HR-8570-119
Referred to the Committee on Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Ben Cline (R-VA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to include additional information in its cost estimates. Specifically, CBO would need to show the quantitative difference between its standard estimate and what the cost would be without baseline assumptions, identify which baseline assumptions caused that difference, and explain any programs where baseline assumptions make a measure appear cheaper than its actual expected cost — including cases where the baseline assumes a program, benefit, or payment rate will be extended or continued.
Who benefits
Members of Congress and their staff who want more transparent budget information when voting on legislation. Fiscal watchdog organizations and budget analysts who track federal spending. Journalists and researchers who rely on CBO estimates to explain legislation to the public. Taxpayers broadly, to the extent greater transparency leads to more informed spending decisions. Opponents of specific spending programs who argue baseline assumptions obscure true costs.
Who is hurt
Legislators and advocates who support programs that benefit from favorable baseline assumptions, as greater transparency could make those programs appear more expensive and harder to pass or extend. Federal agencies and program beneficiaries whose funding levels are protected by current baseline conventions. CBO itself would face an increased analytical workload. Proponents of the current budget process who argue baseline assumptions serve legitimate forecasting purposes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that CBO's current baseline assumptions — which often treat expiring programs as if they will continue — can make legislation appear to cost less than it actually would, obscuring the true fiscal impact from lawmakers and the public. They contend that requiring CBO to show the difference between baseline-adjusted and baseline-free estimates would give Congress a clearer picture of real expected federal expenditures, enabling more honest budget debates and reducing the use of accounting conventions to minimize the apparent cost of new or extended spending.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that baseline assumptions are a technically sound and widely accepted forecasting tool that reflects the most realistic projection of future federal spending given existing law and policy trends — not an accounting trick. They contend that adding a "no-baseline" alternative estimate could mislead lawmakers by presenting an artificial comparison that ignores the practical reality of how Congress operates, and that the added complexity in CBO reports may generate confusion rather than clarity, particularly for non-expert readers who may misinterpret the two figures.
Constitutional context
This bill modifies an internal congressional process and does not raise significant constitutional questions. It falls squarely within Congress's authority to structure its own budgetary procedures under Article I. No Commerce Clause, Takings, or major questions doctrine issues are implicated.
Checks and balances
Congress gains modestly more information through CBO's expanded reporting; no branch gains or loses formal authority, as this bill changes disclosure requirements rather than decision-making power. CBO remains an independent legislative branch agency.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously required CBO to provide alternative scoring presentations, such as the requirement under the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 to score legislation against both current law and current policy baselines in certain contexts.