Last week Ben McAdams sat before the Deseret News editorial board to check in, catch up and answer questions that ranged from his work with the Problem Solvers in Congress, the deficit and the presidential election. He spoke of the Equality Act versus Fairness for All, weighed in on his support for Michael Bloomberg and what he supports on President Donald Trump’s agenda. He also talked about the reason he ran for Congress: “I want to be part of fixing a broken Washington.”
“I’ve only been there for a year so I have my thoughts on that,” he said. “Seeing the sickness and what it’s going to take to fix it. And I think at the heart of that, maybe some of the issues that aren’t (Page) A1 issues, but work that muscle memory. That trust-muscle is built working together. It is starting on issues like my bill on suicide prevention. It’s bipartisan, and in that context, I’m building relationships with my Republican colleagues like Anthony Gonzales from Ohio, who worked on my fraud prevention legislation.
“And I’m working to build those relationships.”
This conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Deseret News: Tell us what you’re currently doing.
Ben McAdams: I belong to an organization called the Problem Solvers. It’s a caucus within Congress. It’s similar to the other kind of prominent caucus, Freedom Caucus, that we’re all familiar with or the Progressive Caucus, and they’re kind of the anchors of the extremes.
The Problem Solvers however, is bipartisan. To join the Problem Solvers, you have to link up with somebody from the other party and join together. So, it’s kept an equal number. Right now we have 24 Democrats and 24 Republicans, and we meet weekly at the least. We have a formal meeting once a week, and those spur a lot of informal meetings outside of that. It has been probably the most productive time I’ve spent in Congress, working with the Problem Solvers.
On my suicide prevention bill, I have a Republican who I know and trust and work with, and we team up on a bill, we have played some pretty big issues that have had a positive impact on big issues like USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). It was the Problem Solvers who kept that on the front burner to say we don’t care if we give the president an issue to work on, on one side if the president isn’t in, so be it, we gotta get something done here. And on the other side, it’s OK to also compromise.
Let’s listen to what other people want to do to make it better. If we can make it better and find a consensus, let’s do that. We kept it on the front burner from both sides and actually got something down.
DN: Who did you join with when you joined the Problem Solvers?
BM: Anthony Gonzalez from Ohio.
We did a Problem Solvers trip to the border. There was some legislation that came out of that. That was a time, just to refresh your memory, where it was at the height of it (border crisis), and you’ve got both Democrats and Republicans painting it black and white.
If you don’t agree with this proposal, you’re racist.
If you don’t agree with this other proposal, all you want are open borders.
The Problem Solvers are saying, there are really good arguments on both sides here. There are bad ideas and good ideas on both sides, and we’ve got to find a path forward.
The House passed legislation that I supported; it was kind of a soup-to-nuts resolution of immigration issues. I thought it was a good bill. It also had zero chance of becoming law. So we passed this bill and went to the Senate and just sat. Then the Senate passed a bill that was not soup-to-nuts. It was dealing with the problems immediately in front of us related to the border, and it passed with bipartisan support as well.
The Senate is saying that their bills should have priority, and the House is saying that their bills should have priority and the Problem Solvers are saying, “Let’s get something done.”
With the Senate Bill, the Democrats at least, pass in a mostly party-line vote. While I still stand behind my vote on the House bill, let’s also recognize that legislation is the art of possible, and we have a Senate bill that passed pretty good bipartisan support, and so rallied to say, “Let’s get the Senate bill up for a vote and get it on the president’s desk for a signature.” Some on the Democratic side, many on the Democratic side, pushed back on that. And we kind of forced the hand of Democratic leadership and passed it.
Other priorities
BM: We’ve identified a couple of priorities for this next year. I think prescription drugs is another example where both sides have bills that they feel are pure and will never become law, and there’s a lot of ground for compromise. I hear from people who can’t afford the insulin for their child or a lifesaving prescription drug. For me, I can hunker down on the bill that I think is 100% perfect, but it will never become law, or I can negotiate and try and get something done.
In my experience, I have felt that negotiating actually results in a final product that is better than either side’s pure conception of perfect.
You hear a lot about the 400-plus bills that passed the House. And admittedly, I think it’s frustrating to see bills not even be considered on the Senate side, but as problem solvers, we say these are issues that we can’t control. What can we control?
And so we’ve identified that there are 50 bills that have passed the Senate, and we should be picking these up and at least looking at them and seeing which ones are going to make our constituents lives better, and let’s pass them. You know, they came over here on consent, and they’re not getting considered.
Regardless of who’s to blame and who has greater moral high ground, we should just look at the people that we were elected to serve as legislation.
DN: You mentioned prescription drugs. What are the other Problem Solvers priorities for the year?
BM: Well, each each member of the Problem Solvers will bring two bills each and work on that.
One of my priorities is the Trust Act that the Deseret News has covered. Sen. Romney is the lead.
I’m a sponsor of the House version of this bill, but I see it primarily as a Senate bill. This is taking the concept of Simpson-Bowles, a decade or so ago, and that resolved some of us to get us on a path to sustainability and balancing the budget.
The Trust Act is similar to Simpson-Bowles and the narrow scope to say maybe we’re not going to find out the whole thing right now, but should we focus on those trust funds that are the foundation of promises we made to people. And if we want to keep those promises we them need today.
DN: You’re talking about Social Security?
BM: Social Security, Medicare, the Highway Trust Fund. They’re about eight trust funds.
DN: Do you have a specific plan for Social Security?
BM: The legislation creates a commission to bring back recommendations. What we know is, the answers are tough, right? And they get tougher the longer we kick the can down the road. And if we had made tough decisions 20 years ago, they would have been easier.
Utah resolved our retirement issues, and it was really hard in 2009 when we took the vote to do that. And here we are 11 years later, and that kind of has worked its way through the system. So it is not putting in the legislation what the answer will be, but putting into a commission to bring back recommendations that Congress would have to take.
DN: Are those your two then? Prescription drugs and Social Security?
BM: Prescription drugs may be more of a global issue. Mine is the suicide prevention bill that has now passed the House 385-8.
DN: Last time you were here, we talked about the Equality Act versus Fairness For All and you talked about being a bridge-builder and how you had that approach in Utah.
BM: Well, I know Congressman (Chris) Stewart has received some criticism. And I would say, we should recognize and commend the fact that Congressman Stewart made a bold move and stuck his neck out on legislation that isn’t easy for him to support, and I want to commend him for trying get to a solution there.
Reaching out trying to bridge that equality gap is an important one. That conversation is going to take some time, so it’s not one that I see as having legislation that is going to get passed this year.
I haven’t signed on as a sponsor on Congressman Stewart’s bill, because I still think it needs some work. What you’re doing, fundamentally, is you’re amending the Civil Rights Act. And when you’re amending the Civil Rights Act, that’s a big lift and needs to be done, I think, with engagement and support from African American community.
Congressman Stewart initiated a conversation. That conversation is going to take some time and work and stakeholder engagement to build momentum on that before it’s ready to move forward. Congressman Stewart’s bill won’t pass the House. The House bill won’t pass the Senate.
DN: So no one’s willing to have the dialogue is what you’re saying?
BM: No, I think we’re willing to have the dialogue. The legislation’s not yet in consensus.
DN: I understand problem-solving and making good legislation. But is it good politics? When we talk about big issues like immigration reform, for example, health care reform, it seems like politicians feel like they have more to gain by staking out their position and not bending at all. How do you solve those issues?
BM: I think that’s the unfortunate reality of Congress these days is that there are a lot of incentives that reward staking out positions and not bending. The Problem Solvers are 48 of us. If we are really going to fix a broken Washington, maybe we need more.
There are plenty of people who want to solve problems who aren’t members of the Problem Solvers caucus. So that’s not the only vehicle for fixing it. But you’re right, that there are a lot of incentives for taking that position. So this immigration bill that I referenced that we pushed through, we were the Blue Dog (Democrats) by name — not me specifically — but the Blue Dogs of which there are 27 of us, were called racist for supporting immigration reform.
Now, I think that is also part of the root of the proud community. You know, our system is built on disagreement, healthy disagreement. A rule that I set for myself: I think it is wrong to criticize someone’s motivations. You may criticize their policies, and and you’re supposed to I think the founders wants us to criticize policies, but think it degrades the process. If you’re criticizing motivations.
DN: Who called you racist?
BM: I think it was Mark Pocan out of Wisconsin
DN: So did you push back on that?
BM: Yeah, we speak now, we have a relationship. We have a relationship now on a first name basis, and he knew that that was wrong. He ultimately apologized, but that’s the type of language, when you throw down a marker like that how do you compromise.
Once you’ve laid out a value judgment, it draws a line in the sand.
DN: How do you feel about how Speaker Pelosi’s actions throughout the impeachment process? How would you evaluate her as your leader?
BM: I think she was overly divisive at times. I think that president’s actions warranted a closer look and warranted accountability. The president’s actions were wrong. And I said as much. I think the role of being a legislator is different than the executive branch and sometimes you are a gardener or you’re tending the seedling from seed to harvest. And you know, I look at my suicide bill, where you’re trying to make accommodations, build bigger support, but it’s a yearlong-plus process of nurturing something to fruition.
And then there are other times as a legislator where you are an umpire and you have nothing to do with the pitcher or the batter, and you just have to make a judgment as the ball comes across the plate.
I feel like the unfortunate thing is by the time we got to the point of casting a vote, both sides had severely damaged their credibility that if you’re a member of the public, it’s hard to trust anybody’s assessment of being something beyond just pure partisanship, I think there were far too many Republican lawmakers who were willing to look the other way no matter what the president does, and far too many Democratic lawmakers who were, you know, in impeachment looking for an excuse. And the reality is I think president did was wrong, seriously wrong. And warranted an impeachment vote.
DN: You endorsed Mike Bloomberg for president. Tell us about your interaction with him.
BM: I mean, I don’t know him well. I, as a former mayor myself, gravitate towards Mike because I think it brings a sense of pragmatism to public service. It’s important.
Mayors don’t care when you’re trying to fix a road or fill a pothole. You don’t care if the people working with you are Republican or Democrat.
I don’t agree with 100% of what Bloomberg stands for. There’s nobody who’s running for president who I agree with 100%. I find myself in greater alignment with Bloomberg than a lot of candidates. But what really draws me to him is his sense of pragmatism willingness to bring people together and try to heal the divide. And I think that’s what we need in a president.
DN: Do you think, as a former mayor, that Buttigieg, who is only in his 30s, is qualified to be a president?
BM: So I’ve known Buttigieg for 10 years or so. There’s a group of state local elected officials that I belong to, so I’ve known him for 10 years. I think he did a great job as mayor. And, you know, I think he could do the job as president and I think people bring different qualifications to the job. I watched him as mayor and thought he did a good job as mayor.
DN: What is it going to take for the nominee, regardless of who they are, to beat President Trump?
BM: I think the nominee has got to appeal to a lot of voters who like what President Trump may have done, but don’t like his style. And they’re comfortable that they can have a problem solver who’s going to address the issues that their family cares about. And I think people are looking for a president where they can go two weeks without knowing what the president did. So little bit lower-key style, more collaborative. But, you know, I tell people, I think they’re different things to draw from President Trump’s style.
Some people say they’re going to mirror President Trump’s style and oppose his policies, and be completely opposite of Trump’s policies, or copy his style. You’re seeing that that’s the model that a lot of people have adopted. I think what we need to do is look at any of President Trump’s policies that aren’t bad, they’re good and worthy of support, not all of them. There are certainly a lot of policies that are really troubling to me, but there are policies that I think are good, and we need to work with that and trying to find solutions and answers to people’s challenges that families in Utah are facing.
DN: Which are the policies of President Trump’s that you like, or think are good?
BM: I’m happy that he’s taken on China. I think we were long overdue to stand up to some of the abusive trade practices. American companies have not been treated fairly by Chinese companies. And I hear it all the time. That’s a stance that he’s taken that I support. I think he is giving support to our military and our veterans which is long overdue as well. Prescription drugs, I actually was really happy that the president mentioned it in his State of the Union speech and also included it in his budget.