Ep. 13: How American citizens can fix Congress

In this episode, Dr. Shawn Healy of iCivics joins Ellen and Joe for a conversation about what the Founders intent was with Congress and why they designed the legislative process to be deliberately slow. Next, long-time Capitol Hill staffer Mike Johnson joins us to discuss his new book Fixing Congress: Restoring Power to the People where he details out what the current challenges between the political parties and how everyday Americans can demand a better, more effective system. Lastly, for veterans who are interested in starting careers on Capitol Hill, Navy veteran Justin Brown joins us to talk about the mission of Hill Vets.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

There's one problem with that. You can't get to where you want to be unless you legislate. It doesn't happen automatically. And in order to legislate, you need two things. You need collaboration between the two sides, and you need public trust. Without public trust, there can't be governance. And without governance, there is chaos. And what does uh lack of governance produce? Anger.

SPEAKER_00 0:32

Welcome back to the Vetted Conversations Podcast, where we delve into the foundations, workings, and current challenges to the American way of self-governance.

SPEAKER_05 0:41

In today's confusing world, it's more important than ever to understand how our government works and how we, as citizens, can actively participate in the discussion, to safeguard our liberties, and continue freedom.

SPEAKER_00 0:51

Our mission is to ensure you, our listeners, have the knowledge and insights needed to become more informed and engaged citizens and active members of your community. So let's get into it.

SPEAKER_05 1:07

Hello, everybody. Part of our mission here is to help increase our collective understanding of civics, namely our rights and perhaps more importantly, our responsibilities to each other as citizens in a free society. Based on your feedback from season one, we are adding a short civics discussion to each episode in season two to help better explain how our government is organized and how it is designed to work so that we can all more effectively engage with our elected and appointed officials and help create a more perfect union. Joining us today is Dr. Sean Healy, the Civics expert and the senior director for policy and advocacy at iCivics. iCivics is our nation's leading nonprofit civic education organization whose mission is to ensure the practice of democracy is learned by each new generation. Sean, it's so good to have you back to educate us today. Here's our question for today's episode. Why did the founders intentionally make laws hard to pass and the business of Congress intentionally slow?

SPEAKER_04 2:05

So I I think it it goes back to once again concerns about the excesses of democracy and that the process of lawmaking uh should be deliberate. I will say that uh the framers I think it's fair to say they didn't account for the rise of national parties. Um they were grappling with that uh as as the the first Congress was was constituted. Uh but but yeah, didn't uh political parties in their uh modern form uh didn't exist and certainly didn't account for the extent to which we're we're so polarized ideologically, and that of course has a geographic uh component to it too. We've been polarized at other points in our history, uh, but those two phenomena uh make it very make it even more difficult uh to achieve compromise uh and and to pass uh legislation. Uh they also of course didn't create the filibuster, so the filibuster is a a modern uh or uh more modern than the the uh uh framers uh suggested. So it emerged in the 1800s. Uh the Senate adopted this, and uh it's another obstacle to legislative productivity. Um and then specifically uh around amending the Constitution, uh they they made that very difficult, of course, too. We've only done it 27 times. Uh 10 of those amendments were adopted uh basically at the outset. So uh constitution is drafted in uh 1787 by 1791. We have the first 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights. It's only 17 cents. Actually, one the last amendment we adopted, the 27th, was part of the original uh proposed Bill of Rights and was basically uh basically one that was kind of uh many states have considered, but not enough to formally ratify. Um so that's kind of an aberration. Uh we've had no new amendments other than that relic since 1971, uh, when 18-year-olds got the right to vote. So it made that process really difficult, right? So two-thirds of both bodies have to to uh ratify an amendment and then ultimately has to go to states, uh three-quarters of states, so that's 38 states uh would have to vote to ratify. So made that process very arduous. Uh and in this current context, with relatively strong national parties, and then uh us being ideologically polarized, particularly in relationship to those parties, and once again tied to the geography of the country, makes it very difficult. Uh one, almost impossible uh to adopt a constitutional amendment, but even uh difficult to pass a budget, right, in the current Congress.

SPEAKER_05 4:48

Yeah. Yeah, and I and I've I've you know seen this tension that you talk about between uh parties and polarization, all the way back to like watching the musical Hamilton, where you've got you know, Hamilton who wants a strong federal government in a centralized form, and Jefferson who wants a federalized system where the states hold most of the power. Um and it seemed like there was a big tension between kind of like the cities as economic units, and then you know, Jefferson who wanted us to be uh a land of farmers, right? You know, so you had this rural, urban kind of divide back then too. But um I think your point about uh you know what's the right balance? Because you know, if we have um if it's too hard to pass laws, you know, for because the right incentives aren't in place and the business of government doesn't get done, if it's too easy to pass laws, then we really kind of become subject to the whims of mob rule. So you know what what's the right balance and how do we find it?

SPEAKER_04 5:46

Yeah, well I think it's I think it's a a perpetual debate, right? And it is uh you you mentioned some of the issues that uh our our founders debated about. I think I think we're we're having many of those same debates in the in the modern context. What's the right role for the national government versus states uh in and localities, right? Um what are the interests of uh big cities uh versus uh suburbs now, and which which wasn't really probably a thing at the uh the time of our founding and uh rural areas, we've of course seen this tremendous shift in population and you know continued growth of metropolitan areas and uh declining population in rural areas. And I think many of our contemporary debates uh are tied to that. Um so uh I don't I don't know there's a right answer per se. I do feel like uh as we talk about Congress, it could certainly function better. It hasn't passed a Congress hasn't passed a budget through regular order in a few decades. Um and uh as we're recording this, Congress uh six months into a fiscal year uh just adopted uh its budget for the balance of the year. So I I would suggest that that's uh quite dysfunctional, right? But part of it is a product of such an aggregate, a very evenly divided electorate, right? Where Republicans have this very narrow majority in the House, and the Democrats, of course, control the Senate. So it's divided government um in these parties that are behaving more like European parties, so they're behaving more like parliamentary government. Of course, we don't have a parliamentary system, we have a uh a presidential system. So uh there are things we could probably do to make uh Congress more functional, and I think that's an important debate to have because it I would suggest it's been pretty dysfunctional for the past few decades.

SPEAKER_05 7:37

Awesome. Yeah, and I think a lot of that's like how do we systemically put the right incentives in place that promotes things like consensus and compromise and working towards uh the efficient pass as well legislation, I guess. But yeah, no, thank you so much for your your thoughtful answer on that. Among our three branches of government, the U.S. Congress has been increasingly acrimonious and even dysfunctional lately. With exceedingly low public opinion poll numbers, many believe that Congress can and should work better. Joining us today to discuss this is Mike Johnson, the co-author of Fixing Congress, Restoring Power to the People. Mike, welcome.

SPEAKER_01 8:16

Thank you. It's good to be here.

SPEAKER_05 8:18

Can you tell us a little bit before we get into the subject of the book? Um, how did you come to this work? You've had a long and distinguished career in politics. Can you just kind of tell us a little bit about um your background?

SPEAKER_01 8:30

Yeah, well, um uh I came to Washington uh uh back in the uh early 19, well, actually late 1970s, had been an editor of a newspaper in uh Illinois, and um went to work uh uh with in the Ford White House, and from there went to Congress uh uh as uh first press secretary and then chief of staff to uh House Republican leader Bob Michael, um, who um uh he retired from Congress in 1994, so I'm kind of the ghost of Congress past, you know. Uh uh most people don't uh remember Bob. But at any rate, um I was uh involved in a uh and still am really to a certain degree in an organization called the Congressional Institute, which conducted forums and conferences for members of Congress and staff, and our whole mission was to uh help members of Congress and staff do their jobs better and to educate uh uh their constituents. In that process, uh uh Jerry Klymer uh and I uh co-wrote a book called Surviving Congress, which is was intended as a primary uh guide for members of Congress and staff. And it it's now in its sixth edition, I believe. There are something like uh 200,000 copies in circulation or something. Um maybe that was just 20,000. I can't remember. But at any rate, um so uh I I was uh when I was still working, I was in a cab on my way back to my office, and I love to talk to cab drivers, and I had talked about uh surviving Congress and and what we did at the Institute, and he said, excuse the language, but why in the hell don't you write something like that for us? Uh so we know what's going on up there. And and I talked to Jerry about that, and we had had a number of conversations about it, and so we we set about writing writing the book, and here we are. Uh well, I get that question a lot, and uh the answer is uh, you know, uh when people ask you that question, they expect you to have a specific view of who your audience is and where they live and how much they make, and and we don't. Um the fact is that our book is intended for people who are frustrated with uh uh dysfunctional government and um and angry with their politicians and and want to do something about it. You know, they're tired of being shut out, and so that's our audience, and you really can't define it. It's young people, particularly, who um are not being educated in civics in our schools today, um, and older Americans who um just want something done here.

SPEAKER_05 11:44

What are some of the top misconceptions people have about Congress? You you busted a couple of book.

SPEAKER_01 11:50

They have a lot of them. Um we have been watching uh internet uh social media traffic for a very long time, and you run across all of these uh some idiotic uh perceptions of of Congress and and members of Congress that they so many percent have been in jail and and um uh uh members can't go to jail, they get they don't have to pay Social Security, they get extraordinary health care benefits, they get free housing, they um uh just all kinds of stuff like that. And um, you know, we mentioned some of those in the book, and they're all wrong. They're they're just simply uh not true. Others are so badly exaggerated they um uh they really border on on uh falsehood. So it's it's it's pretty uh pervasive and it's not healthy for the for the Congress.

SPEAKER_05 12:51

Absolutely. Or the or the Republic, I'd I'd add. Um there's a lot of misinformation out on the internet, um, especially in social media. Uh so media literacy, like understanding like where to go for good information is is a very important thing. And going, you know, where to go for good information about our our three branches of government, I think, is especially important, especially now at this point in our history. But speaking of history, maybe we ought to go back to the start. Like, what was the founder's vision?

SPEAKER_01 13:24

Excuse me. Yeah, they um uh uh they were brilliant men, uh many of them, and unfortunately they were men, but men ran ran things back then, um uh missing out on a great resource. But they uh understood from they were most of them were very avid readers and uh students of history, particularly European history and and how uh governments were created and what caused them to fail. Several of them were involved in the creation of the governments of the of the colonies at the time. And so they were able to apply that knowledge and what they saw wrong and what they saw right. And um, when they um closed the windows and shut the doors in Philadelphia and wrote the Constitution, they kept that in mind. More importantly, they understood that the country was going to grow, they could see out west and envision larger populations and more states and everything. So they constructed a constitution that was very flexible and pliable and could be changed to accommodate modern times and interpreted to keep up with modern times. So um they created a constitution that could be amended, and there have been 27 amendments um uh to the constitution, but to show you what a marvelous document it is, there have been 11,000 amendments proposed to the Constitution and only 27 adopted. So uh it has proved to be uh a document for the ages and a structure of law for the country uh for the ages.

SPEAKER_05 15:18

But you know, when you think about like when our country was founded, um the the founders had a very specific vision for how you know they wanted to to govern themselves and what they didn't want. And you know, I see uh you know in the declaration, also in the constitution, uh a rejection of essentially strongman rule, which was you know, we we call them kings, but um, you know, that was pretty much the you know, ever since we stopped living as hunter-gatherers and established civilization, I mean that's pretty much the way things were run. So I think you know, maybe um you know, not enough Americans understand like how this truly was an experiment democracy. And I was wondering if you could kind of talk about that a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 16:04

It really is an experiment and it continues to be an experiment, uh, but it is also the longest functional constitution among all of the democratic nations. And the republic, which uh we we created uh as an experiment, it's a representative democracy, but it is a republic in its structure, is something that has endured over a very long time. The founders were smart enough uh and angry enough at the British to understand that the people really had to have a say in their governance, which the colonies were uh denied so much. So that was kind of the core of their thinking. Let's be free people, let's let people do what they want, but also give them a governmental umbrella that can make their lives secure and ensure their freedom and uh their pursuit of happiness, and uh get away from this uh conglomeration of individual states that had caused so much confusion in the areas of trade and finance and taxes. And so they they wanted uh a stronger federal government. Well, qualify that. Some of them wanted uh a strong federal government, and fortunately they prevailed. Patrick Henry and George Mason and others had some real doubts, particularly Patrick Henry, uh, who didn't even want to participate in the process. And so um he was responsible, by the way, for gerrymandering, but that's uh that's another story. Um uh so they uh they had the right formula and they had the the right attitude. Unfortunately, of course, when they were talking about the people ruling, they were only talking about certain people. Yeah. But we have uh that again is the brilliance of our system. We have evolved over time and and uh uh accepted uh uh uh and encouraged a lot of diversity and more people being involved in uh in the governmental process. Unfortunately, and this is the core of the book, civics education, so many Americans today don't have uh the knowledge and the information and the access to engage in in self-rule. Like you said, uh, you know, about the three branches, only 40% of the American people, according to Annenberg, can name the three branches of government, and 17% can't name one. So um uh that's an example of of you know where our educational system has come from. Almost 50% of the American people couldn't pass the citizenship test today, according to the surveys.

SPEAKER_05 19:14

You you do a great job in your book of talking about like the the design character of the two different houses, right, uh, within the Congress. So the House of Representatives kind of be more the voice of the people, and then the Senate being a much more deliberative body. Can you go into that a little bit more and kind of kind of tease that out for us and and uh make us a little bit smarter about the the original intent of the Senate and the House?

SPEAKER_01 19:37

Yeah. Well, the um, yeah, there was a uh the a lot of the founders believed strongly in uh in preserving the voice of the states in um in the conduct of government. And there was also this fight in the constitutional uh convention about how you balance. out large states with large populations and smaller states, how do you give them equal representation in this kind of system? Because the people of Virginia felt like they should have more control because there was more of them. And so the smaller states said, look, you're gonna freeze us out of the process. You know, it's kind of like they're trying to do today with big cities versus rural areas.

SPEAKER_02 20:24

Right.

SPEAKER_01 20:25

So the they created uh they ended up with a uh a a great compromise with the Senate giving the smaller states equal representation every state gets two senators and the house then would be decided the size of the house would be decided by the population of of the state so this kind of uh uh equalized what they were doing and it's it's interesting they founders considered the house and senate equal branches uh uh uh uh uh of the congress but um it came to be and and the media has always had something to do with this the Senate because members were uh there for six years are seemed to elevated to this this grandeur uh that House uh uh representatives members don't enjoy the and they call the Senate the upper body and the House the lower body the only reason for that is that in Federal Hall when they first met as a Congress the Senate was on the second floor and the House was on the first floor. And uh but that has created a mystique about the two bodies that um was never really intended. And the uh early on the founders also created a system whereby senators would be appointed by the state legislatures right not elected and that was to give the states more of a uh an exposure and more authority and uh in the uh influence of of federal decisions.

SPEAKER_05 22:10

Your book's all about fixing Congress um we know that Congress has got um very very low public opinion ratings um and it seems like people may be more happy with their elected officials than they are with Congress as a whole um but I think 8% was the last public opinion rating that I saw um you know military favorable rating yeah by contrast like the the military and veteran community is usually around 78 or 74 78%.

SPEAKER_01 22:40

Small business also ranks pretty high um right and uh and the medical profession also ranks pretty high typically um but when we think about like fixing Congress can you tell us like from your perspective what's wrong well there is regrettably there's an awful lot wrong uh the uh committee structure is no longer dependent upon to to create laws and send them to the floor for the full Congress consideration that's a mess jurisdictions are screwed up um the changes that have come about in the last 50 years in in this country have just simply overpowered Congress and made it um uh very very difficult to pass laws so that's why you get all of these appropriation bills that are lumped into one the 12 appropriation bills haven't been adopted singularly since uh 1997 I believe um when our my good friend Bob Livingston was chairman of the appropriations committee he um uh he was the last to really really get that done and but beyond that uh civility has just been ripped apart and torn to shreds in our uh public dialogue but more importantly among politicians uh no better example than uh than the kind of language that uh that uh trump uses today too many members of congress are at each other's throats don't trust each other and are unwilling to work together the Republicans uh in the House um uh in in my time sometimes had a difficult time dealing with democrats but they did and democrats were reluctant to work with Republicans but they did and now you have a situation where um Republicans and Democrats a good many of them will absolutely refuse to work with the opposite party in getting something done that's one of the reasons why McCarthy is uh is not uh speaker anymore now it's even gone further now we have a situation where Republicans refuse to talk to Republicans and some Democrats refuse to talk to Democrats how can you possibly govern in that kind of environment where people are such children that they they refuse to talk to their siblings it is just unconscionable and um beyond that there is a uh rigidity in the various caucuses within the caucuses in the in the House and uh Senate and in Democrats and Republicans. So you have these extremisms that uh commit members of Congress to positions that can't possibly become law. And they know that there is a division now between those who come to Congress to govern and to legislate and those who come to Congress to to preach and alienate. So that has has created an environment as as well that's just impossible to deal with one very important thing has changed that politics the conduct of politics it's basically a decision making process was conducted on a professional level on a business like level today it is conducted on a personal level and um when people don't like each other the politics gets personal and the engaging in that in those kinds of personalities and that kind of behavior just simply does not work. One one other point when you look at the extremes on on both sides you think you know well they're standing up for for what they believe in and what they think the country ought to be there's one problem with that you can't get to where you want to be unless you legislate it doesn't happen automatically and in order to legislate you need two things you need collaboration between the two sides and you need public trust. Without public trust there can't be government governance and without governance there is chaos and what does uh lack of governance produce anger what what do you think might be incentivizing this bad behavior? Yep it's it's all of the above um uh you can you can trace it back to the back to Bob's time the 1970s and 1980s there was uh the Tea Party movement which the press and everybody just dismissed as a bunch of wackos um turned out to be a very valid uh uh structured movement um uh that uh that uh demonstrated the frustration of so many people that were right of center that didn't feel like um uh the government was going in the right direction and so uh uh around the time that that Newt Gingrich was running for office uh for Congress from Georgia he he lost three times actually before he won um that frustration was was growing and um House Speaker Jim Wright was responsible for a lot of that too he was a uh dictatorial type of speaker who didn't want to cooperate with the Republican side and that really frustrated people so much more that when Newt came along he knew exactly how to capitalize on on those feelings um and he brought members to a uh a boiling point where they decided that something more drastic had to be done to take the majority away from the Democrats and so they became uh developed harsher uh political strategies and and they uh intensified uh and dramatized the language and and how Republicans presented themselves so that was really the start of the movement it was corrosiveness on on both sides of the aisle but someone uh and Newt Gingrich was and and remains really brilliant in a lot of ways and he knew he knew what was needed and he had the uh communicative ability to to make it happen so over a period of uh almost two decades he worked it very hard and it frustrated the legislative process because Michael and O'Neill and Reagan and Howard Baker in the Senate they were all trying to get legislation passed. Newt was trying to uh uh uh dis you know uh destruct the uh the system to to to make a point so um now uh newt is uh kind of a you know uh uh a daisy compared to what they're doing now what uh uh what the real right wing and the left wing are doing to to foment uh dissidents and along the way they forgot what the hell they were there for yeah um you know it it's it's become a a situation where the strategy and the goal is to upset the the system and they offer nothing in return. When you think about Congress what needs to change in order to do exactly what your book says of restoring power to the people well there are the the book is really about four core uh changes that that that need to be made or uh reforms have to be uh uh uh brought uh brought to fruition one is the civics we talked about two is congressional reform which we talked about the uh uh the budget process and the appropriations process just can't function under the the system that we have now the third is outside influences it's not just the press it's uh lobbying it's uh the political parties it's not for profit institutions that um are were created and designed to influence Congress and promote a specific uh uh ideology uh and and and finally it's um the the campaign process the partisan process of campaigns the amount of money uh being spent in campaigns all of those outside influences take away from the access and influence of the citizens and what we have got to do is correlate uh around empowering citizens to be able to exercise their beliefs and get through to Congress a lot better without all of this other smoke and and noise uh around and finally uh the the fourth pillar is civility we cannot move forward in Congress unless these folks communicate with each other and um realize that as Hamilton uh Alexander Hamilton said in the in the Federalist papers that different points of view uh can be different and still have merit and the open mind of of members of Congress can bring different points of view together and create public policy and law and but you first have to recognize that that your opponent has valid views and that your opponent is well motivated and it doesn't take too long for a politician to figure out whether someone is rightly motivated or not. I mean um that's that's part of the job. So those four things are really absolutely critical in fixing Congress and it's a it's a big job but um if you empower citizens and change your whole mindset toward what the Congress is supposed to do and how it uh to do it then you can start achieving these goals citizens have to start putting pressure on the media and on their representatives to to take a different approach and and outlook and just end the uh the the anger and the hatred and the rigidity.

SPEAKER_05 34:52

Let me let me give you one last question before you wrap up because I want to be respectful of your time here. If if you had a magic wand and I you know you could change anything today relative to Congress what's the most important thing that would have the biggest impact what would you do?

SPEAKER_01 35:05

Civility. Yeah I can't think of anything more fundamental and something that uh reaches the very core of who we are and and what the founders intended the system to be than the the ability we have the capability we just don't have the ability to come together and reach the center. The center of our political system is where the decisions are made and where the laws are made. They are not made on the extremes and like we said earlier you simply can't get anything done regardless of you want a big government you want a little government you want an oppressive government you want a limited government you have to legislate to get there and you can't legislate without talking and you can't legislate without trust and uh and uh collaboration so I I I think that's at the core and you know maybe number two would would be civics educating and activating and engaging the citizenry.

SPEAKER_05 36:19

Absolutely no and that's certainly something we're we're trying to do here and remind people that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Exactly that no matter what you're being told the the American on the other side of the political issue from you who you vehemently disagree with is not the enemy. Our nation's enemies exist outside our borders and that is still your fellow American and I think you know thinking through how we even talk about other people are we talking about them in in language that humanizes them that you know or you know dehumanizing them which leads to really bad bad outcomes as we've seen throughout history so I think you know just making a call to remind you know our fellow Americans like you know fellow American like you know treat them with respect because like you never persuade other people from the vantage of your own values you've got to figure out what they care about and hook into that and find the common ground right so um Mike this is uh this has a been a great conversation I've really enjoyed it the your book is is well written covers a lot of congressional history very digestible you know I think I've read through it in three days um it got a lot out of it you know a lot of interesting facts about Congress so I I really hope you sell a bajillion copies of this thing um you know I think your aim is noble in like educating people about here's here's what the intent of Congress is this is how it's evolved over time and this is what you American citizen needs to do to make it more responsive to you right and uh uh ultimately return the power you know the the ultimate check on power in this country is the people right so I think uh thank you very much for that Joe I really appreciate it and uh fixing Congress goes on sale today so just keep your fingers crossed awesome well well I wish I wish you and uh Jerome Clymer your co-author the very best thank you thank you very much Joe it's very good to be with you and good luck as part of season two we want to provide veterans a way of getting more involved in their communities to advocate for the issues that they care about. To do this we're featuring veteran organizations that we think you might be interested in. Today's spotlight is on Hillvets and representing them today is Justin Brown. Justin's a U.S. Navy veteran and founder of Hillvets which is a nonprofit organization that empowers veterans to serve their country again this time in government Justin's also served as a subcommittee staff director in the U.S. House of representatives he ran for office himself in the Virginia's 44th district and also served as a congressional liaison officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He also leads his own government affairs shop called the Nemitz Group. So Justin welcome and where are you in the country and how are you doing today?

SPEAKER_03 39:00

Hey thanks Joe it's great to be with you good to be with an old friend and uh I am uh an eight minute walk from the United States Capitol right now in my my office just right here uh haunting the shadow of the Capitol I suppose awesome well can you share for our audience like what is Hillvet? You know what's the mission yeah so uh the way I see the Hillvets Foundation is we're really the community for uh veterans, service members, uh spouses and survivors uh in and around Capitol Hill Washington DC and kind of the the policy space that you know this city is obviously so focused on uh awesome and and how do you how do you help veterans so if say I'm transit you know off of active duty or maybe I'm a surviving spouse and I want to make a difference in Washington how do you help I I would say we've kind of focused on these three components Um maybe, maybe, you know, well, three I'd say. So, you know, kind of this idea of networking and community. Um, and then Hilvet's house being um an opportunity for for you know the men and women we serve outside of this community to get into this community if they wanted to. Um and then uh I think the third component was ended up being our second program, which was Hilvet's lead, which was focused on leadership. And really what that was focused on was um you know men and women who who had already made their way to Washington, DC, and maybe in most cases were already fairly successful, not fairly, just maybe you know, mid-mid-level career success, um, and and helping them A, you know, build an awesome cohort of peers, um, but then also also with that peer group that they're building incredible relationships with, you know, to their left and right, um, provide them with um, you know, an awesome group of alumni who maybe are ahead of them. Yeah. Um, you know, and obviously if you were in class one, you didn't have an alumni, you were the pioneers, if you will. But we're now we're now on our ninth cohort. Um so you know, they they there's a rich um you know alumni group there, but then also layering in some very senior leadership for uh you know our leadership uh participants to to learn from and and to start thinking and articulating about what what's next. Um I I believe in um our military veteran community um uh incredibly. You know, I mean I think we're some of um you know I think we have you know both um an incredible skill set. Um I think we um have a rare identity that puts you know our nation um before uh party politics uh for the most part, you know, and I would I would encourage that, you know, be a be a former service member or current service member or a veteran or a spouse or survivor before you're a Democrat or Republican, in my opinion. Like I think that's that's healthy. Um and our country needs that now more than ever. And and um, you know, with with all of that, you know, there, I I you know what we've really tried to build here is you know, how do we help you know men and women think about you know continued service to their nation and you know to their their cohort. And and then we're we're a limited number now. You know, it's not like post-World War II where uh you know we were whatever it is, 40, 50 percent of you know the male population, you know, over the course of like 15 years or something. Right, right. We're we're a much smaller population. So I think we have to think smartly about um what it means to you know uh have both the gift of military service. I mean, um, you know, I think you know, I hear people you know insinuate I'm a victim, and you know, I I don't think so. I feel very lucky, fortunate. I you know, as a child, I I you know dreamt of military service. Yeah um and you know I I I got I was able to do that. And you know, was it was it easy? Like, no. Um was my service the hardest, you know, that I've seen, like not even close, you know. So I mean you can you can gauge those statements however you want, but um at the end of the day, I I do believe in continued service, and I've tried to uh with the help of so many others and so many supporters, try to build something that you know our our our our fellow service members can be proud of, as well as you know, I help our fellow citizens as well.

SPEAKER_05 44:02

For sure. What I love uh about your approach is not only are you helping network, right? Because I mean veterans will help each other out if they know who the other veterans are, which is a little bit harder once you're in civilian clothes than in uniform, of course. Uh, but beyond that, you know, by having like multiple cohorts, you know, you're providing a uh a pathfinding function of sorts where if I am completely new to Washington, I want to serve, but I don't know how, or I don't really know how this thing works, um, I could come to Hillbetts and get connected with people who've got some experience up there who are going to kind of help show me the ropes and give me things to think about and introduce me to people. Because, like, if I'm trying to work in a member's office, typically, as I understand it, and I haven't done this, but you know, I know that you either worked on the campaign typically that got them to office, or maybe you are a family member of a wealthy donor. Um, but that initial break in to work in a member's office can be kind of a challenge, especially if you're coming from the military and you haven't haven't had any past political experience. So can you talk to me about that a little bit?

SPEAKER_03 45:08

Yeah, uh, and 100 100% you're you're correct. And um and then also just kind of how and where you come in as well. Uh I mean I think the the standard um you know the standard pathway to a paid position on Capitol Hill is um you know you you generally went to a uh you know impressive school, you got good grades, uh, you've been to Europe and you tried to save whales at least once. Yep. And um that part's a joke. But you know, like you know, the if you're on the resume collecting side of things, I mean it looks it looks pretty homogeneous. Uh you know, I've now read led two committees up there, so yeah, I feel safe in saying that the school Fulbright scholar, blah blah blah, right?

SPEAKER_05 45:59

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 45:59

Well, and then parents that can float you know their their their young child um you know with a place to live and food. And uh you know, things have gotten a little better. Um some laws have passed to you know give interns you know some more funding um to um you know pay their staff at a at a better level. So you know, I think those are positive uh changes, but nonetheless, there's a very um I think one of the things that you know veterans have struggled with in trying to make a transition to the Hill is um understanding that Capitol Hill is a weird place and that they really don't value um to the to the extent that they maybe should um experience that is not specifically Capitol Hill experience. Right. And so, you know, it has a very linear hiring process, which is you know, first you do a non-paid internship, and then you're a staff assistant, you know, making when I got my staff assistant gig, it was a solid$28,000 a year, which was peanuts. It's pretty off. Yeah, especially in DC, you know, with the kid. And and so, you know, and then you're a legislative correspondent, and then you're a legislative assistant, then you're an LD, then you're a chief of staff.

SPEAKER_02 47:22

Right.

SPEAKER_03 47:23

Um, I mean, that is kind of the common pathway. And and so what we've tried to do over the years is um not only break into opportunities, um, the best we could find and help with, but also um educate uh Capitol Hill in terms of you know what is the value of hiring veterans, especially on your you know, VA, DOD, foreign affairs type issue areas, although we have vets that come up who want to work in agriculture, which is fine too. Um but really you know, I think educate members of Congress, especially, you know, as to the value that veterans bring to the table. And we've tried to cut out some of the layers in terms of um, you know, instead of coming in as an intern, they're coming in in this fellow, um, you know, and and as a fellow, you know, they're they're working on policy issues uh generally all you know, generally immediately under the supervision of you know somebody who knows what they're doing.

SPEAKER_02 48:25

Right.

SPEAKER_03 48:26

And then and then you know, ideally we try to get most of our veterans if they decide they want to stay on the hill and they all don't, and that's okay. Some decide they'd rather work in the federal government or you know, for a nonprofit, veteran advocacy, whatever. Um, but if they do stay on the hill, that you know, ideally we get them in at kind of that legislative assistant level, which um you know pretty much puts them into working on on policy almost immediately.

SPEAKER_05 48:52

Well, um, this has been a great conversation. I've I've I've definitely learned a lot um more about like how the hill operates and how uh how veterans can get involved. So like if if I'm out here listening and I've got an inclination to um to go work on Capitol Hill or in the federal government in DC in some capacity, how can I get more information on Hillvets? Like where do I go and who do I talk to?

SPEAKER_03 49:15

Yeah, thanks, Joe. Um well definitely check out hillvets.org. Um our website has you know information on both um Hillvets House, which is our fellowship program, as well as Hillvet's Lead, which is our leadership program that we discussed. Um we also have um you know our email sign-up there. Um we do a ton of events uh every year, Joe. That's that's how you learn about Hillvets. And I'd say beyond that, you know, there are other programs out there focused on you know, if folks are looking to you know get involved in congressional campaigns, there are their programs if you're looking to break into the federal government. Um, you know, there are a lot of different routes you can take to continued service. Um what I like about Hilvetts is is that um you know I do think congressional experience is is pretty you know second second to none in terms of if you want to work in the policy or federal space. Um and and ideally, you know, you can always come back to it, but it you know, me being honest, it's it's a harder route to come back to because you know it doesn't tend to pay as much as you know the private sector, even even the federal government usually. Um and so you know, especially if you're on kind of the start of this you know pathway, if you're you know transitioning out of service or you're finishing up school or um you know those or or even retiring. You know, we have a lot of DOD retirees that come into the program, um, and they do great. Um and so, you know, and that's not that's not to you know pigeonhole anybody that's thinking about it anyways, it's just um it tends to work well at those times for people.

SPEAKER_05 50:58

Awesome. No, I mean I I I know anytime it's just human psychology, in order for me to join a new group, I gotta see a little bit of myself there. And I think it's exactly what y'all provide, right? You know, you are an outpost on Capitol Hill and a resource for veterans uh who want to get involved and do the business of Congress. And you know, none of this democracy thing happens without good people working on Capitol Hill, especially veterans. So, Justin, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Uh, if you're interested in more, go to hillbetts.org and look up Justin and his team. And if you're interested, they'll point you in the right direction.

SPEAKER_00 51:38

Thank you so much for listening. If you found this podcast episode interesting or useful, please share it with the people you know. This episode was co-hosted by Joe Plensler and Ellen Gustavson. The audio and video were edited by King's Collab Studios. This podcast is a production of We the Veterans and Military Families, the 501c3 not-for-profit, nonpartisan, veteran and military spouse-led organization focused on promoting positive and patriotic civic engagement to strengthen American freedom and liberty. Find out more about us at we the veterans.us and follow us on social media.

SPEAKER_05 52:12

Next week, on vetted conversations, Ellen and I speak to Dr. Michael Hanlin of the Brookings Institution about why it's important to have civilian control of the military. We also have an in-depth conversation with the Honorable Joel Spainberger, a Navy veteran who leads the selective service, about why young Americans continue to have to register for a potential draft and whether women should have to do the same. And lastly, we talked to Mary Beth Bruggeman, a Marine Corps veteran who runs the Mission Continues about how veterans can get involved in their communities after military service. So stay tuned for more great conversations.