With the government shutdown in its third week, rancor is high and solutions are in short supply. So what are the potential pathways out of this mess? Ro Khanna is a democratic congressman from California who hails from the more progressive wing of his party and yet sometimes finds himself working across party lines in unlikely ways.

There's no reason that we have to be in the mud. You can still have ferocious competition, like Lincoln and Douglas did, like Kennedy and Nixon did, with one side wins and one side loses, but it's in a more elevated conversation. None of us have a monopoly on the truth that we need to treat other people with civility and respect and engage in a real debate about ideas.

He'll tell us where he thinks this is all headed and how the country can start working together again. I'm David Chalian, CNN's Political Director and Washington Bureau Chief, and this is the CNN Political Briefing.

Congressman Khanna, thank you so much for being here. Really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

'Let's start on the shutdown. And you and I are talking here on Wednesday afternoon. We are now entering into the third week of this government shutdown. I just want to get your sense on this one argument that the Republicans are making that I'd like you to address, which is: open the government and then we will negotiate on the healthcare subsidies that you, Congressman, and your party have been putting front and center with this conversation. What is wrong with that approach? To get the government open, to avoid the real impact and the real pain that we're starting to see people across the country feel, to then get to a place to do what you guys want to do and protect these potentially double-digit increases in people's healthcare premiums?

They can open the government today. They have 51 votes in the Senate. Republicans, they have the majority in the House and they have the presidency. They are confirming Republican judges with 51 votes on the Senate. They are confirming Trump's presidential appointments with 51 votes in the senate. I think the American people would want a continuing resolution to keep government open to be allowed to be passed with 51 Senate votes. Now, I'm against the filibuster. I've been against the filibuster since Biden's time. I'm again against it now, even though the Republicans are in charge. But I don't think there would be more than 10% of Americans who would say, we need to have 60 senators vote to keep government open. The only reason this exists is because of the senators own ego to wield power like their presidents. Get 51 senators to pass the budget to keep the government open.

First, they would, to accomplish what you're saying, they would have to break the norm, do away with the filibuster in terms of legislation here, and that would be the way you're saying they could fund the government and open it with 51 votes.

Yeah, but they've broken the norm in so many ways. They've broken in the norm when it comes to budget reconciliation. So they can pass a huge tax breaks for billionaires with 51 votes, and they can confirm Trump's appointees with 51 votes, and the can confirm Trump's judges with 51. But they can't keep the government open with 51 votes? Why is this? It's not actually even Democrat or Republicans. It's because the ego of senators. It's to protect the power of senators, it's because every senator wants to act like they really matter and can be a president. That's the only reason this country is suffering. And I wish we could get bipartisan consensus on let's not have senators' egos make our American troops not be paid. It's bipartisan, by the way, the ego of senators. It's not like Republican senators have less ego than Democratic senators.

It's the old joke in Washington, right? The divide is not left and right and Democrat and Republican. It's House and Senate. But does this mean I hear Ro Khanna ruling out any future run to join the Senate? You have no interest in ever serving as Senator?

This clip will come back if I ever go in.

Exactly. So I hear your point on how the Republicans could do this on their own. Do Democrats, do you think, have any sort of governing responsibility in this moment to try to find a way to open the government first and then negotiate the health care subsidies?

The governing responsibility? We're here. The only reason that the Congress is shut down is because of the Epstein files. It's actually absurd that this is not a bigger national story. They literally are not opening up Congress so we can debate, so we can vote because they don't want Adelita Grijalva to be sworn in, she would be the 218th signature on Thomas Massie and my Epstein file petition. Seven days later, we'd have a vote, the files would be released. Or at least the House would vote to release the files, you'd have probably 280 Republicans voting for it. And they're so concerned about that, they literally have not opened Congress since September 23rd. In past government shutdowns that I've been involved in, I'm usually on my phone waiting for a text to come scurrying into Congress because they want us to vote for something, something meaningless often, but just to vote. They haven't had a single vote because they are so afraid of the Epstein files. That's the real story here.

You're not suggesting though that the government is currently shut down because of the Epstein files.

'No. Congress is shut down because of the Epstein files. The government is shut because they aren't willing to do the 51 votes and they're not willing - to get democratic votes, they aren't going to give us the healthcare subsidies. But put aside the government being shut down, Congress is shut down during a government shutdown. That's never happened in my nine years in Congress. And the only reason Congress is shutting down is because they don't want to vote on the Epsteen files. I mean, why is it that members of Congress just get to fly around the country do whatever they want, instead of being locked in these premises, figuring out how we get the government back open?

To my question about the Democrats' responsibility, I know you're there and I understand what you're saying about Speaker Johnson not having the House open for business right now, but do you think Democrats have a part to play here to end the shutdown?

Sure, but how can we do it when they're not showing up? Where they literally have shut down Congress?

'Well, you do it, as you know, in previous shutdowns by negotiating an off-ramp.

Well, and that often happens when Congress is open with votes. They usually have votes on troop payment, right? That's one thing that forces negotiation. Let's pay the troops, let's pay federal employees, and that forces the conversation, because everyone wants to make sure the troops get paid. But when you have taken that away, when you've got Donald Trump saying, look, I'm just going to do this through private billionaires or I'm going to this through shuffling money around at the DOD, you don't have a Congress that is that is functioning. But do I think we have a responsibility to show up to negotiate? Absolutely. But I think the Speaker would have a lot more credibility, just from even a visual perspective, if he was here, if the Republicans were here debating and having votes.

Yeah, I mean he is there, right?

He is there.

I mean, we see him is their press conference.

Look, I like Speaker Johnson personally. We came into Congress together, he's a man of faith. I've never had the absurd view that he's shielding, personally, pedophilia. I just think that he is under so much political pressure that even though he personally believes these Epstein files should be released, Donald Trump has said, for whatever reason we don't want them released and he's holding the line.

You mentioned President Trump about finding a way to get members of the U.S. military paid during this time. And I actually thought that was pretty interesting because it was sort of the second time in a week because the president also talked about the notion of concern about these healthcare subsidies going away entirely and these premiums being jacked up for Americans. And he said we really should be negotiating a solution to that. He then he said, as you said, he found a way about funding military payments. So sort of removing that pain point for the moment in the shutdown. Do you think at times that the president is discordant from his party's membership and leadership on the Hill in terms of the decision points and negotiation points on the shutdown right now?

Well, I think the president understands what Marjorie Taylor Greene understands, that you don't want ordinary working class Americans to have their premiums doubled, that insurance companies are fleecing the American people, $71 billion of profits in the last year. The CEOs collectively, $140 million of profits, while Americans are paying more for premiums, more for deductibles, more for prescription drugs. And obviously, you wouldn't be president twice if you didn't have a populist instinct. But the follow through is my problem. And the reality is that he has got a Republican Congress that just wants tax breaks, and he's got people in his own administration, like Vought, who I think are taking advantage of the president, and using this to dismantle the New Deal, to fire federal employees, to eliminate agencies. I don't think that was Trump's agenda, but then he said, well, okay, they're in power and we're gonna use this to do our Project 2025 agenda.

And do you worry or have concerns that your party and your party's leadership will lose the stiffened spine they seem to have right now as the pain you're describing, like if indeed the administration follows through on the reduction in forces and permanently firing people, or do you think your party will cave in this moment to Republican's demands?

No, I don't. I actually think that we are quite unified, that there is a clarity that the Republicans could keep the government open and that we need to fight for the health care costs. I think that clarity is going to become even more obvious as we have more deadlines for federal workers not being paid, as we had more deadlines on troops with every two weeks having to be paid, and as November 1st comes along and people start getting their notices of their healthcare premiums going up for the Affordable Care Act, so I am confident that the Democrats are going to stand firm. And I think that the American people, from at least the polling I've seen, they don't like anything, understandably, but they rightfully blame the Republican leadership here. So my last question on this topic is, how long does this go on for, do you think? My sense, I thought that the troops, the payment of the troops was going to be the issue that got us back and got us negotiating. If that happens again, it's unclear whether Trump will be able to find the money. So that's one forcing function. The other forcing function, I think, is November 1st, where the health care premiums go up. So I'm very much hoping that we can resolve this before Halloween. But you know, people have had predictions that turn out to be silly and wrong on these things.

Especially about the future, as Yogi Berra said. So we're going to take a quick break. We'll have a lot more with Ro Khanna in just a moment.

Welcome back, we're talking with California Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna. Congressman, I want to talk a little bit about your party. We are seeing this week lots of data points in this, both a generational divide and ideological divide at play inside the Democratic Party. We see this in the tension inside the party in that Maine Senate primary, now that Janet Mills, the popular Democratic governor that Chuck Schumer worked so hard to get into that race, is facing somebody like Graham Plattner, who has support from progressives like your ally Bernie Sanders and the like, comes from a different generation. She would be the oldest ever elected freshman senator should she win that race. Just today we saw Seth Moulton join a Democratic primary to take on Ed Markey, the Senator of Massachusetts saying, basically saying like what the party went through last year with Joe Biden in his age is exactly the reason I'm running against Ed Markey. What do you make of this generational divide? Does, does the age of folks matter? I mean, some folks have retired here. Is this a moment that you members of your party really want to see a passing of the torch to the next generation?

It's not about your age, it's about the age of your ideas. And the American people and many in the Democrats are frustrated with the status quo, with an establishment that has allowed income inequality to skyrocket, wealth not to be taxed, not fighting for Medicare for all, not fighting to take on the bloated Pentagon budget, allowing for endless wars. So if you're someone like Bernie Sanders, who has been fighting the establishment and status quo his entire life, I think people say yes, and Ed Markey is in a progressive direction as well, fighting the establishment and status quo. If you are part of an establishment that watched factories go offshore, that voted for NAFTA, that have voted for the Iraq war, that've voted for a blank check to Netanyahu, then you probably aren't part of the future of this party, and that's the fight, in my view. It's more the establishment and old guard versus people who want the Democratic Party to be the party of reform.

I want to talk to you a little bit about your own electoral history. You ran for Congress in 2004 and lost and then worked in the Obama administration. In 2014, you run again. You lose that race to an incumbent only to come back two years later and defeat that incumbent in California, which is how you won your seat.

I appreciate you're going through this because I usually joke around that when you've had some success people omit all your failures, but I often say I failed a lot before I got there.

And I'm not trying to pick a sore wound here for you, but I do wonder what the 2004 run or the 2014 run, what lessons you learned from that, that you then were able to apply to your successful career in electoral politics?

'Well, the 2014 run, I learned a lot of lessons, which is I was so excited. I was on the front page of the New York Times. I had all these high profile endorsers. And Mike Honda, who I respect, who I beat, said, Ro, I knew I had you beat then, because you had all of these technology innovative leaders, and I had the PTA leaders. And the second time I ran, I didn't spend much time worrying about CNN or the New York Times, and I spent time in 15-person meetings in my district. And it really gave me an understanding also for the income inequality within my own district and shaped my politics. It's why I ended up endorsing Bernie Sanders in 2016. And it's why I really developed an interest for the grassroots. In 2004, I was so proud of that campaign. I ran the first anti-Iraq war primary in the country against Tom Lantos, and I ran against the Patriot Act. But Tom Lantos ended up becoming a mentor. And one of the things I realized is that you can bridge divides, even after bitter campaigns. And sometimes someone who you run against doesn't have to be someone who becomes an enemy. We had a wonderful relationship afterwards. And I also understood then that, as Tom Lantos said, if you're a movie star you can get up and run right for Congress but if you're not, you may want to pay some dues and build some relationships. And that politics is a relationship business so you have that build relationships and they matter.

'Do you think that applies - I get it inside the party - but do you think in our polarized climate of what politics is like now, and I know you're working with Marjorie Taylor Greene, so this may be an odd question to ask you necessarily, but, do you what you described with Lantos, that you can sort of repair the breach, if you will, can that apply to our politics across the aisle today?

I think so. I mean, we have chosen to be in the mud as as competitors. There's no reason that we have to be on the mud. You can still have ferocious competition like Lincoln and Douglas did, like Kennedy and Nixon did with one side wins and one side loses, but it's in a more elevated conversation. And instead of tweeting out pictures at each other, denigrating how someone looks. And so I think we've got to try to find a way of having those substantive conversations. I did that with Vivek Ramaswamy a few years ago at St. Anselm. It was terrific. You know, the Vice President Vance and I have gone at each at Twitter, probably not our finest moments. I wish that conversation was a little bit more elevated about where we're coming from on different sides. And I don't believe that sort of I'm blameless. I think all of us need to do a better job to be fierce competitors, but to understand that none of us have a monopoly on the truth, that we need to treat other people with civility and respect and engage in a real debate about ideas.

'You represent obviously like Silicon Valley and all these tech giants and the like, and you had very deep relationships as you were talking about, maybe not in your first one with the PTA, but you had those deep relationships on the tech side. Have you been surprised by the partnership from these tech leaders with Donald Trump? Like when you see Tim Cook go into the Oval Office and give him a special made trophy from Apple and the likes, or you see Bill Gates, who I know is not in your district, but he is sitting down to dinner at the White House with the president. Did it - see them all in the front row of the inauguration - what do you make of this moment?

I was joking with someone, I said there's only one aristocratic class in the world today, and that's the tech royalty. There they are at the White House, and then two weeks later, King Charles is having the state dinner. Same group. There they are.

With literal royalty, yes.

You know, literal royalty. And I think some of it is, you know, opportunism. They just, if Gretchen Whitmer were president, they'd all be lined up behind her, and it's that they are going to have a relationship with the president. I've been saddened that Bill Gates who is speaking out about how people are dying in Africa because of the USAID cuts, doesn't say that to the president directly. Or people aren't talking about immigration and the impact of banning international students to the president directly. And that's, I think, one of the differences with President Biden or President Obama or President Clinton. Of course, the tech leaders had relationships, but they were certainly willing to criticize them. Trust me, I heard the criticism. And I wish that some of them would be willing to be more frank with the president about the things he's doing to hurt American business, to hurt the relationship in almost a trade war with China.

Have you told them that directly?

'I have. I have told them directly. Some of these folks came in as H-1B visas and are quiet while you have just a total anti-immigration platform. And I'm for H-1B be reform but this this president has basically taken a protectionist, nativist approach to building the 21st century and I know for a fact that that many business leaders, technology leaders disagree with that they're just thinking you know what the pendulum swings in American politics and let's just keep our head under the table. But i think that President Obama said it more eloquently than me. But the pendulum doesn't swing automatically. It requires activism and not just from Congress, it requires activism and leadership from business leaders and all the centers of power in this country.

One California politics question before I let you go, you have a very robust primary underway for Gavin Newsom's replacement. I'm sure you saw your former colleague in the House, Katie Porter, who's running, had these two viral videos out where she was berating a staffer in one from her time in Congress, belittling a reporter in the other. She's sort of on a mea culpa tour right now for that. How damaging do you think those videos are to Katie Porter's chances at winning that primary?

You know, I try to extend people grace when they have a down moment. I certainly have had bad moments. I don't want to be judged on my worst moments. And the conversations I had with Katie Porter on the house floor were always intellectual conversations. She was always curious about ideas. And if anything, I hope she learned from that encounter. I'm glad she's taking accountability. And that's not, you know, I haven't supported her. I don't have a close relationship with her. I just think, you we've got to extend some level of grace to people and not almost have a schadenfreude in their worst moments. I mean, it was like that clip where that couple was having an affair, a CEO having affair and like the whole country almost had a glee over this. And that something I think we just have to reflect on is we're almost sort of celebrating people's fall and I don't remember that being the country when I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

Ro Khanna, Congressman from California, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

That's it for this week's edition of the CNN Political Briefing. We'll be back with a new episode next Friday. Thanks so much for listening.