Even as he heads out the door, Derek Kilmer is still trying to fix Congress

WASHINGTON — There’s an old proverb that fits Derek Kilmer: If you love something, sometimes you have to let it go.

The Washington Democrat led the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress — better known on the Hill as “ModCom” or the “Fix Congress Committee” — where he oversaw the drafting of more than 200 recommendations to improve the legislative branch.

Now Kilmer is closing out his 12-year career in the House, after deciding not to run for reelection this cycle. He may be leaving, but he isn’t going quietly — he attended a House Rules Committee hearing last month to urge changes aimed at quenching “toxic polarization.”

He spoke with Roll Call over the summer about his modernizing legacy and leaving the place better off than he found it. This interview has been edited and condensed.

Q: As you look around your office, what’s the most meaningful thing on your walls?

A: When I was chairing the Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress, I always used to say, “Let’s not have red jerseys and blue jerseys. Let’s just have jerseys that say ‘Fix Congress.’” And so at the end of that process, I was given a baseball jersey that says “Kilmer Fix Congress” on it.

And the other is a very, very small painting of Billy Frank Jr.’s face. Billy Frank Jr. was an iconic Native American leader. In fact, our state voted to put a statue of him in Statuary Hall. He spoke to the importance of tribal treaty rights and environmental protection, and making decisions that weren’t just about today, but about seven generations into the future.

Q: I usually ask retiring members what they would change about Congress, but you already have your name on a report with plenty of recommendations. What else?

A: We proposed a number of reforms to the budget and appropriations process that are super wonky and kind of in the weeds. But in an environment where pretty much every year, Congress doesn’t follow the Budget Act and we don’t pass spending bills on time, there is a cost, both to federal agencies and to taxpayers.

And there’s other stuff we didn’t do that I wish we could have. You know, the nature of that committee, it was an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and to make a recommendation, we had to have a two-thirds vote. And that made it more challenging to look at some of the systemic challenges facing the institution.

One of the biggies is how we do primaries. The number of times over the course of a month where a colleague from either side of the aisle will say, like, “Well, I think that’s a good idea, but if I do that, I’m gonna get killed in a primary” is really high.

There are states that are experimenting with different models. My state has a top two primary, California has a top two primary, and it not only changes who comes to Congress, but might help how we govern. Closed primaries are generally low turnout, and if you’re appealing to a small subset of your constituents who are primary voters, that can contribute to some of the polarization we see in the institution.

Q: Is it just primaries?

A: I think ranked-choice voting is really interesting. You saw that in Alaska. You’ve seen that in Maine. I live in a county that had it and then got rid of it. But it changes how people campaign. If you’re a candidate, you’ve got to be careful about running an entirely negative campaign, because while you want people to list you as their first choice, if you’re not their first choice, you’re hoping you’re their second choice. And you’re not going to be their second choice if you spend a bunch of money blasting their first choice.

I’ve always thought of campaigns as like job interviews, and I don’t know about you, but I’ve never gone into a job interview saying, “Here’s why you shouldn’t hire the other guy.”

Q: ModCom ended, but now you sit on the House Administration Modernization Subcommittee as ranking member. How would you rate the job it’s done so far?

A: One of the recommendations of the Modernization Committee was to create the subcommittee to focus on implementation. And the good news is, we’ve seen continued forward progress on a number of things that may not have gotten tremendous press attention, but I think really matter.

For example, you’ve seen the launch of [a tool] that allows offices to share anonymized constituent casework data, to identify trends and systemic issues that need to be fixed. Even little things — like for the first time, House interns have an office to help train them and their supervisors. That’s a pipeline of public servants.

The goal of the Modernization Committee was not just to create a report — it was to create change, right? It was like the old “Saturday Night Live” fake ad for the bank that only makes change. I kept saying, “We make change, it’s what we do.”

Q: Looking back on your time in Congress, what makes you proud?

A: The reason I got into public service was because I grew up in a timber town in Washington state, and when I was in high school, the timber industry took it on the chin, and I saw a lot of my neighbors lose their jobs.

My journey in public service has been dedicated to really one core mission: How do we create more economic opportunity for more people in more places?

Communities that are struggling economically don’t fall into a state of disrepair in one year, and they’re not going to get out in one year. They don’t all have the same problem, so you can’t use a one-size-fits-all approach. And they also don’t have an army of grant writers to navigate a complex system of federal grants and loans.

So I introduced a bill called the Recompete Act, which provides flexible, multiyear grant support, with some front-end capacity building, to help communities have a shot — and that bill was included in the CHIPS and Science Act as a pilot.

Q: What about regrets?

A: My biggest regret is telling my kids on the 5th of January 2021 that they didn’t have anything to worry about because dad worked in the most secure building on the planet.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: My mom keeps asking that. I’m not sure yet. You know, I want to make sure I keep making a difference in one way or another.

Q: And what’s next for Congress?

A: It’s easy to look at the state of things and say, like, “Oh, you ran a committee to fix Congress? Bang up job, Kilmer.” But I liken it to a conversation I had with the House chaplain when things were really off the rails. We were in, like, the 15th vote for speaker of the House, and I saw Chaplain Kibben on the floor, and I said, “Pray harder.” And she smiled at me, and she put her hand on my elbow, and she said, “Just imagine how rough things would be if I wasn’t praying this hard.”

And that’s how I looked at the work of the Modernization Committee, and of the Modernization Subcommittee. There’s more that needs to be done, but I do think it has made a difference.

Quick hits

Last book you read? Robert Fersh and Mariah Levison have a book called “From Conflict to Convergence: Coming Together to Solve Tough Problems.”

Currently reading? Jonathan Eig’s “King: A Life.”

In politics, can the ends justify the means? There’s both what you are trying to accomplish, and how you try to accomplish it — and both matter. If you’re going to make a lasting, durable impact, process matters.

Your least popular opinion? I like all of the Star Wars movies.

Even the prequels? Even the prequels.