[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 869-877]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      BASELINE REFORM ACT OF 2012

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 534, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 3578) to amend the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to reform the budget baseline, 
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 534, in lieu of 
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on the Budget, printed in the bill, the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee 
Print 112-9 dated January 5, 2012, is adopted and the bill, as amended, 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3578

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION I. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Baseline Reform Act of 
     2012''.

     SEC. 2. THE BASELINE.

       Section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 257. THE BASELINE.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) For any fiscal year, the baseline 
     refers to a projection of current-year levels of new budget 
     authority, outlays, or receipts and the surplus or deficit 
     for the current year, the budget year, and the ensuing nine 
     outyears based on laws enacted through the applicable date.
       ``(2) The baselines referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     prepared annually.
       ``(b) Direct Spending and Receipts.--For the budget year 
     and each outyear, estimates for direct spending in the 
     baseline shall be calculated as follows:
       ``(1) In general.--Laws providing or creating direct 
     spending and receipts are assumed to operate in the manner 
     specified in those laws for each such year and funding for 
     entitlement authority is assumed to be adequate to make all 
     payments required by those laws.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--(A)(i) No program estab- lished by a law 
     enacted on or before the date of

[[Page 870]]

     enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 with estimated 
     current year outlays greater than $50,000,000 shall be 
     assumed to expire in the budget year or the outyears. The 
     scoring of new programs with estimated outlays greater than 
     $50,000,000 a year shall be based on scoring by the 
     Committees on the Budget or OMB, as applicable. OMB, CBO, and 
     the Committees on the Budget shall consult on the scoring of 
     such programs where there are differences between CBO and 
     OMB.
       ``(ii) On the expiration of the suspension of a provision 
     of law that is suspended under section 171 of Public Law 104-
     127 and that authorizes a program with estimated fiscal year 
     outlays that are greater than $50,000,000, for purposes of 
     clause (i), the program shall be assumed to continue to 
     operate in the same manner as the program operated 
     immediately before the expiration of the suspension.
       ``(B) The increase for veterans' compensation for a fiscal 
     year is assumed to be the same as that required by law for 
     veterans' pensions unless otherwise provided by law enacted 
     in that session.
       ``(C) Excise taxes dedicated to a trust fund, if expiring, 
     are assumed to be extended at current rates.
       ``(D) If any law expires before the budget year or any 
     outyear, then any program with estimated current year outlays 
     greater than $50,000,000 that operates under that law shall 
     be assumed to continue to operate under that law as in effect 
     immediately before its expiration.
       ``(3) Hospital insurance trust fund.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the receipts and disbursements of the 
     Hospital Insurance Trust Fund shall be included in all 
     calculations required by this Act.
       ``(c) Discretionary Spending.--For the budget year and each 
     of the nine ensuing outyears, the baseline shall be 
     calculated using the following assumptions regarding all 
     amounts other than those covered by subsection (b):
       ``(1) Estimated appropriations.--Budgetary resources other 
     than unobligated balances shall be at the level provided for 
     the budget year in full-year appropriation Acts. If for any 
     account a full-year appropriation has not yet been enacted, 
     budgetary resources other than unobligated balances shall be 
     at the level available in the current year.
       ``(2) Current-year appropriations.--If, for any account, a 
     continuing appropriation is in effect for less than the 
     entire current year, then the current-year amount shall be 
     assumed to equal the amount that would be available if that 
     continuing appropriation covered the entire fiscal year. If 
     law permits the transfer of budget authority among budget 
     accounts in the current year, the current-year level for an 
     account shall reflect transfers accomplished by the 
     submission of, or assumed for the current year in, the 
     President's original budget for the budget year.
       ``(d) Up-to-Date Concepts.--In calculating the baseline for 
     the budget year or each of the nine ensuing outyears, 
     current-year amounts shall be calculated using the concepts 
     and definitions that are required for that budget year.
       ``(e) Asset Sales.--Amounts realized from the sale of an 
     asset shall not be included in estimates under section 251, 
     251A, 252, or 253 of this part or section 5 of the Statutory-
     Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 if that sale would result in a 
     financial cost to the Government as determined pursuant to 
     scorekeeping guidelines.''.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CBO REPORT TO BUDGET COMMITTEES.

       Section 202(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(4)(A) After the President's budget submission under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, in addition 
     to the baseline projections, the Director shall submit to the 
     Committees on the Budget of the House of Representatives and 
     the Senate a supplemental projection assuming extension of 
     current tax policy for the fiscal year commencing on October 
     1 of that year with a supplemental projection for the 10 
     fiscal-year period beginning with that fiscal year, assuming 
     the extension of current tax policy.
       ``(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, the term `current 
     tax policy' means the tax policy in statute as of December 31 
     of the current year as-suming--
       ``(i) the budgetary effects of measures extending the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001;
       ``(ii) the budgetary effects of measures extending the Jobs 
     and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
       ``(iii) the continued application of the alternative 
     minimum tax as in effect for taxable years beginning in 2011 
     pursuant to title II of the Tax Relief, Unemployment 
     Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, 
     assuming that for taxable years beginning after 2011 the 
     exemption amount shall equal--
       ``(I) the exemption amount for taxable years beginning in 
     2011, as indexed for inflation; or
       ``(II) if a subsequent law modifies the exemption amount 
     for later taxable years, the modified exemption amount, as 
     indexed for inflation; and
       ``(iv) the budgetary effects of extending the estate, gift, 
     and generation-skipping transfer tax provisions of title III 
     of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, 
     and Job Creation Act of 2010.
       ``(5) On or before July 1 of each year, the Director shall 
     submit to the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, the Long-Term Budget Outlook 
     for the fiscal year commencing on October 1 of that year and 
     at least the ensuing 40 fiscal years.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed 
in part A of House Report 112-383, if offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), or her designee, which shall be separately 
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H.R. 3578.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I first want to start off by thanking Mr. Woodall and Mr. Gohmert, 
two of the leaders on this policy. This is the second of 10 bills on 
fixing the broken budget process that we're bringing to the floor to 
try to bring back accountability, transparency and responsibility to 
our Federal budgeting process. What this bill does is it removes the 
pro-spending bias that currently exists in the baseline we use as a 
starting point in Federal budgeting.
  The baseline we currently use assumes automatic increases in spending 
in the discretionary budget. So, for instance, instead of basing next 
year's discretionary budget on what we spent this year, we don't do it 
that way. The way it works is we automatically assume spending 
increases. We automatically assume that government agencies can't live 
with what they had last year, can't be more efficient, can't be more 
productive, and we assume inflation in it already.
  We think for honesty, for transparency, if we spent X dollars this 
year, that is the base on which we ought to consider next year's 
budget. And for all those programs where inflationary updates are 
already legislated, such as Medicare, Social Security, or the tax 
brackets to prevent inflation, this doesn't affect those. Those 
programs by law adjust for inflation and, therefore, so should their 
baselines. Discretionary spending, something Congress controls every 
year, does not have that because Congress legislates every year.
  So what we're simply saying is let's err on the side of the taxpayer. 
Let's not err on the side of assuming every government agency 
automatically needs a spending increase one year to the next. If we 
think they need more money, then we should measure it on an honest 
basis and then legislate more money for those agencies.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I will turn over the rest of my time to Mr. 
Woodall, the author of this legislation, and reserve the balance.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Georgia will control the remaining time.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the chairman for 
yielding to me.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is the second budget bill that we've had today. There's been a 
lot of talk about what we need to do to help move the economy forward, 
to help put people back to work.
  Let's be clear: as was acknowledged earlier, these bills do none of 
that. This will not help create one job; this is not going to help grow 
the economy. We've got a lot of work that we should be doing, including 
taking up the President's jobs bill, which has been sitting in the 
House since last October.
  The economy remains very fragile. Those infrastructure investments 
and helping rebuild and repair our roads,

[[Page 871]]

our bridges, transit ways could be put to good use right now.
  With respect to this bill, the concern is that this creates actually 
a very misleading picture of what we can purchase in terms of goods and 
services with our dollars, and it gets more misleading over time. Why 
do I say that?
  Every American knows that when you're comparing the amount something 
costs between different periods of time, you have got to take into 
account inflation. You know what, $10 back 40 years ago bought a lot 
more than $10 today. What this bill does is it tries to kind of wish 
away inflation and, in that sense, it creates, as I say, a misleading 
sense of what we can expect in terms of goods and services purchased 
for taxpayer dollars going forward.
  I think every taxpayer would say that if we did not, we did not index 
their taxes for inflation, that would be a tax increase. That's why we 
index taxes. If we decided to pass a law saying no more indexation of 
taxes, it would be a hidden tax increase.
  Now, here I want to give a very clear example.

                              {time}  1740

  In fiscal year 2013, we're going to spend $61 billion to help support 
our veterans, to help support our veterans, provide for veterans health 
care and other services. This is part of the discretionary budget. We 
also provide help in some of the mandatory budget.
  Now, this bill would have you believe that 10 years from now, that 
$61 billion is somehow going to provide you the same amount of goods 
and services to take care of our veterans. We know that's not true. We 
know that $61 billion 10 years from now is going to provide a lot less 
health care for people who served this country. And so let's not play 
make-believe, and that's what this bill does.
  What the Congressional Budget Office does right now is they make the 
assumptions that reasonable forecasters would make. As the author of 
the bill has said, there's no law right now that tells CBO how to do 
it. We leave it to the independent, nonpartisan body, the Congressional 
Budget Office, to figure out what's the best way, what makes the most 
sense for budgeting purposes. And they say, you know what; we should do 
what every American does when they're comparing dollars spent in the 
past or in the future. We need to normalize that. We need to index that 
to get a real sense of what taxpayer dollars will be able to purchase; 
otherwise, it creates a misleading impression.
  And so CBO, the independent group, said we need to take an account of 
inflation. What this bill does is says as a matter of law, ignore that. 
As a matter of law, we're not going to wish away inflation. We're going 
to pass a law that says for these purposes, don't take it into account. 
And as I say, it will create a very misleading picture of what it will 
take to support investments like veterans' health.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) who has been battling in the 
trenches over this idea for a number of years and whom I'm just as 
pleased as can be that his idea has come to fruition today.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I understand the concerns of my friend 
across the aisle, but I'm telling you, this is a great day for 
Congress, for America. Going back to 1974, the most liberal Congress in 
America until the time when Speaker Pelosi took the gavel, in 1974, 
rules for CBO were put in place making it difficult to ever make actual 
tax cuts to help the economy grow, as John F. Kennedy made clear and 
showed by his actions. But that was also a time when Congress thought 
it would be a good idea to create automatic increases of every 
discretionary department's budget in the Federal budget, automatic 
increases.
  I mean, there are times when increases would be appropriate, and 
there are times when it would not be. But why should the government not 
have to deal with financial issues, like any responsible American, like 
any responsible family? There will be times when you should have to 
make cuts. There will be times when you should have to make increases. 
But what we saw through the 1990s, back during my days when I was a 
judge, I heard a guy named Rush Limbaugh bring up why do we have this 
automatic increase, because then when conservatives try to slightly 
decrease the amount of increase, they're said to be making draconian 
cuts. Well, I made a mental note.
  When I got to Congress in January of '05, I couldn't believe it, to 
find out that we still had those automatic increases every year. And 
then to be going through a troubled time like we are now when families 
across America are having to learn to do with less and make cuts across 
the board, Congress was still dealing with decreasing the amount of 
increase because we had these automatic increases.
  We had a supercommittee that was formed last fall, and try as they 
might, they didn't even deal with the issue of the automatic increases. 
The committee's projections have had to be used because CBO, because of 
the same 1974 rules, ended up saying, well, gee, the formula can 
slightly change each year so there's no way to know exactly what it 
will be over 10 years. Well, one thing's pretty clear, it would have 
been enough to clear the $1.2 trillion threshold in cuts, and all it 
would have been doing is decreasing the amount of increase.
  This is a great day for America when Congress, after all of these 
years, 37-38 years now, Congress is dealing with a financial issue that 
should have been dealt with long ago.
  I brought this up back in 2005 and 2006 when Republicans were in the 
majority, and I was told back then by the chairman of the Budget 
Committee that, well, the law is that we've got to do the automatic 
increases, so we're just going to do it.
  It is really thrilling to me to have a chairman of the Budget 
Committee who saw this as a real problem. This should have been low-
hanging fruit, as people like to say. This should have been an easy no-
brainer. Cut out the automatic increases. We have a chairman of the 
Budget right now who saw it as a problem. And it was also exciting to 
me to have a freshman like Rob Woodall come in and see it as a problem 
and collaborate, discuss the matter. Because, really, to get a bill 
like this through, you need to have somebody that will shepherd it all 
the way through--subcommittee, committee--to get it to this point. So 
I'm very grateful to Chairman Ryan, and I'm very grateful to Mr. 
Woodall. Amazing, as a freshman, he's done an outstanding job.
  And now here we are, about to do what could be the most responsible 
financial thing this Congress has done, this House has done in the 
whole last year. It could be $1.4 trillion in cuts over the next 10 
years, and all we're doing is just stopping the automatic increase.
  There's a lot to be said for finally coming around to responsibility. 
There's a lot to be said, if you need an increase, come justify it, 
don't get it automatically. And we now have responsible action being 
taken, and I urge adoption.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it's important to underscore the point, and I think the 
author of the bill would agree, that this legislation didn't save the 
taxpayer one dime. That's not what we're talking about. This bill, when 
you pass it, doesn't save one penny. Every year, with respect to the 
discretionary budget, we have Appropriations Committees in the House 
and the Senate who go through the budgets, and they decide what's 
appropriate and what's necessary to be budgeted for those agencies and 
those accounts every year. They can cut them. They can increase them 
based on the needs that are perceived by Members of Congress who are 
acting on that. That's not the issue. We need to tighten our belts. In 
fact, back in August, we made some significant savings. We need to 
continue to find savings.

[[Page 872]]

  In fact, my view is, if we're really going to be serious about 
reducing the deficit and the debt, we've got to do this in a balanced 
way like bipartisan commissions have suggested. You've got Simpson-
Bowles; you've got Rivlin-Domenici. All of them have said we've got to 
do a combination of cuts, and we also need to deal with the revenue. We 
can no longer afford to have tax breaks for the folks at the very top, 
that we can't keep all of these tax loopholes open that 
disproportionately benefit certain people over others, and tax breaks 
that actually encourage in some cases the export of American jobs when 
we want to be encouraging the export of American goods and American 
services.
  So that's a very important debate that we should have, but that's not 
what this does. This just has to do with how we present the baseline as 
to what can be purchased in terms of goods and services for certain 
dollars. And moving to this will create a very misleading perception, 
everyone knows.
  Let's say it took a certain amount of money to buy an aircraft 
carrier today and we wanted to know how much it was going to take to 
purchase an aircraft carrier 5 years from now. Let's assume over the 
next 5 years we're in the midst of rising inflation. What this would do 
is create the idea that since the number was the same this year as 5 
years from now, hey, we can buy the same number of aircraft carriers. 
That's not true. You're going to get a quarter of an aircraft carrier, 
and that isn't going to do anybody any good.
  So again, Americans know that when they're comparing dollars and the 
value of their dollars over time, you have to take into account 
inflation.

                              {time}  1750

  It happens every day in terms of financial transactions all over the 
country. So, again, this bill doesn't save a penny. This has to do with 
just how you present the budget in terms of a picture for the American 
people to look at and whether it's realistic in comparing what you can 
buy for a dollar today versus what you can buy for a dollar 5 or 10 
years from now. And what we're saying is you should compare apples to 
apples so people know what the purchasing power of those dollars are in 
terms of goods and services. Then we, as the Congress, can decide 
whether we want to increase that amount or cut it, as we do every year. 
But this bill doesn't mandate any kind of cutting of that nature.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 2 minutes 
to a real leader for fiscal responsibility on the Budget Committee, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation by my 
good friend, Mr. Woodall of Georgia. This legislation makes really 
significant reforms to the way the CBO develops baseline calculations 
for discretionary spending. Under current laws, we all know the CBO 
automatically budgets for inflation of discretionary spending in our 
baseline projects.
  This process runs completely counter to what every American does with 
their own budget. No family sits down and assumes that they will 
automatically have an inflationary increase in their budget next year. 
No small business sits down and says, my sales or my revenue will 
automatically move up. As a matter of fact, using that approach 
actually is counterproductive because it actually discourages the 
search for savings and efficiencies.
  I am an appropriator, and I can tell you this is the road to deficit 
spending. Getting rid of this will help us bring our fiscal house back 
in order. We should have done it a long time ago. The last time the 
Republicans were in the majority--and I'm very proud that Mr. Woodall, 
Mr. Ryan, and other Members, and particularly this new freshman class, 
are pushing to do this. This will allow us to reduce the size of 
government, it will increase transparency, and we'll be able to put our 
house where we ought to put it.
  Of course, the legislation is just one piece of a broader set of 
reforms. As Chairman Ryan indicated, we need to bring those up 
systematically. But this is the first step and the right step in the 
direction of getting our fiscal house in order. I commend my friend for 
bringing it to the floor. I look forward to its passage.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), also a member of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in strong opposition to this legislation, which 
would remove consideration of inflation from congressional budget 
baselines. Instead of beginning this year by putting forward 
legislation to create jobs, spur growth, and address the economic 
challenges that we face, the majority is trying, yet again, to achieve 
their ideological goals, this time by playing an accounting trick on 
the American people.
  At its heart, this bill is a backdoor attempt to enact the same 
radical cuts the majority attempted last year and to further reduce the 
spending caps agreed to in last August's Budget Control Act. By 
eliminating inflation from our official budget considerations, this 
bill represents a freeze on all discretionary programs that, over time, 
would become a devastating cut to critical programs.
  Within 10 years, all discretionary programs would see their funding 
slashed by as much as 20 percent. Among the priorities that would be 
gutted are scientific and medical research, financial aid for college 
students, assistance to elementary and secondary education, and 
investments in water and sewer systems. No discretionary program would 
be spared the axe. Disaster assistance, food safety, medical care for 
veterans, meals on wheels, community health centers, support for law 
enforcement and nutrition programs, all of these across the board would 
be slashed by leaving inflation out of the budget equation, and 
millions of middle class families would be harmed. Why don't we index 
tax brackets?
  This dangerous cut aside, this legislation makes no sense from an 
accounting standpoint. Why don't we all put our heads in the sand, this 
bill argues, and just pretend that inflation does not exist? Now isn't 
that foolish? Then we can just pretend to be fulfilling our 
responsibilities to the American people.
  Closing our eyes to inflation is not a solution. This is not a 
serious bill. It does nothing to cut the deficit. Do you want to try to 
cut the deficit? Let's look at the tax cuts for the oil and gas 
industry. Let's look at ending the subsidies to those multinational 
corporations that take their jobs overseas. Do you want to do something 
about the deficit? Then let's cut the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1 
percent of the people in this Nation. This does nothing to cut the 
deficit. And like every other initiative from this majority, it does 
nothing to address the top priority of the American people, and that is 
jobs, growing the economy, and investing in the economy to put us on a 
glide path to economic sustainability in the future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to my colleague who just spoke, I've introduced a bill in this 
House that not only repeals the Bush tax cuts, the Obama tax cuts, and 
every tax break for every multinational corporation and every special 
interest favor and every deduction and exemption and favor in the 
entire United States Tax Code, but it does so in a way that would 
actually bring in more revenues for those priorities that you 
mentioned. That's H.R. 25, the Fair Tax, and I would welcome the 
gentlelady's support.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to one of the 
finest young leaders on the Budget Committee, my freshman colleague 
from Indiana (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
3578, the Baseline Reform Act, and to commend my hardworking colleague 
from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for leading in this effort.
  Now this is straightforward legislation. It removes the pro-spending 
bias

[[Page 873]]

that currently exists in the baseline that we use here in Congress as a 
starting point for our annual budgeting. The baseline should be a 
neutral starting point for considering fiscal policy. It shouldn't 
presume any spending by this body.
  Now we've already heard from our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle numerous examples of programs that they fear will be cut in the 
future as a result of this legislation. Well, this legislation just 
says that without the sanction of Congress, without a free and open 
debate about the merits of any given program, there will not be any 
automatic increases to that program.
  Today, the baseline does assume an automatic increase for inflation 
each year in the discretionary budget. Instead of looking at what each 
agency actually needs each year to fulfill its mission, we simply 
assume that that agency needs more money than it had the previous year.
  Well, these assumptions add up. In fact, they add up to approximately 
$1.4 trillion in outlays over a 10-year period to last year's 
discretionary spending baseline. This bill would change that pro-
spending bias by setting the baseline at the previous year's spending 
level--and not a cent more. The effect would be to put an end to the 
longstanding and confusing Washington practice of characterizing any 
effort to maintain the same level of funding as last year as somehow a 
``spending cut.'' It's time to bring Washington definitions of 
``spending cut'' in line with America's definition of a spending cut, 
and that is an actual cut in spending. This bill does that, and I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, once again, instead of 
debating a bill that would create jobs and bring this economy back or a 
comprehensive effort to put our fiscal house in order, we're here on 
this floor tonight focusing on a so-called budget reform bill.
  This bill will do nothing to spur economic growth, it will do nothing 
to bring us closer to a balanced budget, although it could greatly 
confuse and complicate the budget process.
  We must be clear what this bill does, Mr. Chairman. The bill pretends 
that inflation doesn't occur. It's a pipe dream. By eliminating 
baseline calculations, it would make it far more difficult to estimate 
future budget needs. We need to know exactly what it would take to 
maintain the current level of effort and the current level of services 
in governmental programs. With that knowledge, we can make realistic 
decisions, knowing what result those increases or decreases would 
produce. But this bill would deny us that knowledge. All too often, 
we'd be making budget decisions in the dark without knowing their full 
implications.
  Efforts like this should find bipartisan opposition. Make no mistake. 
This bill would--or it could--not only lead to the slow starvation of 
funds for Democratic priorities like Head Start, clean energy research, 
and WIC, but it also could starve all programs, including the Border 
Patrol, military health and veterans' programs, and the FBI. At the 
very least, it would make budget decisions, both increases and 
decreases, less precise and less efficient.
  I'm voting ``no'' on this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same. 
Let's stop wasting time on so-called budget reform bills. Instead, we 
need to get to work on the real budget to hammer out a comprehensive 
agreement, to bring this economy to full strength, and to get our 
fiscal house in order.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'm pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, my hero, Thomas Jefferson, always said 
that if you apply core principle to any problem, no matter how 
difficult, the knot will always untie itself. It was true then, and 
it's true today. If we would apply the core principles of the 
Constitution to the problems we face as a government, the knot will 
untie itself. And here just applying commonsense principles to our 
fiscal problems, the knot will untie itself. This is a remarkably 
simple and remarkably effective reform. We will no longer assume 
inflation into the beginning of our spending bills on the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Now, unfortunately, we only control on the Appropriations Committee 
about 39 cents out of every dollar of spending the Federal Government 
does. But that 39 percent that we do control will no longer increase 
automatically year to year. These procedural institutional reforms that 
House conservatives are enacting into law will make a dramatic 
difference in changing the direction of our Nation from insolvency and 
bankruptcy to getting back on a path to a balanced budget.
  I'm very proud to help our colleagues, my chairman, Paul Ryan, Mr. 
Woodall, and Mr. Gohmert of Texas in enacting this fundamental, 
commonsense reform to put America back on track to a balanced budget. 
And Americans should take heart that constitutional conservatives in 
the House are doing the right thing for the right reasons for the 
country and redesigning the way we spend money in favor of taxpayers 
and not in favor of Washington bureaucrats.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Again, just for people who are trying to get educated about the 
budget process who may be watching, and among our colleagues, we put 
together a 10-year projection of the budget in a lot of different 
categories. The appropriators on a year-to-year basis can decide how 
much or how little to give any program, and every Member of this body 
gets a chance to vote up or down on that. So that's not what this is 
about. This is not about saving money. I hope we will all save money 
and get the deficit down. This is about what information is presented 
in terms of giving an accurate picture of what the cost is of providing 
goods and services.
  So I'm going to give the same example very clearly. Again, it's a 
very clear example. In fiscal year 2013, we're going to have $61 
billion in the budget for discretionary spending for veterans' 
programs. Now under the current procedure, the Congressional Budget 
Office tries to figure out 10 years from now, knowing what we do about 
inflation expectations--and everybody calculates those into their 
financial decisions--what would it take to provide the same services 
for our veterans?
  Now what they're proposing is to put in $61 billion in year 10. But 
that's misleading because you're not going to be able to provide the 
services to our veterans at the same level for that amount. In fact, 
that will represent a 23 percent cut. So I would ask my colleagues, 
what 23 percent cut are you proposing to make in veterans' programs as 
we go through this budget? And why do you want to build in what is 
misleading in a sense that it creates a false impression of what a 
dollar will purchase 10 years from now compared to what it will 
purchase today?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I'd be happy to yield.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I chair the Veterans Administration and Military 
Construction Subcommittee in Appropriations, and I assure you we all 
work arm in arm together. My friend, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and I will 
make sure veterans are taken care of. We will still be able to with 
this reform, but in the light of day look at inflation, medical 
inflation, which is generally higher than regular inflation, we will 
build that in, I promise you, as we go through our hearing schedule. 
But we will do it in open public hearings. It won't be built in 
automatically. That's all this does is remove the automatic increase 
and lets the people's elected Representatives do it in the sunlight of 
day in an open hearing. And I assure you that veterans will be taken 
care of.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you. And taking back my time, you really 
made my point, which is that if the purpose of a budget is to try and 
provide the most realistic projection of what services we're going to 
provide in

[[Page 874]]

the future compared to today, you should take into account the cost of 
those increases.
  The gentleman has just said that of course we're going to build in 
inflation with respect to veterans programs. In fact, we're going to do 
better than that. And I'm glad to hear that because we're going to take 
into account the fact that medical inflation runs higher than regular 
inflation. But the point is, if you put different numbers in year 10 
that don't take into account inflation, you're going to give people a 
very misleading sense of what can be purchased for their tax dollars in 
terms of goods and services.
  The same holds true with respect to DOD, in other words, the Defense 
Department. Why don't we want to present the American people with an 
accurate representation of what it will actually cost to maintain the 
current defense or current discretionary veterans programs? That's the 
whole purpose of this. The Appropriations Committee can do what it 
wants with respect to decisions in increases and in cuts.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time, just for the sake of clarity 
for the American people, I'd like to yield 2 minutes again to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the gentleman from 
Maryland. And as we all recall, the Military Construction and VA 
Appropriations bill passed the House almost unanimously because all of 
us in this Congress are arm in arm in support of our veterans, in 
support of our military to ensure that they get the very best medical 
care possible, that we're providing every benefit that they have earned 
by their service to the Nation.
  And the only thing this bill will do is remove the automatic blind 
increase in the starting point for our spending. And we in the 
Appropriations Subcommittee, in the full sunlight of day on C-SPAN and 
public hearings, will go through and build in that increase that has 
actually occurred in medical inflation and regular inflation to ensure 
that we have compensated our veterans for that increase that has 
already occurred. But we'll do it in a public hearing; we'll do it in 
the full light of day. We'll do it so the taxpayers can see what we're 
doing.
  The game is rigged today against American taxpayers; and House 
conservatives, constitutional conservatives are following core 
principle. We're honoring the Constitution. We're looking for ways to 
restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty, shrinking the 
government, getting control back in the hands of individual Americans 
and State and local governments.
  And then when it comes to the budget, we're implementing commonsense 
reforms that every American understands. We don't get an automatic 
increase in pay. If you're working for a company, you've got to earn it 
every year. We on the Appropriations Committee are going to go through 
and analyze every one of these accounts and make sure that we have 
built in, but in an open public forum, any increase as a result of the 
increase in medical inflation or baseline inflation.
  We will, on the subcommittee, I assure you, Mr. Van Hollen, make sure 
that our veterans are fully compensated, as all of us take great pride 
in their service. And, truly, you see more unanimity on the Veterans' 
and Military Construction Appropriations bill than almost any other 
bill that we pass because we take such great pride in them.
  So I urge my colleagues to please remove that argument from your 
repertoire, and let's focus on what's really going on here. The game is 
rigged today against taxpayers, and House Republicans are rigging the 
game today in favor of taxpayers in sunlight and transparency.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hurt). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I hear what you're saying with veterans. Absolutely true, on a 
bipartisan basis, we understand we're going to make sure we support the 
veterans and we're going to make sure they get the cost-of-living 
increase. And the reality is, you mentioned the defense budget. That's 
50 percent of the discretionary budget right there.

                              {time}  1810

  Are we going to make sure that we provide increases to make sure that 
we can maintain the same national defense?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Sure. Bill Young's going to do that. Bill Young's 
going to take care of it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. So here's the point. So you're going to create a 
document for the American people that says, hey, we're going to be 
spending this much in year 10 for veterans when we know that that's not 
true. We know right now, in fact, you've just said on the floor of this 
House, that number's going to be a lot bigger.
  And my point is we can make it bigger, we can make it smaller. This 
bill doesn't save a dime in terms of what decisions we make. But why 
would we want to present the American people with a misleading sense of 
what it's going to cost in real dollars and cents?
  I agree with the Member.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Just for a friendly conversation.
  Truly, there's nothing misleading. We're doing this in the light of 
day. What we're, through this reform, going to do, Mr. Van Hollen, is 
have these hearings in public, in front of C-SPAN and the world, and 
talk about what actually has been the level of inflation this year, 
what actually do we need to do to increase funding this year for the 
veterans, for medical inflation, for regular inflation.
  Bill Young, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and a great 
leader from Florida who works in a bipartisan way with Norm Dicks, your 
leader on the Appropriations Committee, they're going to build in, 
they're going to analyze what inflation's been.
  The difference here, truly, all we're doing is doing it in the light 
of day. We're removing the automatic increase. That's all. I want the 
pilot with his hand on the steering wheel of the airplane.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Reclaiming my time, but look, we're doing everything 
in the light of day. The issue isn't whether it's done in the light of 
day or not. Of course it's done in the light of day. It's what picture 
we're presenting to the American people in terms of the budget numbers 
on what their tax dollars will be able to purchase in terms of goods 
and services.
  And in my view, it's misleading to say we're going to be spending the 
same nominal dollar amount for veterans 10 years from now in the budget 
when we know, according to your own testimony and according to what we 
know, that that's not going to be the case. That's why we try and put 
together a document that gives us the best representation of the 
information we have as to what it will cost; then we can make a 
decision to add or subtract.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it pleases me to be able to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), one of 
my freshman colleagues, a leader on the committee.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Speaker, one of the things about being a freshman 
in this body is walking in and trying to learn the numbers game. On the 
Budget Committee, there are a million different variations to the 
numbers, a million different options with the numbers. And it's amazing 
to me, in Washington, DC, when you try to say what's the number, you'll 
get five different numbers.
  So I think the best thing that we can do is clarify the system and 
say, give the numbers out there. We know what inflation's going to be, 
but give the numbers out there so the numbers are the numbers, and we 
can say to the American people when we talk about controlling spending, 
this is what it is. We're not cutting off what was the automatic 
increase and trying to have

[[Page 875]]

two different sets of numbers and saying we really cut but we really 
increased. We're able to have a flat line number out there that 
everyone can see and that everyone can process through.
  So while we're fighting to be able to manage the budget and to be 
able to work through the realities that are out there of inflation--and 
I understand fully the principle of inflation and how that fits into 
your buying power. But while we're fighting through those realities, 
we're not fighting against ourselves. We understand that the number 
that's been presented to us is not including some arbitrary number 
that's been invented that Congress did not come up with, but it's a 
number that we came up with, as Congress, and said this the projection 
and this is where we're headed.
  So the best thing I think we can do is create a neutral budgeting 
process, and the way to do that is to have this kind of simple reform 
in baseline. Control the baseline spending by not having the automatic 
increases. Have the baseline be the baseline. Don't put something out 
in the future that was not passed by Congress and assume Congress is 
going to then follow the lead of CBO, but assume that Congress is going 
to pass the budget and that next year we're going to look at exactly 
what that's going to be.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
colleague from Maryland, the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen from Maryland, for yielding.
  I, unfortunately, have not been able to listen to all of the debate, 
but I've listened to enough of it. This week we're playing let's 
pretend. We're playing the game of let's pretend that if we solve the 
process, we'll solve the problem.
  There's an excellent article that I think everybody ought to read. 
Stan Collender, who is a real expert on the budget process and who has 
been involved in this budget process for a long, long period of time, 
quotes in an article that he wrote--that I hope most of you read--in 
Roll Call. He quotes Rudy Penner. Rudy Penner was the Director of CBO--
not a partisan individual, in my view--that I've had the opportunity of 
dealing with for some period of time. And his quote is: A process, no 
matter how well designed, cannot make difficult problems easy.
  I think my friend, Paul Ryan, would agree with that. It's not the 
process that's the problem. The problem is we don't have the courage to 
make decisions which are clearly necessary for us to make, and no 
amount of jiggering around the edges is going to change that.
  Now, as all of you know, I'm a strong supporter of a Bowles-Simpson 
approach to bringing our country to a fiscally sustainable path. Unlike 
many of you, I believe that revenues have to be part of that process 
and cuts have to be part of that process and restraints of entitlements 
have to be part of that process. I've been saying that for 2\1/2\ years 
now. It's somewhat controversial, but I have three children, three 
grandchildren, two great-grandchildren. If we don't do that, they're 
going to be hurting.
  But, frankly, we ought not to pretend that the process is the 
problem. The problem is the problem, as Rudy Penner's said. The problem 
is the problem, and we ought to address it. And we ought to have the 
courage to tell the American people that it's not a question of 
process, not a question that we don't have the right process in place 
in Washington. The problem is we don't have the votes in Washington.
  This Congress is dysfunctional. That doesn't mean we don't pass 
things. We do. But this week, frankly, what we're dealing with will not 
affect any of the significant problems that we have, whether it be jobs 
or fiscal responsibility.
  So I'm opposed to this bill. Why? Because I think it's a let's 
pretend. It's a let's pretend that if you have $100 to spend on defense 
this year, that you can get that same defense for $100 next year. You 
can't.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. You can't, and the American public knows that.
  We talk about, well, we ought to operate like a family. Family 
understands that. They know their electricity bill goes up, and they 
know they can't get the same kind of heat this year or next year that 
they got last year because they know their electric bill has gone up, 
and they need to know what that is.
  So what we said, the Congress said, we want a baseline budget. What 
does it cost to get that $100 of value next year? And so we get that.
  The previous speaker I heard speaking--I don't know who it was; I 
apologize for that--said, you know, we ought to have an honest budget. 
Well, you can argue it's honest both ways. Either it's honest that 
that's what we spent last year, 100 bucks, or it's honest that, in 
order to do next year what we did last year, you need $101.50. Both of 
those are honest answers. Nobody ought to think that that's a dishonest 
answer.
  The answer is: Do you want to know what you spent last year? Look at 
the budgets. Do you want to know what it would cost you to do the same 
thing? Then you get the baseline. So either one is honest. It's just a 
judgment.
  But you're pretending that you're saving money by having that kind of 
budget. Baloney. Baloney. The only way you're going to save money is to 
have the courage to vote to do so.
  My friend, Paul Ryan, is shaking his head. He and I have some 
significant disagreements, but very great respect, I hope, for one 
another. I know I have great respect for him.

                              {time}  1820

  I think we are advantageous as a country having Mr. Van Hollen and 
Mr. Ryan, who are both very bright, able, committed people dealing with 
this. The trick is coming to agreement irrespective of process. It's 
substance that matters. The American public will be affected by the 
substantive judgments we make, not about whether we do it with a 
baseline budget or a static budget or dynamic scoring.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I don't believe in dynamic scoring. I think dynamic 
scoring is a liberal, radical idea. Why? Because it pretends something 
you don't know.
  George Bush said we had $5.6 trillion we could rely on and therefore 
have very deep tax cuts. Didn't work out. I would much prefer to not 
use dynamic scoring and have more money than I thought I was going to 
have that I could apply either to reduction of the deficit or some 
other priority that I thought was important, rather than find out, 
oops, I was wrong on dynamic scoring, I have less money and I'm deeper 
in the hole. Now, you can differ on that, but that's my view.
  I'd rather be conservative and say, Gee, I hope investing in 
infrastructure, cutting taxes, doing whatever you think is going to get 
better education is going to get you better results; I hope it does get 
better results. That's the purpose of investing in it. If it does, 
you're benefited if you didn't count on it because you have more than 
you thought you would. That's the place to be, not having less than you 
thought you would.
  So I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, to adopt reality. It 
cost us to do this yesterday, and now it cost us to do it today. I 
think that's a responsible, smart way to budget.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding this time. I thank you, Mr. 
Speaker, for your light touch.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, at this time it gives me great pride to 
yield 5 minutes to my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Woodall for his 
leadership.
  I simply want to say I deeply respect the minority whip, and I agree 
with a lot of what he just said. First of all, he's totally correct 
when he's saying there's no substitute for discipline, meaning Congress 
has got to make decisions, and nothing can substitute for that.

[[Page 876]]

  He's also half right when he says Congress is dysfunctional. Where 
he's half right, it's the other body over on the other side of the 
rotunda, the Senate, because last year in the majority they didn't pass 
a budget.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I was just going to kid him that he's just now trying to 
get to things that we can all agree on.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's right. Trying to get some consensus 
here.
  The year before when they had a supermajority, no budget.
  To budget is to decide. To budget is to make a decision. They haven't 
budgeted for over a thousand days.
  The budget process we have here, which we've had in place since 1974, 
requires the House pass a budget by April 15, the Senate pass a budget; 
and they didn't do it for over a thousand days.
  So when we look at the process, we see that it's not working the way 
it needs to. It's no substitute for personal discipline, for Members 
making decisions, for compromising; but in this particular case, we 
think the process is part of the problem. We think the process needs to 
be improved to make it more likely that we make these decisions, that 
we get to exercising that discipline.
  On this particular bill, we are assuming $1.4 trillion in automatic 
spending increases and discretionary spending over the next 10 years. 
We probably shouldn't do that because even though it happens--this is 
not a spending-cut bill. This is a measurement bill. But the way we 
measure it leads to a bias in more spending.
  What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, is in 2009 and 2010, domestic 
discretionary spending, including the stimulus, increased by 84 
percent. So this category of government has grown very, very fast; and 
we're saying let's stop automatically assuming that it needs to grow 
every year. Let's put the taxpayer first and the government agencies 
second as far as who gets the money first.
  What I'm trying to say is if we want to put a bias in favor of 
requiring agencies to do more with less, be more productive, more 
efficient, then we should not assume they automatically get a spending 
increase every year. That's how businesses do it. That's how families 
do it.
  A lot of families don't get raises, but their expenses go up. Gas 
prices go up. Insurance costs go up. Grocery prices go up. But they 
don't get a raise, so they have to prioritize. We think government 
should do the same, and we shouldn't just assume they are going to get 
a raise.
  This is not going to fix our budget problem, but we think this and 
the other bills we bring to the floor will improve the process to get 
us to what we need to do, which is come in here agreeing, compromising, 
and then deciding and having decisions made, which is budgeting, so we 
can save this country from a debt crisis.
  Mr. HOYER. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Frankly, this issue is of such importance, it is a shame we don't 
have a lot of time to discuss it because I think in many respects we do 
agree.
  Where we disagree, however, is when you say that body that is 
dysfunctional--the gentleman just referred to that. I kidded about it. 
Both parties are dysfunctional to the extent that we are not making 
determinations to spend just the money we have. We haven't done that 
for some period of time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. You're talking about deficit spending?
  Mr. HOYER. Yes. Spending money we don't have.
  From my perspective, we did that when we cut taxes. We didn't pay for 
that. It wasn't like we had a real surplus. We had a projected surplus. 
We banked on that; and as I said earlier, we lost on that proposition.
  I suggest that whether or not, as I said, you use what you think is 
the bias towards not spending as opposed to a bias for spending, as 
someone who served on the Appropriations Committee for 23 years, we all 
know what will happen. The agency will come in and say this is what we 
are doing for $100, and this year we need $101.50 if you want us to 
continue to do that.
  My point is the Congress has the authority to say, no, we want you to 
do less. It is the Congress' role to make priorities. I suggest to the 
gentleman it won't be easier for us to do it under either scenario 
because it is hard to do. I agree with the gentleman that we ought to 
do it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I simply don't think this bill or any other bill will get 
us to that end if we do not have the courage and, your word, 
``discipline,'' to effect that end.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Reclaiming my time, I agree with that. I think 
the gentleman is right about that. There is no substitute for courage. 
This bill in and of itself won't fix the problem.
  What I would simply say is that this bill helps remove what I think 
is a bias in favor of not pressuring government to be more efficient, 
more lean because they will think they will automatically get a 
spending increase year after year after year. That is the point. There 
is no substitute for discipline. I completely concur with that.
  This helps us get the system pointed in the right direction. That is 
why I encourage all Members to support this.
  I thank Mr. Woodall and Mr. Gohmert for their leadership.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague from 
Georgia is prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. I am prepared to close.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 4 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  I think we have had a good debate. There have been a couple of 
themes. One is that this bill in and of itself, I think everyone 
acknowledges, won't save the taxpayer one penny. It doesn't do that.
  In order to save the taxpayer money and reduce the deficit, we have 
to make the tough decisions that Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Ryan mentioned. 
There are obviously disagreements as to how we go about doing that. 
We've talked about the importance of trying to make sure that as we go 
forward we have a budget that reflects the values and the priorities of 
the American people, and one where we are covering our costs. That 
means paying our bills.
  A lot of us believe that in order to do that we've got to get rid of 
some of the tax breaks for the folks at the very top, that we need to 
close a lot of the special interest loopholes. That is a very important 
debate.
  The question here is just how we put together an accurate reflection 
for the American people about our best guess of what I think should be 
a budget that shows what their taxpayer dollars will purchase in terms 
of goods and services.

                              {time}  1830

  It is a question of measurement. How do you measure what you're going 
to be able to buy for the American people or buy for our veterans 10 
years from now? When you put $61 billion in the budget today, which is 
what we pay for veterans' health issues and for other veterans' 
programs in the discretionary budget--and as Mr. Hoyer says, let's 
pretend we're going to put $61 billion in for that program 10 years 
from now--that is a cut when you take into account inflation and what 
we know about the increases.
  In fact, Mr. Culberson, from the Appropriations Committee, was here 
on the floor, and he's absolutely right. He says you can be sure that 
the appropriators are going to build in inflation. We're going to make 
sure we take care of that. In fact, we're going to do a little more 
than that because medical inflation runs higher. If we're trying to 
give an accurate measure to the American people about what the budget 
is

[[Page 877]]

going to look like every 10 years, why would we put a number a member 
of the Appropriations Committee said is not going to be realistic and 
that we know, as we gather here, is not realistic?
  If we are going to be serious about budgeting, we need to have the 
best and most accurate sense of what taxpayer dollars are going to buy 
in terms of goods and services. What this does, as Mr. Hoyer says, is 
to play let's pretend. Let's pretend that, for the same nominal amount, 
you're going to be able to get as much in terms of veterans' health 
care 10 years from now as you are today. If we do that, the real 
question to ask up front is: What veterans' services and benefits are 
we going to cut?
  Now, the Appropriations Committee decides each year exactly how much 
to cut and how much to add. That's why, at the end of the day, this is 
all a question of the will of this body to make tough decisions; but 
let's make tough decisions off an accurate measure of what things will 
cost both now and in the future. In order to do that, we should 
maintain the existing practice, which shows us exactly what that is, 
and not create what I think will be a misleading sense that we can get 
more for our buck than we really can.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to begin by thanking the folks on the Budget Committee 
who made it possible to bring this bill to the floor tonight: Nicole 
Foltz, Jon Burks, Paul Restuccia, Jon Romito, and on my staff, Nick 
Myers.
  This is a team effort, and it was led by the gentleman from Texas, 
Louie Gohmert, who has been working on this issue year after year after 
year, but he could not find a Budget Committee chairman who was willing 
to prioritize process--and process matters. I've learned in my 1 year 
here as a Congressman, Mr. Speaker, that we spend a lot of time arguing 
about process. If we could find that common ground on process, we could 
get on to the substance. This is one of those issues.
  I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the gentleman from 
Maryland. He says the question is: How do we put together an accurate 
picture of the budget process for the American people? That is exactly 
the right question to ask. When I ask that question of my constituents 
back home, they say, Rob, cut out those phony numbers of automatic 
increases every year.
  We absolutely agree on the question, Mr. Speaker. It's how you answer 
the question that divides us.
  As the minority whip said earlier, this isn't a bill that deals with 
our priorities for spending. Our appropriators are going to do that. 
This isn't a bill that cuts one penny. This is a bill that changes the 
way we measure the pennies that get cut.
  I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, I start getting nervous when I hear 
the Washington political class talk about changing the way we measure, 
because I just assume they're going to come up with some new phony way 
to make it happen. Yet in this case--and perhaps this case alone--what 
we're saying is, for far too long, we've had those conversations during 
town hall meetings when we spent $1 million last year and when we'll 
spend $1.1 million next year, and they call it a cut--``they'' being 
the Washington measures.
  That's nonsense, nonsense.
  Is there a cost of living issue? Absolutely. Do we have to spend more 
on health care next year than we do this year? Absolutely. Do we have 
an unlimited spigot of cash that we can turn on to meet those needs? 
The answer is no. The answer is no.
  This isn't a little issue, Mr. Speaker. $1.4 trillion over the 10-
year window is what this automatic phony budgetary gimmick increases 
the budget to be. We're cutting that out. We're cutting that out.
  We're saying, Congress, if you care about veterans as our veterans' 
committee chairman does and as our appropriating chairman does, stand 
up and put your money where your mouth is--and I guarantee you we're 
going to do it. If you care about seniors, stand up and put your money 
where your mouth is--and I guarantee you we're going to do it. But, Mr. 
Speaker, if we gave folks $500 last year to go out and buy their new 
iPhones, that iPhone has gone down. If we gave folks $100 at the 
beginning of the Obama administration to buy gas, clearly, that $100 is 
not enough to do it anymore because gas prices have doubled.
  We already have a phony budget mechanism to project and bias towards 
increased spending. This is a bill--a simple bill--to which folks back 
home ask time and time again: Why hasn't it happened before? I don't 
have the answer, but it's not about blaming folks in the past for not 
getting it done, Mr. Speaker. It's about coming together, as we are 
tonight, to get it done.
  This is a bill that has the support of the National Taxpayers Union. 
This is a bill that has the support of Citizens Against Government 
Waste. This is a bill that has the support of FreedomWorks. And this is 
a bill that has the support of the American people.
  I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it, and let's move 
this bill on to the Senate.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The Chair understands that the gentlewoman from Texas will not be 
offering her amendment.
  Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, 
as amended.
  Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 
3578 is postponed.

                          ____________________