Here’s the understatement of the year. The U.S. House of Representatives has lost the plot. The 235-year-old institution appears to have turned into the reality TV version of itself, complete with camera-ready superstars, cartoon villains and drama that’s so absurd it’s hard to look away.

Enter U.S. Rep. Ed Case, a Democrat working with Republicans to do something that’s become out-of-fashion in the 118th Congress — pass a bill.

Last month, after House Speaker Mike Johnson rejected the Senate’s $95.3 billion foreign aid proposal that included support for Ukraine and Israel, Case joined seven fellow House centrists in introducing a pared-down bill that would provide $66.3 billion in defense-only military aid for Ukraine and Israel as well as increase domestic border security.

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump’s recent dueling border visits and the ongoing divisions in the Democratic and Republican parties over foreign military aid and immigration restrictions highlight the issues’ political significance. In a December 2023 survey of U.S. voters, both Democrats and Republicans listed immigration, foreign policy and inflation among their top five concerns. Yet, while voters demand action, congressional lawmakers have so far failed to put a bill on Biden’s desk.

Now, following weeks of inaction and failed attempts in both chambers, Case’s bill could be the last, best hope for anyone who wants progress on both immigration reform and military aid before the November election.

Case’s bipartisan Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act would, like the Senate proposal, provide defense support for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific region. However, unlike the Senate proposal, it does not include the humanitarian assistance for Gaza that contributed to its costs. At two-thirds of the price of the Senate bill, Case’s proposal could be more appealing to a House GOP that’s reluctant to invest in foreign aid.

The House GOP has also made clear that it would not consider any aid for Ukraine without a border security measure attached. Case’s bill would meet this request by requiring the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to suspend the entry of inadmissible persons at the border when necessary.  The proposal also borrows language from the House GOP’s previous proposal, which would bring back the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy that would require most asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico while their status is adjudicated.

In short, the bill is a compromise that would meet many of the GOP’s demands in hopes of making progress on major foreign policy issues. The assumption, of course, is that those demands were issued in good faith. After a similar bipartisan proposal failed in the Senate last month, I’m unconvinced that there will be enough Republicans who are willing to take action when inaction could better serve their political interests.

Congressman Case, on the other hand, believes there’s a good chance the House will pass this bill or something similar, citing previous successes in similar circumstances with the same colleagues who’ve joined this effort.

Most of the bill’s co-authors are members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, a bipartisan centrist group that played an important role in developing cross-party support for infrastructure and other federal funding legislation under Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Since McCarthy’s departure, the caucus has suffered from a lack of cohesion and waning influence, and once again, I find myself unconvinced that the current House GOP has any interest in a bipartisan solution on immigration or military aid. However, I’d be extremely happy to have Case and his fellow introducers negotiate an agreement that passes the House and proves me wrong.

While I don’t agree with everything in his proposal, I do want to believe that partisan gridlock isn’t the fated outcome of every major debate. I want a Congress that can have a reasonable discussion about issues that are important to people and develop solutions that can, at least, move us forward.

And, as Case explained, “In a divided country where there will be close majorities in both House and Senate for some time to come, and where it will be very difficult for either party to just get its way, the only practical course to solving our problems and getting things done is to fashion mainstream solutions which will involve some element of bipartisan compromise.”

Even though I’m tired of compromises, I think he’s right. The quickest path forward is usually through the middle.