Rob Woodall

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 540 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to my colleague from Massachusetts, I always look for those areas of agreement because I know that we have some. I had a tough time finding those areas of agreement in that particular presentation, but when you got to your discussion about the theater that takes place on this House floor, I began to feel that personal bond, Mr. Speaker, because this feels like theater to me. This is a rule that my friend is urging a ``no'' vote on that does one thing and one thing only: it brings to the floor a budget-changing provision that will shine more of a spotlight on what it is this Congress does when it comes to spending the American people's money. It does one thing and one thing only, and that is to give the American taxpayer more insight into what it is that my colleagues and I are doing with the money that we have taken from them. Now, you might say, Mr. Speaker, well, what if I oppose that sunshine? What if I don't want daylight in the process? What if I have some things up here that I don't want folks to know I'm doing with their money? Fair enough. You can vote ``no'' on the underlying bill. But this rule, Mr. Speaker, this rule, which governs the debate on the House floor, has made in order every single Democratic amendment that was germane to the underlying legislation. Hear that. Hear that. For folks who don't like the way the bill was crafted--of course we had a full hearing and markup in the Budget Committee--but for folks who don't like the way that bill came out, sometimes Congresses in the past would just shove a bill to the floor and say take it or leave it. But this bill, Mr. Speaker, is coming to the floor with a rule that said, tell me, colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, tell me how it is that we can make this bill better, and every single idea and suggestion that was germane to the underlying bill this rule makes in order. So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why vote ``no'' on this rule? If you don't like the underlying legislation, vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. But this rule is a rule that this entire House can be proud of, and I'm proud to be able to carry it for the Rules Committee today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 539 provides a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act. This is another bill in a series of 10 bills that the Budget Committee is sending forward, Mr. Speaker, to try to align the kind of accounting and budgeting that we do in Washington with the kind of accounting and budgeting that happens in the real world. We know transparency and sound accounting matter. We know that it matters on Wall Street; we know that it matters on Main Street; and it matters right here between Independence and Constitution Avenues, Mr. Speaker. This bill has three primary provisions: Number one, it provides transparency by bringing off-budget items on- budget. Now, for folks who don't follow this as closely as you and I do, Mr. Speaker, you know that when things are off-budget, their degree of scrutiny is changed. When things are off-budget, the impact they have on the American taxpayer is not always reflected. When we take those things from off-budget and bring them on-budget, we begin to show the American taxpayer the real cost of their risk and responsibility. Number two, it reforms the accounting method that we use to calculate how at risk American taxpayers are under Federal credit programs, again, to bring us closer to private sector models. Mr. Speaker, as you well know, when a dollar goes out the door from this United States Capitol, when a dollar goes out the door from the United States Treasury, if it is a loan program, there is no guarantee that dollar comes back. Are most folks faithful payers? Yes, they are. But does every dollar come back? No, it doesn't. Do we need to look further than Fannie and Freddie to see that model? For the first time, we'll begin to account for that risk so that the American taxpayer understands when the their American government guarantees a loan what potential impact that has on their pocketbook at home. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it requires all Federal agencies to post their budget justifications online in a timely manner. Now, you saw last week, Mr. Speaker, we were able to pass the Baseline Reform Act, which said no longer will we just assume every agency is going to spend more. For the first time, we say that every agency needs to justify any increases that they receive in their budget. What this provision does is go one step further to say, when you are producing that budget, post your justifications online. Let the American people in. Mr. Speaker, if we have nothing to hide in this institution, then continuing to publish more and more information so that the American people can come into this discussion process is only going to lead us in the right direction. Taken together, these three reforms bring the kind of attention that we need to a budget process that has been long broken. We cannot make America's future brighter and more secure if we continue to escalate the debt that we pass on to our children and their grandchildren. Clearly, this body has struggled in years past to contain that debt on both sides of the aisle. Clearly, folks occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have struggled to contain that debt on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the folks who see these issues with clarity live back home in my Seventh District of Georgia. They understand what it means to do budgeting around the family dinner table. I know my colleague from Massachusetts has those same folks living in his district facing those same challenges in his district; and if we can bring those people into the discussion, Mr. Speaker, if we can just be honest with our constituents back home about the magnitude of the problem, we will have their support and their involvement to turn this page for America's financial future. Mr. Speaker, we can't stick our heads in the sand. Next week, we're expecting the budget from the White House to arrive here on Capitol Hill. We were expecting it this week, and they've delayed it to next week. I'm excited about it. I say to my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Speaker, I believe we're going to have a serious budget discussion with the White House for the first time in the 3 years of this administration. We're going to have a serious budget dropped on our doorstep, and then the Budget Committee is going to be involved in a serious discussion about how to bring the White House's priorities and the House's priorities in line with the American people's priorities. That process does not happen in a vacuum. That process happens in the sunshine, the bright daylight that is this U.S. House Chamber, Mr. Speaker. And with this reform combined with the other nine reforms coming out of the Budget Committee, we are taking steps forward to change forever the way this town does its budgeting business. I'm very proud to sit on both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, to have had a hand both in the underlying legislation and this resolution today. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, so that we can bring up the underlying bill. Yesterday, the Rules Committee filed House Report 112-388, a report to accompany House Resolution 539, a resolution providing for consideration of H.R 3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011. The report inadvertently excluded an explanation of the waiver of all points of order contained in the resolution against the amendments printed in the report. The Committee on Rules is not aware of any points of order against any of the amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The waiver of all points of order against the amendments printed in the report is prophylactic in nature. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. We have no speakers remaining.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to end where I began, and that is in agreement with my colleague. He says we should be the wind at the back of small business. Nothing could be truer. Nothing could be more true. I don't believe that presiding over the largest regulatory expansion in the history of America is fulfilling the promise of being the wind at the back. That is wind in the face of American small businesses. I don't believe that presiding over the largest tax increase in American history counts as being the wind at the back of U.S. small business. I think that's a wind in the face of those small businesses. I do not believe that a new health care mandate is the wind at the back of small businesses. I believe that's a wind in the face of small businesses. But I take great comfort in knowing that while there may be all of those issues that divide us, there are principles that unite us. We should, in fact, be the wind at the back of small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this rule that makes in order every single idea to improve the underlying legislation, this budget reform rule is honest with the American people for the first time in my lifetime. You know, we hear so much talk about the payroll tax, Mr. Speaker. I know you're familiar with the way that accounting works. When folks pay--and for those of us in Congress, for everybody back home, it's 15.3 percent of your paycheck. 15.3 percent out of every paycheck- receiving American's pocket goes to the payroll tax, which goes to fund Social Security and Medicare. Under the clever accounting rules that the Congress and the President have so eloquently crafted, when I pay my 15.3 percent out of my paycheck every month, when every American worker, Mr. Speaker, pays their 15.3 percent, with the expectation that Medicare will be there for them when they retire, with the expectation that Social Security will be there for them when they retire, when we all contribute, the clever accounting rules here on Capitol Hill call that a credit. That's a credit to the United States Government's Treasury. It does not account for it as a debit because now folks have promised to have Social Security and Medicare there for me when I turn 67. It counts as a credit, Mr. Speaker. When we hire a new Federal employee, every new Federal employee we hire, Mr. Speaker, when they pay out of their monthly check to the Federal Employees Retirement System, that pension that's available to every Federal Government employee, that payment that they make into the pension program is counted as a credit. It's as if the more Federal employees we hire, the more money we'll make for America. No, because with every year of payment into that system, they get something very large out. This is not news to any business owner in America, Mr. Speaker. This is not news to any business owner in America. They have to do this accounting every day. You want to talk about the crooks on Wall Street; if Wall Street accounted the way the Federal Government does its accounting, they would in fact be crooks and they would in fact all be in jail. It's unconscionable. The wool that we pull--and we're all complicit in it, have been for years. The wool that we pull over the eyes of the American taxpayer-- and kudos to this Budget Committee and, candidly, to this budget chairman. Chairman Paul Ryan and the chairman of the Rules Committee, Chairman David Dreier, have been working on fundamental budget reform for a decade. And why it is that neither party has had the courage to bring this forward until now I do not know, but I stand here with pride to be associated with it today. Mr. Speaker, if you want to create jobs, call your Senator. Call your Senator from your home State, Mr. Speaker, and share with them the importance of moving the pro jobs agenda that is sitting on their doorstep. I understand, Mr. Speaker, and I wouldn't hold it against you if you can't remember all of the jobs bills we've passed, there have been so many, but you can see them. It's on the Web, jobs.gop.gov. You can see it there, every single one, and you can see their status. Now, in fairness to the Senate, of the more than 30 bills we've passed, they've done a handful, and I mean literally a handful, but dozens more sit there waiting. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if the pitch from my colleague that we are abdicating our responsibility to focus on jobs took any root with you at all, let me say emphatically: Not true, not true. Our focus has always been on jobs. Our focus will continue to be on jobs. Our focus has always been the economy. Our focus will continue to be the economy. But there is a trust deficit in this town. Everyone hears it when they head home. Everybody hears it from their constituencies: I don't believe you when you say it out of Washington, D.C. I get it. I come up here. I read these budgets, Mr. Speaker. Some of them are hard to understand. We've got a whole team of staff here to help us sort through those numbers. I rely on that staff. I'll go and talk to them, and we'll go through it all line by line. It's hard to understand, and it doesn't need to be. It doesn't need to be D.C. doublespeak. It can be Georgia common sense that we bring to the budgeting process, and that is what the underlying resolution does today. In 2001, when President Bush took office, the CBO projected a surplus of $889 billion by 2011. That turned into a $1.3 trillion deficit under two Presidents--from $889 billion in surplus to $1.3 trillion in deficits. I'll tell you that every single spending bill that left this body over those years--and I was not in this body, serving, but I saw it day in and day out--was done with the very best of intentions. Yet where does that leave our children and our grandchildren? It leaves them $15 trillion in debt. You talk about being the wind at the backs of small businesses, Mr. Speaker. I tried to get my mind around what $15 trillion--on its way to $16 trillion--in debt means. Do you know, if you're a small business owner in America and if you'd started a business on the day that Jesus Christ was born and if you'd been so bad at it that you'd lost $1 million a day, every day, 7 days a week, Mr. Speaker, from the day Jesus was born until today, you would have to continue to lose $1 million a day every day, 7 days a week, for another 700 years to lose your first $1 trillion? As stewards of the American people's money, we've lost $15 trillion, much of that just in the last 4 years. Anything that we can do--no matter how big or small--that incorporates the American people into this budget discussion, that gives them the best information that they can have, that provides to us the best information that we can have and that does away with the funny math that has almost become a punch line across this country is a step in the right direction. There is a trust deficit in this country, and the underlying legislation today takes a very strong step towards correcting it. Mr. Speaker, I want to say again how much I appreciate Chairman Paul Ryan and his work in leading the Budget Committee as well as how much I appreciate Chairman David Dreier and his work in leading the Rules Committee. These two gentlemen have been champions of honesty in the budget process. What we have today, both in the rule and in the underlying bill, is the realization of their tireless efforts. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule. Vote ``yes'' on this rule that allows every single idea to improve the underlying legislation, and that's germane, to come to this House floor, and then vote your consciences. Vote your consciences on those amendments, and vote your consciences on the underlying bill. I wager, if this body votes its conscience on this underlying bill, it's going to pass this body and head to the United States Senate. Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 539 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say I agree with the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that we must move jobs legislation out of this U.S. House of Representatives, on to the United States Senate and on to the White House. This is a budget reform bill that, as the gentleman accurately stated, is a serious bill to address a serious problem. We didn't do this in January of last year, our very first term in office. Then we were working on repealing the President's health care bill, which remains a national priority. We didn't do this last April when we were focused on presenting the first serious budget that dealt seriously with the underlying debt drivers, those entitlement programs, for the first time since 1965. We didn't deal with these issues while we were trying to continue to fund this government through a regular appropriations process, a process that hadn't taken place in over three years. We have brought this bill to the floor today. What were we doing in the intervening time, Mr. Speaker? We were working on jobs. We were working on jobs, because I agree with the gentleman, that is something we must focus on. Reducing regulatory burdens sits with the Senate. Energy Tax Prevention Act sits with the Senate. Consumer Financial Protection and Soundness Improvement Act sits with the Senate. Small Company Capital Formation Act sits with the Senate. I could go on and on and on consuming all of our, time because the gentleman is right. Jobs are the priority. And this House and this leadership and this Congress has made it a priority. But to what end, Mr. Speaker? To what end? Will we stop focusing on this national priority? Absolutely not. Will we continue bringing bill after bill after bill to this floor that speaks to the needs of American families? You'd better believe it. But will we abdicate our responsibility? Mr. Speaker, I've got cards aplenty in my pocket. One of them's the United States Constitution. Do you know where the responsibility to budget comes from, Mr. Speaker? This wasn't a power grab, like so many things that go on in this House where we're removing power from the American people. This is a constitutionally delineated responsibility of this House. And I will not apologize for being down here focusing on those things that the Constitution requires us to focus on. Now, that said, it's a fair question to say, but Rob, this is a small bill. This is a small bill. You know what? A lot of folks might take that as an insult, Mr. Speaker. I'm flattered by it because, as I have watched this process, we have seen too many giant resolutions, 1,000-, 2,000-, 3,000-, 4,000-page resolutions come to this floor. Is that practice gone forever? I suspect we'll see another monstrosity come our way. I hope not, but I suspect we will. But in the interim, we can do better. On the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, we actually had that discussion. This is 10 separate pieces of legislation. My colleague from New Jersey earlier was saying we want up-or-down votes on this floor. We want yes-or-no votes on this floor. I share his passion, and that's what we've done. Instead of bringing a giant, omnibus budget reform bill that had lots of different things tied into it, Mr. Speaker, we've decided to bring one idea at a time, just one, one idea at a time, and allow this House, the people's House, to have that yes-or-no vote on whether or not this is an idea that has merit. I appreciate my colleague's statement that this is a serious bill to confront a serious issue. And I will tell you, and it has developed more meaning to me, Mr. Speaker, since I have been a Member in this House for the last 12 months--it was Edmund Burke, he was a colleague of ours on the other side of the pond in the House of Commons, and a huge supporter of the American Revolution. And he said this: No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. I confess, Mr. Speaker, I was a little naive when I showed up here as a freshman last January. I thought I was going to be able to fix it. I thought my colleagues and I, you and I, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and I, working together, I thought we were going to be able to fix it. It's taken a little longer than I thought. Those big bites at the apple have not been as successful as I hoped. Have we passed them here? Yes. Has the Senate moved on them and sent them to the President? No. So we changed gears, bringing the little ideas to the floor, those little ideas that, as my colleague from New Jersey mentioned, are serious reform proposals. I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud of these underlying proposals, and I'm proud of this rule that makes them in order. To be clear, it's a little unheard of in this House, and it's happened on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and Democrats alike have used this floor for their own devices. This rule makes in order every single idea and suggestion that's germane to the underlying bill that was brought by either Republicans or Democrats. What's better than that? What's fairer than that? What is more American than that? I understand, I know the Rules Committee has some tough decisions to make up there, and occasionally a closed rule comes to this floor. I'm generally grimacing as much as anybody when that happens. I believe in the openness of this process. But to say, send me all of your ideas and suggestions, Mr. Speaker, send them all to the Rules Committee, and for the Rules Committee to say, anything that's germane, we've made in order today, Mr. Speaker-- this is not a resolution to vote ``no'' on. This is the rule, not just a rule, this is the rule to come to the House floor and cast a proud ``yes'' vote for today. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, it's the Tax Code that brings me down to the House floor today. You know, if you care about special interest tax breaks in this town, there is only one bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that eliminates every single special interest tax break in the United States Code--every break, every exception, every exemption, every favor--and that's H.R. 25, the FAIR Tax, Mr. Speaker. You know about the FAIR Tax. It's the most widely cosponsored, fundamental tax reform proposal in the entire U.S. House of Representatives. It's the most widely cosponsored, fundamental tax reform proposal in the entire United States Senate. And it is the only bill in Congress that solves every single special interest break. The only one. And it brings American manufacturing jobs back to America; puts the American manufacturing community on a level playing field with our foreign competitors, the only bill in Congress that gets that done. Mr. Speaker, if you want to see more about it, you know you can see it at www.thomas.gov. You can see it at www.fairtax.org. It's H.R. 25, and it will save this American economy.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, this is another one of those commonsense reforms that I'm so proud that this Budget Committee has brought to the floor, time and time again, and will continue throughout the spring. When I get back home, Mr. Speaker, folks say, Rob, why haven't you gotten this done already? And my friend from Massachusetts has just laid out exactly the reason why. These are politics of division, not of unity. These are politics of fear, not of hope. And I tell my friend, as he knows very well, this bill does not cut one penny from any of the priorities that he mentioned. My friend knows it to be true. Mr. Speaker, you know it to be true, and I say it to the American people today, what this bill does is to shine sunshine on what has been a budget process cloaked in darkness for far too long. And both parties have been complicit in that, Mr. Speaker, and both parties are going to unite today to change that history. Mr. Speaker, do folks back home want to see over 50 different duplicative job training programs plussed up year after year after year, without any regard to their efficacy? No, they don't. Do folks back home want to see education programs that have failed our children time and time again plussed up, while those education programs that are successful go needy? No, they don't. Mr. Speaker, do folks want to see those income security programs that are providing insecurity to folks back home plussed up at the expense of those programs that can be a hand up out of poverty? I tell you they do not. This bill does one thing and one thing only: This bill provides honesty in our budget process. And if this motion to recommit passes, we will return to the days where confusion, rather than clarity, is the touchstone of this budget process. Chairman Ryan has given us an opportunity, with this legislation, to bring the American people into this debate, to make the budgeting here in this body look like the budgeting around the dinner table back home. Are expenses going up in this country? They are, Mr. Speaker. Are times tough in this country? Yes, they are. When we spend $10 today and $12 tomorrow, the American people know that we're spending more and not less. We can continue to put lipstick on this budget pig, as this motion to recommit would have us do, Mr. Speaker, but I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and unite to throw open the doors of this institution and bring in budget sunshine once again. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. WOODALL

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. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 534 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to be down here with you today, and for the purpose of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Hastings). General Leave

Mr. WOODALL. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 534, this rule before us today, brings the first of two Budget Committee reform bills to the floor. As the Speaker is very familiar, the Budget Committee has been working very hard, not just this year but last year as well, to put together an agenda to make the budget more accessible to the American people, to make budgeting in Washington, DC, look more like budgeting back home around the kitchen table. We have the first of those two reform bills coming to the floor today with the passage of this rule. This rule is a structured rule, Mr. Speaker, that brings H.R. 3578, the Baseline Reform Act, and H.R. 3582, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, to the floor. We all know it's been over a thousand days since the Senate has produced a budget. But here in the House, not only did we produce a budget last year on time, we will produce a budget this year on time, and we will produce another budget, as we did last year, that the American people can be proud of. Knowing that it's a given the American people are going to be proud of that work product, Mr. Speaker, because you and I will ensure it, the question is, will folks be able to understand it. I confess, as a freshman member on the Budget Committee, Mr. Speaker, it's not always easy to do. The President is going to submit his budget to us in a couple of weeks. I think it was going to be next week. I think he's put it off for another week. I'm looking forward to seeing it when it finally arrives. But my recollection and expectation is going to be it's going to be more than 12 inches tall. Not because the President's doing anything wrong, but because that's the level of detail and sophistication it takes to produce a budget for the United States of America. So what can we do to make this budget easier to understand? What can we do to make this budget more like the budgeting that goes on around the kitchen table? The Baseline Reform Act, the first bill that this rule would bring to the floor, does this, Mr. Speaker. It eliminates the assumption that CBO makes today that every Congress is going to spend more next year than the previous Congress. Now, there are, as a function of law, Mr. Speaker, some areas of the budget that do in fact go up. We know, for example, that 10,000 new Americans every day apply for Social Security and Medicare. 10,000 new baby boomers every day apply for Social Security and Medicare. We calculate that in the law. It exists in statute today to say let's go ahead and raise that spending level based on those new folks accessing the system. But there's over a trillion dollars in spending, Mr. Speaker, for which there is no law that says it's going to go up next year and the year after that and the year after that. And yet, the Congressional Budget Office today, when they chart out the budget for the United States of America, assumes that that increase is going to take place. Well, I'm tremendously proud, Mr. Speaker, that at least in my short time here I've seen just the opposite. Every single bill that this body has brought to the floor and sent to the President has reduced spending. Spending was $1.91 trillion in 2010. We reduced it to $1.50 trillion in 2011. We reduced it again to $1.43 trillion for 2012. That's the trend that my constituents want back home, Mr. Speaker, and I think the trend that America deserves. But more importantly, we've all been involved in those conversations back home where folks say, when is a cut not really a cut? When is an increase not really an increase? Only here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, can we spend $10 last year and $12 next year and call that a budget cut. Only here. The Baseline Reform Act eliminates that. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, the second bill that this rule would bring to the floor, adds a new bit of information to the Congressional Budget Office baseline. It's the same information that President Obama asked for in his stimulus bill, to say, when we spend this $800 billion, what impact is that going to have. We know it's going to be $800 billion out the door. We know we're never going to get that money back. We know that's going to be money that we have to borrow from foreign lands. But what do we get for that $800 billion? We asked the Congressional Budget Office to score it that way and they did. What the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says is let's add that feature for every future bill on the tax side of the ledger. What happens, Mr. Speaker, when we cut taxes? We know that means less revenue comes in from that one tax, but what does it mean for the economy as a whole? We see it over and over again when we have taxes at their highest. Sometimes our tax receipts are at their lowest. When we have tax rates at their lowest, sometimes our tax receipts are at their highest. The Congressional Budget Office can give us that information, and this bill makes it possible for them to do that. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm tremendously proud and tremendously enthusiastic about not only the rule but the two underlying bills, and I look forward to that discussion not just on the rule with my friend, Mr. Hastings, but with the Budget Committee later on this afternoon. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just really take a moment to think about the doublespeak here in Washington, D.C. That's been the biggest adjustment since having the great privilege of being a Member in this U.S. House of Representatives. What my friend from Florida I know very genuinely calls sneaky, I call common sense. You know, today in the budget, Mr. Speaker, today in the budget, the CBO doesn't have to follow the law for about a quarter of all Federal Government spending. When they are scoring Medicare and Medicaid, they follow the law to say what's Medicare and Medicaid going to do over the next 10 years. When they're scoring discretionary spending, however, they just guess. They just guess. That's what the process is today: Just guess at what future Congresses are going to be. What are those future Congresses going to do? Now, I tell you that's an exercise in folly, and you couldn't possibly get it right. That's what the CBO Director told us yesterday, that it's a challenge to put these numbers together. And the more they have to guess, the more inaccurate their result becomes. So what are these two bills?

Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WOODALL. I thank my friend for asking. Reclaiming my time, what those 40 years are are 40 years of congressionally mandated action. But that's what's so different here, Mr. Speaker. There are things that Congress speaks to and things about which Congress is silent. And for reasons unbeknownst to me or the families back home in my district, what this Congress has said, this body that's been instilled with the power of all of our voters back home, we've said we advocate it, CBO just guess. You know, when you and I were working together last summer on the Budget Control Act, we went exactly the opposite route. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget Control Act, we said don't guess about what's going to happen next year. We're putting a number in statute for spending. Don't guess about what's going to happen 2 years down the road for that. We're putting a number in statute. And don't guess about another year down the road for that, because we are putting a number in statute. Look at that, Mr. Speaker. What we've chosen to do, instead of just guessing about the country's future, is to do what the American people sent us here to do, and that's legislate on the country's future. Only here can you spend $10 this year, $12 next year and call that a cut. I don't get it. I don't get it, and folks back home don't get it. Far from being gimmickry, this is unifying the Federal budget process with what that budget process is for millions of families back home around the dinner table. And to be clear about the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, Mr. Speaker, because I want to make sure that my friend from Florida and I are working on the same information, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act does not change the CBO baseline process at all, not at all. The same score that CBO would have done for legislation yesterday, they're going to do that same score for legislation tomorrow if the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act becomes law. What will be different is--and I love this about the direction of this Congress, Mr. Speaker. The difference will be the American people will have a new piece of information to add to the old baseline, a new piece of information. During the discussion yesterday with the Congressional Budget Office, we got the CBO baseline, but we also got additional information--what would happen if you extended tax cuts, what would happen if you did alternative things called the alternative baseline. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act says let's build on that. Because, in these times, we can't afford to have any stone unturned for economic growth for this country; and we certainly can't afford to continue, as this town has done far too long if we're candid with ourselves, far too long, keeping the American people in the dark about Federal budgeting issues. These two bills, again, these are just the first of 10 bills that will be coming to this floor, Mr. Speaker. But these two bills shine a spotlight on the Federal budget process in ways that we can all be proud, and I can discuss that even further later on. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I absolutely believe that our small businesses are overtaxed today. As the gentleman knows, I've introduced the most cosponsored piece of fundamental tax reform legislation in this House, another version of which has been introduced in the Senate, and has more cosponsors than any other fundamental reform bill in the Senate. And what does that bill do--called the FAIR Tax, H.R. 25, Mr. Speaker, in the House--it abolishes small business taxes entirely. It recognizes the economic truth that businesses don't pay taxes, consumers pay taxes. I absolutely agree, I don't want to just do a cut, I would say to my friend. I want to abolish those taxes altogether. And what Congressman Price's Pro-Growth Budgeting Act would do is share with the American people, because we know that's going to lose money in year one because we're cutting taxes. The only way the government gets money is from taxes. You reduce taxes, that's a loss in year one. What that bill would do, Mr. Speaker, is provide the secondary impact, the tertiary impact, share with the American people. Well, what happens in year two? It's like going to college, Mr. Speaker. When you go to college, you lose money. It's a drain on your bank account. And if you equate the drain on your bank account of going to college the same as the drain on your bank account of going to McDonald's, you're going to make some bad decisions. You've got to know the impact of those down the road.

Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I always enjoy listening to my friend from New Jersey because inevitably I agree with about the first six things he says. All of the facts on which he bases his conclusions, I agree on. And I just reach a completely different set of conclusions. My friend said that one of the challenges we have in America is that folks think that they're working as hard as they can but they're going backwards instead of forwards. I get that in my district, too. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. Hope is so powerful in this country, when we lose that hope, we really get ourselves in a world of hurt. I think the gentleman is absolutely right. The gentleman says we can't get the economy back on track unless we get our small businesses moving again. The gentleman is absolutely right. I know it to be true. I see it in my Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Speaker. But what then? Agreeing that the American people are working as hard as they can, and they feel like they're going backwards. Agreeing that the small business community is working as hard as it can, but it can't find enough consumers. What's the answer? My friend from New Jersey laid out, as my President did, four giant spending initiatives with borrowed money that he believes if only the Federal Government would get involved in, we could regenerate those two needy areas. And my constituents tell me exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker. My constituents say: Rob, if only the Federal Government were not involved in my life, if only the Federal Government were not borrowing all of this money, if only the Federal Government would leave us alone and let us succeed. The government is not the solution, they tell me; the government is the problem. These two bills today, sadly, I again agree with my friend, do nothing to stop the government from being a problem. And in fairness, the Budget Committee is not in that business. The Budget Committee is in the planning of the financial future business. We need the authorizing committees to actually shrink the size and scope of government. But what these two bills do, and it troubles me, candidly, it troubles me that it's even an area of debate. What these two bills do is one thing and one thing only, and that's provide additional arrows in the quiver of information that we provide to the American people about the American fiscal situation. And on days like today, Mr. Speaker, with challenges like we have today, the American people deserve the truth. It's not always easy to say it, but we owe it to them to say it, and these two bills move us in that direction.

Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. WOODALL

Mr. WOODALL. I'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman if he would yield.