🎙️ Voice is AI-generated. Inconsistencies may occur.
Four years ago, six Democrats and six Republicans embarked on what seemed like an impossible mission—to make Congress work better for the American people. While that may sound like a plot description for a political parody about Capitol Hill, it is a precise assessment of a little-known committee that has defied the odds in Washington and consistently produced strong bipartisan results. As the Democrat and Republican who led this successful effort, we think our committee's story is worth sharing.
The Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, which we lead together, was created to ensure that Congress is capable of acting as the first among co-equal branches of government. Reform committees like ours are typically created every two to three decades and charged with figuring out how to make Congress a more effective and efficient institution. Our work centered on finding and fixing the problems that make it hard for Congress to keep pace with a constantly evolving American society.
Our committee's story began with a bipartisan desire to improve the way Congress works. Members of Congress may disagree on a lot these days, but most want to solve problems. Outdated operations and processes make it difficult for members to provide constituents with the level of service they require. And rising polarization compounds these challenges by making it hard to find consensus on the pressing issues of the day. These hard truths about Congress impact Democrats and Republicans alike.
There is nothing partisan about wanting Congress to work better, so the structures and rules that enable this work shouldn't be partisan either. Rather than divide the committee's budget and staff by party, we agreed to one budget and one, nonpartisan staff. Our committee's even split of Democrats and Republicans was by design, as were our committee rules that required our recommendations to improve Congress to receive at least eight out of 12 votes to pass. This meant that no recommendation could be approved by the committee on a strict party-line vote. Buy in from both sides of the aisle was key to our success.
When it came to doing the work our committee was created to do, our story took a few novel twists and turns.
Our first step was to reach consensus on identifying the problems that needed to be solved. We began with a bipartisan agenda-setting retreat, where committee members shared their various on-the-job frustrations and got to know each other better on a personal level. This exercise helped create a baseline of trust between members and established a set of problems on which the committee would focus. While bipartisan agenda-setting at the committee level may seem like an obvious first step, it is a rarity in Congress, where the majority party alone typically determines the agenda.
Our next step was to throw the partisan playbook for committee hearings out the window. Our goal was to learn from expert witnesses, so instead of seating ourselves on the dais above them, we sat with them at a roundtable. Members sat alternating by party, rather than on separate sides of the room. We also restructured committee rules that restrict how long members can speak and opted for a free-flowing discussion between members and witnesses. The result was more learning and less posturing. Committee members also built relationships across party lines, just by virtue of sitting next to each other.
Like many institutions, Congress is steeped in longstanding rules and norms. But once we decided to chart a new course, we learned that there are all kinds of ways to experiment within the rules. And when those experiments inspire confidence in government, the risk is well worth taking.
The public agrees.
We recently participated in an online deliberative townhall with a random sample of 1,400 citizens from across the country to hear their ideas on how to improve Congress. When we described to them our committee's unique bipartisan approach to operations and hearings, they expressed a strong desire to see more of this in Congress.
Drawing hard lines in the sand and sticking to partisan talking points rarely leads to resolution. But listening to different perspectives and engaging in good-faith negotiations can at least help members of Congress find common ground. The way we do our work in Congress signals to the American people our commitment to solving problems.
The bottom line is that if we want Congress to work differently, we have to do things differently. By focusing on fixing problems rather than partisan position-taking, our committee was able to pass over 200 bipartisan recommendations to improve the People's House. We held more than 40 public hearings, we heard from more than 1,500 dedicated public servants who work on Capitol Hill, and we partnered with a vast range of experts on finding ways to make Congress a more effective and efficient institution.
So far, 132 of our recommendations have been fully or partially implemented. Our commitment to seeing our work through—from problem identification to solution development to recommendation passage and implementation—is reflected in updated resources available to congressional staff, new technologies and processes that improve the way we legislate and interact with our constituents, modernized and accessible workplace operations and spaces, updated communication tools, and much more.
Our committee wrapped up its work but our story is far from over. Our bipartisan approach to solving problems, coupled with our success at turning ideas into action, offers a roadmap for other committees to follow. There is nothing partisan about wanting Congress to work properly. We hope that our colleagues in Congress will see the value in doing things differently in order to produce results on behalf of the American people.
Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) served as chair of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
William Timmons (R-S.C.) served as vice chair of the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress.
The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
