Let's Find Common Ground - The Challenge of Fixing Congress

Episode Date: September 28, 2023

What a time to try and fix Congress. But that’s what our guests on this episode are determined to do. This show features two politicians from the newly launched Fix Congress caucus. Reps Derek Kilmer (D-Wa) and William Timmons (R-SC), first appeared on our show last year as members of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. The stakes were high when we recorded this latest interview: the budget deficit had once more taken center stage, and the countdown to a possible government shutdown was underway. These members of Congress are frustrated but also hopeful. They discuss dealing with the vast amount of federal government debt, the support congressional leaders have shown for their efforts, and how technology can play a part in fostering bipartisanship.

What a time to try to fix Congress. But that's what our guests on this episode are determined to do. Every time I go back home, it's very strange for me to have people ask me how I'm doing, as though I've been diagnosed with a terminal disease, just because I serve in the United States House. This is Let's Find Common Ground. I'm Ashley Melmtheit. And I'm Richard Davies. Today we hear from two members of Congress from the newly launched Fix Congress Caucus. Derek Kilmer is a Democrat from Washington, William Timons, a Republican from South Carolina. This is their second time on our podcast.

Yeah, they first talked to us last year as members of the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. We recorded this latest interview last week right in the middle of the House budget showdown. The stakes were high. Representatives, Timons and Kilmer were in their congressional offices. The countdown to a government shutdown had begun. Congressman Kilmer and Timons, welcome back to Let's Find Common Ground. Great to be back with you. Good to be with you again. So the Fixed Congress caucus has just launched. What is it and why does Congress need it?

Well, I think there's a recognition that Congress is often punching below its weight. And there's a sense that every American deserves the government and a legislative branch that mirrors their aspirations and that addresses their concerns. And that works relentlessly towards solving the pressing challenges of our time. And our caucus is meant to really serve as a vital space for members of Congress and staff and civil society groups to engage in some of those dialogues about how we improve the efficacy and integrity of the Congress.

And our hope, our goal, is to make the institution more capable of solving big problems for the American people. And really, it's an extension of our work for the last four years on the Select Committee for the Modernization of Congress. Obviously, we still have a subcommittee on House Administration to continue to implement all the recommendations, the two hundred and two recommendations we made. But they need support, and we are here to make sure that the concerns of the select committee are fully implemented. And that's our commitment. We're exploring other ways that we can continue to improve Congress. And it's a natural extension of our work on the modernization committee. So can you give us an example of what it will do?

And whether in any way it will be different from the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress. I think there's a few things that we've looked at. One is just recognition that while the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress covered a lot of terrain, it didn't cover all the terrain. There are issues that, even as we explored them, we thought these are important issues that probably require more time and more attention. I'll just give you an example. We talked about issues related to continuity of government.

And in essence, the recommendation we made is someone ought to look more closely at that issue. That's an opportunity for the Fixed Congress caucus. And whether it's money in politics, whether it's redistricting and how we go about that, whether it's ranked horse voting, these are all ideas that the Modernization Committee discussed and we weren't able to find agreement on. But we are also going to focus on the number one thing I worked on during my time on the Modernization Committee was the schedule and the calendar.

And unfortunately, we came up a bit short and my perspective with the calendar, this Congress. So I think there's a lot of opportunity there. Another is the Common Committee calendar, which is still in beta testing. And I think there's a huge opportunity there to de-conflict the schedule and to really give us more time to work with our colleagues in committee. And hopefully have more time to work with our colleagues

across the aisle, just to build relationships, so we trust one another, so we can then work arms links, transactions to try to find a path forward to solve some of the biggest challenges facing this country. A lot of members of Congress are ideologues, some are pragmatists. Do you, both of you, think of yourselves as the latter, as just two members of Congress who really want to get

something done and cut through some of the gridlock? I am. I view myself as a pragmatist. I say I'm an aspiring statesman. I'm going to try to find ways to work with people. If we disagree on 90% of the stuff, I'll work with them on 10%. Whoever I can work with on any issue,

I want to try to move the ball forward. We've had a lot of spinning our wheels the last few decades on a lot of different issues. Whether it's health care, social security, immigration, the biggest challenges that face our country are the ones that we've been virtually unable to make any progress in. So I'm going to continue to try to find solutions

to the biggest problem facing this country. We have $33 trillion in debt, and we owe it to our kids, and our grandkids, and our four fathers, to try to be stewards of what we have been given and to leave this country off better than we found it. And it's going to take working together to do that. I think my constituents just want us to get stuff done. I think there is an exhaustion with the dysfunction.

It's hard for our constituents to watch the evening news, certainly within an hour of eating. And they want us to try to make things work better. That's what I want to. When I was deciding to run for this job back in 2012, on one hand, I found myself thinking, gosh, I'm not sure I want to touch that with a 10-foot pole when Congress is, you know, a mess. And I got two little kids. And now 11 years later, I find myself thinking, well, I mean, the reason I got into it was because it was a mess. And I had two little kids. And frankly, I didn't want their future dictated by a messed up political system. And so that's why I've invested a lot of the energy that I have in trying to

improve our politics and improve the functioning of Congress. So speaking of challenges, one example of polarization is the current stalemate over the budget. A government shutdown seems quite likely at this point. What are your thoughts on this? I still have hope. I think there's a lot of legitimate concerns within the Republican conference that are trying to find a path forward to address some of the policy concerns that we have while also funding the government in a sustainable manner

that's responsible. And I'm actually trying to push this concept of adding commission at least for debt or maybe three commissions for social security for health care for immigration. I think those are the three big drivers. We keep nibbling around the edges of our problem. Again, $33 trillion in debt, $2 trillion deficit, and our defense budget is about to be a

clips by our interest payments. So it's unsustainable, and we have to find the political courage to come together to address the main drivers. There's just a lot of moving pieces pieces and leadership is working very hard to try to find a way to keep the government funded and also address various members' legitimate concerns. You mentioned leadership. Do you think the current leadership is more open to compromise and finding common ground than was the case during the last Congress? You know, because of the speaker vote and because of the manner in which we change the House rules, it's just become very challenging.

It's very challenging to get much done. And, you know, people always ask me, how do you like serving on the majority? And I'm like, wait, I'm in the majority? I didn't know that. But, you know, we are trying to thread the needle, clearly the Senate still held by the Democrats and President Biden's in the White House. So we cannot allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but we also cannot neglect these opportunities. We have pressure points and we have to come together to try to find compromise and to try to find ways to address the biggest

challenge facing our country, which is debt, deficit spending, social security, the Social Security trustees came before the Oversight Committee, which I now serve on, and they are screaming from the highest mountain top that we have a huge problem, and we're going to go into austerity measures in seven or eight years, which is a 22% cut across the board for everybody receiving Social Security. The longer we wait to address it, the harder it is. So that's not gonna be fixed on a Republican

or a Democrat party line vote, it's not possible. We have to come together, we have to find a path forward to solve the problem, same with healthcare, same with immigration. William just mentioned the need to solve problems in a bipartisan way, particularly on some of these big ticket items. I think that's the challenge that you're seeing play out in the House right now.

I think in part because of the way the Speaker's election played out and the issues related to the potential to vacate the chair and threaten Speaker McCarthy's gaville, he's more inclined to work with members of the Freedom Caucus who frankly frankly, I don't know will ever vote for a spending agreement of any kind, certainly not one that can pass the Senate and be signed by Joe Biden. And so that's I think where we're struggling right now. All of us have had friends who were in a relationship where you wanted to say, they're not good for you

and they're not into you. It feels a little bit like that right now in the house where I want to tell the speaker, as he's seeking support from people who are never going to vote for a spending agreement. We're hearing a buzzer, is that because you have to go back and vote or what? No, I think that means we're done for the day.

That's good. Good. But that's not good. We're done for the day is not good. Yeah, it's not good. So that's, I mean, that's the dynamic that we're dealing with. I'll just add one other thing. The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress actually made, I think, nine different recommendations related to the budget and appropriations process. We've been pushing both William and I have been pushing for the Budget Committee to give those a hearing and to look at reforms to the budget and appropriations process.

They aren't going to solve the problem that we are facing right now, but I think they have solved a lot of problems regarding the dysfunction that we've seen in the budget and appropriations process for the last several decades. When we spoke to both of you the first time, which was about 18 months ago, the war in Ukraine was fairly new, and you actually talked about how that had brought both sides of the aisle together. That's not so much the case anymore, is it? When it comes to feelings about the war? Not really. I think there's a lot of people on the far right that are very concerned about

the southern border. I just got back from Cochise County, Arizona. The number currently is 3.4 million people have crossed the border. There are asylum seekers, but literally 3.4 million people have been allowed to stay in this country pending their appeal process for whether they will be granted asylum. And that's in the last 30 months. That's more people. Utah has 3.3 million. There's 20 states in the union that do not have more than 3.4 million people. So it's just a huge challenge. And you're seeing it in New York City, you're seeing it in Illinois.

You're seeing it here in DC where the liberal mayors and liberal city councils are just saying, this isn't sustainable. So a lot of the conservatives are saying, why are we sending $100 billion to Ukraine when we've got 3.4 million people illegally crossing the southern border? The only time I've ever voted for spending in my five years in Congress was when Speaker Pelosi broke up the omnibus and I voted to fund the military and send money to Ukraine because I'm against genocide.

I will always stand against genocide. This is not complicated for me. But it is becoming increasingly opaque to see whether we will have the votes to continue to support the Ukraine. I guess the only thing I would add is I think there's broad support within the Democratic caucus for supporting Ukraine and providing assistance to Ukraine, you know, in the face of what is really not just a territorial threat, but a threat to democracy, a threat to an ally. And the potential precedent that it's sensitive, we walk away from one of our allies and walk

away from defending democracy. You know, that obviously doesn't, that may not get a majority of the majority on board, but I do think that there's a majority of the house that is prepared to support assistance for you, Craig. You're listening to Derek Kilmer and William Timmons on Let's Find Common Ground. I'm Richard. I'm Ashley. And you'll probably have noticed there's something different about the sound of our show this week. We have, of course, changed the music.

Yeah, we've had new music composed just for this show. We wanted something a little friendlier, perhaps, more common groundy, less ripped from the headlines, than the theme we had been using for more than three years since the start of the show. We hope you like it. had been using for more than three years since the start of the show. We hope you like it. And if you enjoy our show and want to hear more, Common Ground Committee is a nonprofit that relies on donations to keep doing its work. And we're happy to say there's a simple new way to support this podcast and everything

else we do at Common Ground Committee. You can just text 53555. That's 53555. Type the letters CGC into the message box and hit send. You'll get a secure link that leads you right to Common Ground Committee's full fundraising page. Yeah, I've tried it. It sent a small donation and it took the money right away, so it works pretty well. Again, that number is 53555 type CGC into the message and send. And thank you very much. We were speaking about the budget deadlock. Is it sometimes harder to talk to those on your own side than the politicians and staff members on the other side?

Is that occasionally a problem? Not really. Listen, I'm someone who has an appetite for speaking to anybody, even if they have opinions that are different than mine. I started my day this morning with a group called the bipartisan working group, which meets every week for coffee and donuts to talk about whether we can find some common ground on stuff. And it was about a half dozen Democrats and about a half dozen Republicans talking about potential shutdown and where there might be a place for the plane to land.

Which is not to say that there's broad agreement, but I think it's important for us to have those discussions. One of the recommendations that the Select Committee made was to create more physical space for that type of bipartisan interaction. I actually do think that's important. The institution is not structured to allow for, even just space for Democrats and Republicans

to talk to each other. You mean more meeting rooms or just places where people can talk? Literally, having space somewhere near the House floor where Democrats and Republicans sit down and talk to each other, and not in the view of the C-SPAN cameras, that doesn't really exist. And in most democracies around the world, you wouldn't have Brian Fitzpatrick and Marjorie Taylor-Grein in the same party.

But we're in a two-party system here. And so those conversations within a party can get messy. And I'm sure based on what I read from the leaks from the Republican conference, they are messy. And certainly when we were in the majority, when we had Kurt Trader and the squad in the Republican conference, they are messy. You know, and certainly when we were in the majority, when we had court trader and the squad in the same caucus, like there were debates and disagreements, but that's not necessarily unhealthy,

unless it's negatively affecting the American people. I worry that a shutdown is going to negatively impact the American people. Well, what you just alluded to sort of leads into my next question, which is, what are some other ways to get more cooperation in Congress? Outside of the Fixed Congress caucus, do you both have suggestions of other things that you all could be doing? I mean, oftentimes you see cooperation and bipartisanship around discrete issues, right?

I just let me out with the American Cancer Society. I'm one of the co-chairs of the Cancer Caucus. We have two Democratic chairs, two Republican chairs, and you know what we agree on? Everything related to trying to cure cancer and to treat cancer. Every leader of that caucus is all in. There are other sort of substantive policy-oriented caucuses that exist around specific policy issues where you can find that agreement. Part of the challenge as William just said is though there are some big pieces regarding our long-term fiscal health, regarding immigration, regarding health care, that have simply been very, very partisan, as long as I've been in Congress, as long as Williams has been in Congress, and even before. And I think those are areas where we've just got to create more space for dialogue. It hopes that there are areas where we might be able to find some common ground.

How can technology be used to get things done and make progress in Congress? There's been so much talk about the potentially negative impacts of artificial intelligence, but I would imagine that there could be some help for your goals provided by technology. You know, I want to overestimate, we had a hearing recently and we had a thought leader on AI, I described it in a way that I hadn't really considered before, and it's the amalgamation of statistics to provide predictive modeling. And essentially, if you can get enough information, and then you can use it to provide assistance and decision making, that it can really be productive.

It can also be destructive, but I think we can use AI, we can use technology to increase our effectiveness by understanding a data set more, and if you can find a way to better agree upon the facts, that's a huge deal. We have a lot of arguments about facts, and about what my truth is, what somebody else's truth is, and I think technology can overcome that. Just implementing best practices of technology, trying to use AI and algorithms to create better solutions to the problems that are facing our country. These are all ways that we can use technology to kind of help move the ball forward. Earlier, William mentioned schedule scheduling calendar as well. I mean, every college and university, every high school in America

has figured out technology to de-conflict the class calendar. We have not figured out how to use technology to de-conflict the committee calendar. It's one of our recommendations and one of the things that I think Congress needs to work on. What does that have to do with bipartisanship? Well, the place that these discussions are supposed to happen is in committee. But the problem is members are in three, four committees at the same time, which means for most members, committee becomes the place where you jump in for five minutes, give your five minute spiel for social media, and then run to your

next committee to do the same thing, not to hear other perspectives, not to actually defend your perspectives, but just to give you five minute speech. I actually think the use of technology to solve for our schedule and calendar challenges would help drive bipartisanship and help drive better problem solving by the US House. Has the Congressional leadership expressed support for your efforts for what you're doing together? Well, we wouldn't be able to even have started this entire endeavor without Nancy Pelosi instituting the modernization committee, and she did it for one year than another one, then she got us two more. So, I mean, that's huge. And Speaker McCarthy has been very helpful all along the way.

Every time Kilmer and I had some serious challenges a lot ahead, I said, I need to get back to you on that because I got to go make sure I'm not going to get cross with McCarthy and same thing went for him. So they have been involved every step of the way. The calendar recommendations that we made kind of felt flat, but I think that's the work in progress. The Deconfliction Tool for Committees actually has, it's currently in beta and committee

chairman are using it to inform decisions and it is actually somewhat in use and I think it will get better and better. And then once that Deconfliction Tool is fully implemented, it will facilitate increased work days in a five day work week, which is what I've been pushing for for the whole time because when you're up here for two full work days a week, you just can't get much done and everything has to get slammed into those two days and you're just running around.

And we need more thoughtful deliberation and less speechification in your five minutes. I thought there was a good sign. As William mentioned, the, you know, Speaker Pelosi was very supportive of establishing the committee and then extending its life. One of the last recommendations we made was to create a new subcommittee under house administration

to focus on implementation of some of the recommendations made by the modernization committee. That happened. Credit to the majority that they stood that committee up that it's a bipartisan committee and that we're working on implementation. Our view, you know, was that, well, that subcommittee's focused on implementation, this fixed Congress caucus is going to be able to dig in on some additional issues, engage some of the civil society organizations that are really invested in trying to make Congress work better.

We're speaking with both of you at a time of high dysfunction and also really better partisan divide. Are both of you hopeful that things can improve, that we're kind of at a low water mark right now for Congress. I think pressure makes diamonds and we're creating an additional pressure and hopefully we'll get some productive resolution out of this but there's a lot of work to do between now and that coming to fruition but I'm really working on including these commissions in the

continuing resolution or whatever the vehicle is because I think that we got to remove the politics from the biggest challenges, the biggest drivers of our debt and the commission model, which is very similar to the select committee's model would really overcome some of those. To be clear, you favor the establishment of commissions to try and fix problems with social security, with immigration, with the debt and deficit. Correct. So the last time we touched Social Security was in 1981, the Greenspan Commission

they made a number of changes and it pushed its life decades longer. And healthcare, we spend triple the average developed country and we have some of the worst results out there. And then with immigration, I don't know how many times we can fail. I mean, it's been decades and decades where we're refused to actually address these challenges. So I think those are the three biggest challenges and those are the three biggest solutions to resolving our debt. So I'm pushing for a novel way to thread the needle,

to find a solution that isn't procedurally blocked by a very few people because the perfect can't always be the enemy of the good and we need to find a bipartisan solution to these challenges because there will never be a party line vote to fix them. The American people want us to be successful in reforming Congress. Every time I go back home, it's very strange for me to have people ask me how I'm doing as though I've been diagnosed with a terminal disease just because I serve in the United States house. And you give a sense of that because of some of the dysfunction that we've all seen play out, not just today and not just in this Congress, but in modern history. You know, every time a podcast like yours elevates the work that we're trying to do, every time there's a push by our constituents, that's what gives me hope, right? Rabbi Jonathan Sachs said there's a difference between optimism and hope. He said optimism's a passive virtue. It's the belief that things will get better. He said hope is an active virtue. It's the belief that together we can make things better. I like that because it understands

that we have a sense of agency. William and I are not just passive observers of what's happening in Congress. We've actively got our wars in the water and guess what? So do a lot of Americans trying to make things better. And so that's going to be what gives me hope and that's going to be our continued push here with the Fixed Congress Caucus. Thank you very much, both of you. Thank you. Great to be with you. Thank you.

Congressman William Timmans and Derek Kilmer on Let's Find Common Ground. And if you have feedback and we would love to hear from you, you can always reach us by email at podcastatcommongroundcommitty.org. I'm Ashlyn Naltight. And I'm Richard Davies. Thanks for listening. This podcast is part of the Democracy Group.