the preservation community on that as we speak. It was this topic of a conversation among the preservation partners to get together in Washington on a monthly basis and having a small follow up on that on on Monday. I think that we are, you know, we're concerned. We are anticipating that the Trump administration. Will likely make up could could easily and is is working towards making a push to finalize that rule in January. A number of SHPO's and other preservation advocacy groups have met with OMB critiquing the the proposal. I would note that just in the in the Senate's version of the Interior Appropriations Bill, they renewed their very, very strong report language criticizing the the proposed revisions to the national register. So I think it's it's uncertain. The groups like the trust and, you know, the national and the SHPO's are all looking at this very, very closely, the tribes. So there's a lot of advocacy poise for that. And if necessary, I think people are prepared to seek judicial relief. So I think we probably got time for one last question. Is that right? Sure. Let's see. So this one for Patrick, could you talk a little bit about the proposed changes to the historic tax credit and how that might align with affordable housing and, you know, fit in with Biden administration priorities? Sure. So the changes to the HTC fall into a few buckets. The first is a temporary change, which is a bump up to 30 percent for a limited amount of time to help projects affected by COVID. And, you know, obviously a project can't catch COVID, right? But the economic freezing and some of the things that are going on and the inability of a workforce to be on the project in the numbers you want are some of the issues there. Secondly, there are some permanent changes that Mr. LaHood has advanced, as I've noted. One is a bump up to 30 percent for smaller projects. Another is a change in the substantial rehab test threshold. Currently, you have to spend 100 percent of your adjusted basis on a project. Under this change, you'd only have to spend 50 percent, which would mean you could get historic buildings that are old, that need rehabilitation, but aren't to the point that they're almost unusable before you can use the HTC. And I think that that would help with with LIHTEC project twinning. But the issue that would help the most is LIHTEC projects don't have a basis adjustment. So there's no tax penalty for using LIHTEC on a project. The HTC does have a basis adjustment. You have to adjust your basis down by 100 percent of the value of the credit. But projects that use LIHTEC and HTC for affordable housing have to use the HTC basis rules. So it discourages the twinning of those credit. There's also an opportunity zone issue with those because opportunity zones have a zero basis and how could you adjust that negatively? But that's the big piece that would help with affordable housing. And I'll just note a vast majority of historic projects are done in low and moderate income census tracks and in neighborhoods that qualify for opportunity zones or new markets. And so those are the kind of places that often do affordable housing as well. And with that, I'm going to ask Christine to go to the last two slides and say what kind of follow-up there's going to be from this webinar. Thank you, Catherine. Sure, absolutely. So as you can see on this slide, for more information on our advocacy efforts, you can always visit us at forum at savingplaces.org and go to our Advocacy Resource Center. We have a lot of great information on everything from the historic tax credit to our public lands advocacy to our appropriations reports. We also have a link here to our monthly advocacy newsletter that is produced by our government relationship. This tracks all of the priorities that the trust follows and some of the general activity on the Hill. And again, that comes out on a monthly basis. And then we will have another follow-up webinar in January, perhaps early February, that will go over the first hundred days of the next administration. So to get more information on our additional webinars, you can use the link there to subscribe. And within the next few days, you should be receiving a recording of this webinar so you can listen again. And you will also have access to all of these links. So thank you very much for joining us today and have a great afternoon. And stay safe. Bye.