As Congress slides into April without any serious progress on a budget resolution in the House, some pragmatic lawmakers are reportedly considering the use of a novel approach to break the gridlock: a “Queen of the Hill” legislative rule.
As Congress slides into April without any serious progress on a budget resolution in the House, some pragmatic lawmakers are reportedly considering the use of a novel approach to break the gridlock: a “Queen of the Hill” legislative rule.
The rule operates on a simple, common-sense principle: Every lawmaker has an opportunity to put his or her preferred solution on the table, and if no preferred solution receives a majority of votes, a default option is “deemed,” or considered passed by the House. This approach should be taken seriously and the lawmakers proposing it should be praised for their efforts.
At issue in the impasse over the budget resolution is the $1.07 trillion total for Fiscal Year 2017 appropriations agreed to by lawmakers in the Fall. Some argue that the figure is too high; if the budget were accompanied by reforms to mandatory spending to put long-term deficits on a downward trajectory, they say, the agreement reached might be more acceptable. Laudable as this goal may seem, it has had the adverse effect of blockading the budget process.
It is against this backdrop that Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn.) has raised the possibility of a “Queen of the Hill” rule to inject some needed creativity into a broken process. Dent, according to a report in the National Journal, has suggested this procedure would allow for the major voting blocs in the House to each offer their preferred budgets, with the bipartisan $1.07 trillion appropriations number being accepted if no option receives a majority. Several plausible outcomes would lead to a more fiscally responsible outcome than failure to pass any budget resolution at all.
Most importantly, the rule could open the way for dialogue on the kinds of balanced fiscal plans that have become increasingly uncommon in recent years. A Queen of the Hill process could allow for debate and a vote on a bipartisan budget resolution, the likes of which we have not seen since a resolution praising the Simpson-Bowles commission’s approach in 2013. Lawmakers could also raise objections to the fiscal imbalances created by alternative budget blueprints, reframing the discussion in the direction of long-term sustainability.
Moreover, the Queen of the Hill approach would signal a new attitude towards policymaking in the House, in line with Speaker Paul Ryan’s claimed desire to empower rank-and-file lawmakers to have a meaningful hand in crafting legislation. While the leadership’s proposed appropriations number ($1.07 trillion) would likely pass, its passage would come coupled with the legitimacy of knowing that no other alternative could have earned a majority.
Difficult, unprecedented circumstances often demand novel solutions. Congress’s deep divisions and legislative gridlock have prevented meaningful action on the mandatory spending programs that are set to grow in cost in the coming years, which is why serious action should be taken now to put budget plans on the table that will corral rising deficits.
