[House Report 112-421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-421
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2013
----------
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to accompany
H. Con. Res. 112
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2013
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-421
_______________________________________________________________________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2013
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
to accompany
H. Con. Res. 112
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
TOM COLE, Oklahoma EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
TOM PRICE, Georgia BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma TIM RYAN, Ohio
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
BILL FLORES, Texas KATHY CASTOR, Florida
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas KAREN BASS, California
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan
TODD ROKITA, Indiana
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Professional Staff
Austin Smythe, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Page
Statement of Congressional Authority Under the Constitution and
the Law........................................................ 3
Introduction: A Blueprint for American Renewal................... 5
Summary Tables--Spending and Revenues:
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution.................. 12
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending................................................... 15
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Mandatory
Spending................................................... 17
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution....... 20
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the
President's Budget......................................... 21
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution.................... 23
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and
Private Forecasters........................................ 25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Resolution................................................. 27
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2011-2015............................................ 28
Function-by-Function Presentation................................ 47
050 National Defense......................................... 49
150 International Relations.................................. 53
250 General Science, Space, and Technology................... 57
270 Energy................................................... 59
300 Natural Resources and Environment........................ 63
350 Agriculture.............................................. 67
370 Commerce and Housing Credit.............................. 69
400 Transportation........................................... 77
450 Community and Regional Development....................... 81
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services..... 85
550 Health................................................... 91
570 Medicare................................................. 95
600 Income Security.......................................... 99
650 Social Security.......................................... 103
700 Veterans Benefits and Services........................... 107
750 Administration of Justice................................ 109
800 General Government....................................... 111
900 Net Interest............................................. 113
920 Allowances............................................... 115
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................ 119
970 Global War on Terrorism and Related Activities........... 121
Revenue.......................................................... 123
Views and Estimates of the Committee on Ways and Means........... 127
Reprioritizing Sequester Savings................................. 131
Table 9. Reconciliation Savings by Authorizing Committee..... 135
The Long-Term Budget Outlook..................................... 137
Table 10. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the CBO
Alternative Fiscal Scenario................................ 141
Section-by-Section Description................................... 143
Title I. Spending and Revenue Levels......................... 143
Title II. Reconciliation..................................... 144
Title III. Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040,
and 2050................................................... 145
Title IV. Reserve Funds...................................... 146
Title V. Budget Enforcement.................................. 147
Title VI. Policy............................................. 151
Title VII. Sense of the House Provisions..................... 153
The Congressional Budget Process................................. 155
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee
on Appropriations.......................................... 158
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget
amounts)................................................... 159
Enforcing Budgetary Levels....................................... 163
Reconciliation................................................... 165
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations................... 167
Votes of the Committee........................................... 169
Other Matters To Be Discussed Under the Rules of the House....... 195
Minority Views................................................... 196
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013..... 201
T A B L E S
Page
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution...................... 12
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending....................................................... 15
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending... 17
Table 4. Summary of Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution........... 20
Table 5. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the President's
Budget......................................................... 21
Table 6. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private
Forecasters.................................................... 25
Table 7. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Resolution..................................................... 27
Table 8. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2011-2015................................................ 28
Table 9. Reconciliation Savings by Authorizing Committee......... 135
Table 10. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution vs. the CBO
Alternative Fiscal Scenario.................................... 141
Table 11. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee on
Appropriations................................................. 158
Table 12. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget amounts) 159
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 112-421
======================================================================
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2013
_______
ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2013 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2014 THROUGH 2022
_______
March 23, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, from the Committee on the Budget, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H. Con. Res. 112]
Statement of Congressional Authority Under the Constitution and the Law
----------
Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the
power to appropriate funds from the Treasury, pay the
obligations of and raise revenue for the Federal Government,
and publish statements and accounts of all financial
transactions.
In addition, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act
of 1974 requires Congress to write a budget each year
representing its plan to carry out these transactions in the
forthcoming fiscal years. While the President is required to
propose his administration's budget requests for Congress's
consideration, Congress alone is responsible for writing the
laws that raise revenues, appropriate funds, and prioritize
taxpayer dollars within an overall Federal budget.
The budget resolution is the only legislative vehicle that
views government comprehensively. It provides the framework for
the consideration of other legislation. Ultimately, a budget is
much more than series of numbers. It also serves as an
expression of Congress's principles, vision, and philosophy of
governing.
This budget, submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives
for fiscal year 2013 and beyond, builds upon the budget that
was written and passed by the new House majority last year.
Like last year's budget, it is offered on time, in accordance
with the 1974 Budget Act, out of respect for the law and in
order that the public be given a timely and transparent
accounting of their government's work.
Like last year's budget, it is committed to the timeless
principles of American government enshrined in the U.S.
Constitution--liberty, limited government, and equality under
the rule of law.
And like last year's budget, it seeks to guide the Nation's
policies by those principles, freeing it from the crushing
burden of debt now threatening its future.
This budget is submitted, as prescribed by law, to clarify
the challenges and the choices facing the American people, to
provide a blueprint for the orderly execution of Congress's
constitutional duties, and to describe a path forward that
renews the promise of this exceptional Nation.
Introduction
----------
A Nation Challenged
The challenges this Nation faces are among the largest in
its history.
For years, bad policies advanced by both political parties
have contributed to an irresponsible build-up of debt in the
economy, and this debt now poses a fundamental challenge to the
American way of life.
This build-up of debt has manifested its effects in both
the private and public sectors. In 2008, excessive leverage in
the financial sector overwhelmed many banks, businesses and
families. Irresponsible decisions in Washington and on Wall
Street fueled a housing-price bubble that collapsed and turned
mortgage-backed securities into ``toxic assets.'' It soon
became clear that these assets, which were spread throughout
the financial sector, posed a systemic risk to the economy. The
resulting wave of panics, bankruptcies and foreclosures brought
the global financial system to the brink of collapse.
America is still living with the painful consequences of
that crisis today. While some of the Federal Government's
emergency actions in late 2008 helped to stem the immediate
financial crisis, much of its intervention in the wake of the
crisis simply aggravated the underlying problems. In most
cases, policymakers sought to address the symptoms of the
crisis by transferring private-sector debt to the public
balance sheet. Since Election Day 2008, debt held by the public
has increased by roughly $4.5 trillion--a 70 percent increase
in a mere four years.
This remedy didn't just ignore the underlying cause of the
problem--it made the problem far worse. In Europe, the
accumulation of public-sector debt now threatens to cause an
even bigger calamity than the one caused by private-sector debt
in 2008. The world's new ``toxic asset'' is the sovereign debt
of irresponsible European governments, infecting the balance
sheets of major banks and threatening the stability of the
global economy. And in the United States, government debt
continues to rise at a frightening pace, raising fears that a
similar crisis may happen here.
The growing possibility of such a crisis is creating
debilitating uncertainty about the future, hurting job creation
and economic growth today. The economy has picked up in recent
quarters, but overall growth and job creation remain sub-par,
and unprecedented numbers of Americans have simply given up
trying to find work. Real GDP grew by just 1.7 percent in 2011,
and private-sector forecasters are calling for growth of 2.3
percent in 2012--well below the 3.0 percent historical trend
rate of U.S. growth and just a fraction of the growth pace
observed in a typical recovery from recession. Noted
economists, including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,
have argued that enacting a credible plan to deal with
America's long-term debt build-up would have a positive effect
on growth and jobs immediately.
Unfortunately, in the years following the meltdown, the
President and his party's leaders failed to use their full
control of Washington to offer any plan to lift the debt and
foster sustainable economic growth. Instead, the crisis was
used as an excuse to enact unprecedented and counterproductive
expansions of government power. A massive stimulus package
failed to deliver promised reductions in unemployment. An
unpopular health care takeover was jammed through Congress on a
party-line vote. A short-sighted financial-regulatory overhaul
failed to fix what was broken on Wall Street and made future
bailouts more likely. And Federal policymakers in thrall to a
misguided form of environmental activism pushed through
regulations and other policies that are making energy more
expensive in the midst of a weak economy.
Through it all, the government's fiscal position sharply
deteriorated. Total Federal debt has now surpassed the size of
the entire U.S. economy. And the government's non-partisan
auditors have issued report after report warning of even larger
debts to come, driven by health and retirement security
programs that are being weakened by severe demographic and
economic challenges.
Instead of taking action, the administration punted the
Nation's fiscal problems to a bipartisan commission, whose
recommendations it proceeded to ignore in favor of proposals
filled with gimmicks instead of real solutions. And the
Democratic leaders of the Senate have altogether abandoned
their legal obligation to provide a budget plan--it has been
three years since the Senate passed a budget.
A Choice of Two Futures
Both parties share the blame for failing to take action
over the years. But while Republicans offered a budget last
year that would lift the crushing burden of debt and restore
economic growth, the President and his party's leaders are
still refusing to take seriously the urgent need to advance
credible solutions to the looming fiscal crisis. Instead, they
are still offering little more than false attacks and failed
leadership.
Questioned about this disappointing reality at a recent
House Budget Committee hearing, Treasury Secretary Timothy
Geithner admitted, ``We're not coming before you to say we have
a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know
is we don't like yours.''\1\ The President's strategy seems to
amount to this: Let somebody else propose a path forward, and
then attack them for political gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Geithner, Timothy. ``The President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget:
Revenue and Economic Policy Proposals.'' House Budget Committee
hearing. February 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This budget offers a better path. The following report lays
out the challenge--and the choice--that America faces in each
key area of the budget. The common thread connecting them all
is that a sharp and sudden debt crisis would threaten the
entire American project: It would weaken national security,
shred the safety net that vulnerable Americans rely on, break
promises to seniors, impose massive tax increases on families,
and leave all Americans with a diminished future.
This looming crisis represents an enormous challenge, but
it also represents a defining choice: whether to continue down
the path of debt, doubt and decline, or put the Nation back on
the path to prosperity. It also represents a tremendous
opportunity for this generation of Americans to rise to the
challenge, as previous generations have, and fulfill this
Nation's unique legacy of leaving future generations with a
freer, more prosperous America.
A Blueprint for American Renewal
This budget sets forth a model of government guided by the
timeless principles of the American Idea: free enterprise and
economic liberty; limited government and spending restraint;
traditional family and community values; and a strong national
defense.
The Federal Government has strayed from these American
principles. This budget offers a set of fundamental reforms to
put the Nation back on the right track.
The role of the Federal Government is both vital and
limited. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually
does not do any of them very well. Limited government also
means effective government. This budget recommits the Federal
Government to the security of every American citizen's natural
right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while
fostering an environment for economic growth and private-sector
job creation.
1. Prioritize defense spending to keep America safe
With American men and women in uniform currently engaged
with a fierce enemy and dealing with emerging threats around
the world, this budget takes several steps to ensure that
national security remains government's top priority.
Providing for the common defense: This budget rejects
proposals to make thoughtless, across-the-board cuts in funding
for national defense. Instead, it provides $554 billion for
national defense spending, an amount that is consistent with
America's military goals and strategies. This budget preserves
necessary defense spending to protect vital national interests
today and ensures future real growth in defense spending to
modernize the armed forces for the challenges of tomorrow.
Reprioritizing sequester savings to protect the Nation's
security: The defense budget is slated to be cut by $55
billion, or 10 percent, in January of 2013 through the
sequester mechanism enacted as part of the Budget Control Act
of 2011. This reduction would be on top of the $487 billion in
cuts over ten years proposed in President Obama's budget. This
budget eliminates these additional cuts in the defense budget
by replacing them with other spending reductions. Spending
restraint is critical, and defense spending needs to be
executed with effectiveness and accountability. But government
should take care to ensure that spending is prioritized
according to the nation's needs, not treated indiscriminately
when it comes to making cuts. The nation has no higher priority
than safeguarding the safety and liberty of its citizens from
threats at home and abroad.
2. End cronyism and restore free enterprise
A growing economy, increased employment and higher wages
will come from traditional American ingenuity and enterprise,
not from government. To achieve this end, small businesses need
to be empowered, and the size and scope of Washington need to
be reduced so that the hard work and enterprise of Americans
can lead a strong, sustained recovery.
Ending corporate welfare: There is a growing and pernicious
trend of government overreach into the private economy--a trend
that stacks the deck in favor of entrenched interests and
stifles growth. This budget stops Washington from picking
winners and losers across the economy. It rolls back corporate
subsidies in the energy sector. It ends the taxpayer bailouts
of failed financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. It repeals the government takeover of health care
enacted last year and begins to move toward patient-centered
reform. And it reduces the bureaucracy's reach by applying
private-sector realities to the Federal Government's civilian
workforce.
Boosting American energy resources: Too great a percentage
of America's vast natural resources remain locked behind
bureaucratic barriers and red tape. This budget lifts
moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration in the
United States, ends Washington policies that drive up gas
prices, and unlocks American energy production to help lower
costs, create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Streamlining other government agencies: Domestic government
agencies have grown too much and too fast over the past decade,
and much of their funding has gone to harmful programs and
dead-end projects. This budget starts to restore spending
discipline. It builds on efforts undertaken last year to
contain the government's growth, and it targets hundreds of
government programs that have outlived their usefulness.
3. Strengthen the social safety net
This budget builds upon the historic progress of bipartisan
welfare reform in the late 1990s. It strengthens Medicaid, food
stamps and job-training programs by providing States with
greater flexibility to help recipients build self-sufficient
futures for themselves and their families.
Repairing a broken Medicaid system: Medicaid's flawed
financing structure has created rapidly rising costs that are
nearly impossible to check. Mandate upon mandate has been
foisted upon States under the flawed premise that the best
ideas for repairing this important health care safety net can
come only from Washington. This budget ends that misguided
approach and instead converts the Federal share of Medicaid
spending into a block grant, thus freeing States to tailor
their Medicaid programs to the unique needs of their own
populations.
Prioritizing assistance for those in need: The welfare
reforms of the 1990s, despite their success, were never
extended beyond cash welfare to other means-tested programs.
This budget completes the successful work of transforming
welfare by reforming other areas of America's safety net to
ensure that welfare does not entrap able-bodied citizens into
lives of complacency and dependency.
Ensuring educational and job-training opportunities for a
21st century economy: The government's well-intentioned
approach to higher education and job training in America has
failed those who most need these forms of assistance. Federal
tuition subsidies are often captured by (and to a certain
extent drive) rapidly rising tuition costs for those higher-
education programs that should be the first rung on the ladder
of opportunity. Meanwhile, dozens of job-training programs
suffer from overlapping responsibilities and too often lack
accountability.
This budget begins to address the problem of tuition
inflation and consolidates a complex maze of dozens of job-
training programs into more accessible, accountable career
scholarships aimed at empowering American workers with the
resources they need to pursue their dreams.
4. Fulfill the mission of health and retirement security
This budget puts an end to empty promises from Washington,
offering instead real security through real reforms. The
framework established in this budget ensures no disruptions to
existing health and retirement benefit programs for those
beneficiaries who have organized their retirements around them,
while at the same time building stronger programs that future
beneficiaries can count on when they retire.
Saving Medicare: Medicare is facing an unprecedented fiscal
challenge. Its failed reliance on bureaucratic price controls
and government rationing, combined with rising health care
costs, is jeopardizing seniors' access to critical care and
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the Nation.
This budget saves Medicare by fixing flaws in its structure so
it will be there for future generations. By putting these
solutions in place now, this budget ensures that changes will
not affect those in and near retirement in any way.
When younger workers become eligible for Medicare a decade
or more from today, they will be able to choose from a list of
guaranteed coverage options, including a traditional Medicare
fee-for-service plan. This flexibility will allow seniors to
enjoy the same kind of choices in their plans that members of
Congress enjoy. Medicare will provide a payment to subsidize
the cost of the plan. In addition, Medicare will provide
increased assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those
with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals--
with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick--will
guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health
security for America's seniors.
Advancing Social Security solutions: The risk to Social
Security, driven by demographic changes, is nearer at hand than
most acknowledge. This budget heads off a crisis by calling on
the President and both chambers of Congress to ensure the
solvency of this critical program.
5. Enact pro-growth tax reform
This budget recognizes that the Nation's fiscal health
requires a vibrant, growing private sector. It charts a
prosperous path forward by reforming a tax code that is overly
complex and unfair.
Individual tax reform: The current code for individuals is
too complicated, with high marginal rates that discourage hard
work and entrepreneurship. This budget embraces the widely
acknowledged principles of pro-growth tax reform by proposing
to consolidate tax brackets and lower tax rates, with just two
rates of 10 and 25 percent, while clearing out the burdensome
tangle of loopholes that distort economic activity.
Corporate tax reform: American businesses are overburdened
by one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the
developed world. The perverse incentives created by the
corporate income tax do a lot of damage to both workers and
investors, yet the tax itself raises relatively little revenue.
This budget improves incentives for job creators to work,
invest, and innovate in the United States by lowering the
corporate rate from 35 percent to a much more competitive 25
percent and by shifting to a territorial system that will
ensure a level playing field for American businesses.
6. Change Washington's culture of spending
Across the political spectrum, experts agree that the
budget process is badly broken and in need of reform. The
process fails to control spending, fails to provide adequate
oversight, and fails to allow the transparency needed for
accountability to the Nation's citizens.
Controlling spending: The budget process in Washington
contains numerous structural flaws that bias the Federal
Government toward ever-higher levels of spending. This budget
would lock in savings with enforceable spending caps and budget
process reforms, limiting what Washington spends and how tax
dollars are spent.
Enhancing oversight: This budget gives Congress greater
tools to perform oversight over wasteful Washington spending.
Increasing transparency: This budget promotes reforms that
would give taxpayers more information over how Washington is
spending their hard-earned dollars.
7. Lift the crushing burden of debt
This budget charts a sustainable path forward, ultimately
erases the budget deficit completely, and begins paying down
the national debt.
Americans truly face a monumental choice--a choice that can
no longer be avoided.
The Path to Prosperity advances the serious conversation
begun last year about the future of this exceptional Nation and
the fundamental choices Americans must soon make about the kind
of Nation they want America to be.
This budget would put in place a comprehensive framework to
address the Nation's greatest challenges. It provides an
opportunity to initiate the actual work of statecraft. The
elected representatives of the American people--in the House of
Representatives, in the Senate and in the White House--now must
take up this budget and start building the future Americans
deserve.
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution
----------
Introduction
The U.S. economy picked up in the final quarter of 2011 but
overall growth and job creation remain sub-par. Real gross
domestic product [GDP] grew by just 1.7 percent in 2011 and
private-sector forecasters are calling for growth of 2.2
percent in 2012--well below the 3.0 percent historical trend
rate of U.S. growth and just a fraction of the growth pace
observed in a typical recovery from recession. Employment
increased by 243,000 in January, an encouraging sign, and the
unemployment rate edged down to a 3-year low of 8.3 percent but
there is still an enormous ``jobs deficit'' in the economy. It
is sobering to point out that of the nearly 8.8 million jobs
that were lost in the 2008/2009 recession and aftermath, only
about one-third have been recovered. Economists now estimate
that with such sub-par economic growth the unemployment rate
will probably not return to its pre-recession level until very
late in the decade.
Three key factors are likely to contribute to below-trend
U.S. economic growth in the near term: (1) likelihood of a
recession in Europe and fears of global financial market
contagion sparked by Europe's ongoing sovereign debt crisis,
(2) prolonged weakness in the U.S. housing market, including a
continued decline in home values, (3) only modest job growth,
which constrains wage and income growth and therefore consumer
spending (which typically accounts for 70 percent of U.S. GDP).
In addition, gasoline prices have risen 15 percent since the
beginning of the year and will likely rise further this spring
and summer, which promises to reduce consumers' purchasing
power. Noting the sub-par growth outlook and the attendant
downside risks, the Federal Reserve believes that it will most
likely keep interest rates at or near zero until the end of
2014.
The Current Economic Situation
The current economic data suggest that the U.S. economy is
expanding at a moderate pace, although the recovery from the
recession and financial crisis still promises to be long and
difficult.
Real GDP grew by 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011,
up from 1.8 percent in the third quarter. Roughly two-thirds of
that increase, however, was due to business inventory
restocking, a temporary boost to GDP that will not be sustained
in the coming quarters. The economy grew by a sluggish 1.7
percent in 2011 and the Blue Chip consensus of private-sector
forecasters sees GDP rising by just 2.2 percent in 2012. The
Federal Reserve has characterized the current economic recovery
as ``uneven and modest by historical standards.''
Total payroll employment rose by 227,000 in February.
Recent monthly job gains have been encouraging, though at this
pace it would still take until the end of the decade to return
to a pre-recession level of unemployment.
The unemployment rate remained at a three-year low of 8.3
percent in February. Still, a broader gauge of under-
employment, which includes people who have stopped looking for
work or who can't find full-time jobs, is still over 15
percent. In addition, the long-term unemployment remains near
record levels as the share of the unemployed population who
have been out of work for six months or more is 43 percent.
The housing market remains a key drag on growth. Housing
prices have yet to fully bottom out and have showed some
renewed signs of decline in parts of the country. The ratio of
home equity to income is at an all-time low--a measure of the
enormous amount of housing wealth that has been lost due to the
drop in home prices. As households feel less wealthy, they are
less likely to spend, which puts a damper on the overall
economy.
Average U.S. gasoline prices have risen 15 percent so far
this year as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have
contributed to a sharp increase in oil prices. Analysts point
out that gas prices will likely continue to rise through the
spring and summer months, with some experts warning that prices
could reach $5 per gallon in some parts of the country. This
run-up in prices will have the effect of dampening consumers'
purchasing power.
The rise in energy prices is likely to lead to a bump-up in
the overall rate of inflation in coming months, though the
Federal Reserve expects this increase to be temporary. The Fed
generally expects inflation will run ``at or below'' its
preferred rate of 2.0 percent (as measured by the price
deflator for personal consumption expenditures) in the coming
quarters.
The yield on 10-year Treasuries has dipped to an all-time
low of just under 2 percent in recent months. Jitters about the
debt/ financial crisis in Europe have caused global investors
to seek out a relatively risk-free safe haven. This dynamic has
benefited the Treasury market and has helped to push U.S.
borrowing rates to very low levels.
The stock market has been on a recovery track after posting
sharp declines in the latter part of last year. Since dipping
to a cyclical low last October the S&P 500 has gained about 20
percent. This has been due to somewhat more positive U.S.
economic data combined with some decline in the fear that the
situation in Europe will spark a more serious global financial
crisis.
The Economic Outlook
The economic projections from the administration, the CBO,
and private forecasters generally show moderate to robust
growth in the next few years, though the range of predictions
is relatively wide.
CBO expects real GDP growth of 2.2 percent in 2012, in line
with private-sector forecasters, before slipping to just 1.0
percent in 2013. In its forecast, CBO is obligated to assume
all of the sizeable tax increases and spending reductions that
are currently built into current law, but which are unlikely to
occur in their totality. Beyond 2013, CBO expects fairly robust
annual growth ranging between 3 and nearly 5 percent over the
medium term. The administration's growth trajectory forecast is
generally in line with that of CBO, though on average it is
slightly more optimistic on the rate of growth, particularly in
the latter part of the decade. In contrast, the private-sector
Blue Chip growth forecast is more subdued than either the CBO
or the administration, with annual GDP growth failing to breach
the 3 percent threshold throughout the 10-year horizon.
Most forecasts see the unemployment rate declining slowly
from its current elevated level. CBO, for instance, expects the
unemployment rate to remain above 7 percent until the middle of
the decade. Both CBO and the administration don't see the
unemployment rate falling back to the pre-recession, pre-
financial crisis range of just over 5.0 percent until the
latter part of the decade. The Blue Chip consensus does not see
the unemployment rate dipping below 6 percent at any point in
the 10-year horizon.
As the economy recovers, the forecasts predict that
interest rates will gradually move higher. According to CBO,
the 10-year Treasury rate, which is currently at an all-time
low below 2 percent, will rise to about 4 percent in 2016 and 5
percent towards the end of the decade. Both the administration
and the Blue Chip consensus foresee higher interest rates than
CBO over both the near and medium-term.
Rates of inflation are also expected to normalize in the
coming years from their current low levels. CBO expects
inflation rates to remain quite low for longer than either the
administration or the private sector. Under CBO's forecast,
annual growth in the consumer price index remains below 2
percent until 2016. In contrast, the Blue Chip consensus sees
inflation reaching nearly 2.5 percent as early as 2014.
CBO's annual economic assumptions were adopted for use in
the budget resolution and are shown in Table 7.
FUNCTION-BY-FUNCTION PRESENTATION
----------
The budget resolution often is described as the
``architecture'' of policy--and the metaphor is fitting in
several ways. First, the budget resolution is the one
legislative measure in which the U.S. Congress states a
framework for the entire Federal Government through a federal
budget. Second, the measure allows Congress to establish
priorities through the proposed allocation of resources. Third,
it establishes total revenue, spending, deficit, and debt
levels, thus setting overall fiscal policy.
The budget resolution implements this architecture through
a myriad of technical components--chiefly numbers and
procedural mechanisms. Total spending in the budget is divided
among 21 budget ``functions.'' Each function represents a broad
area of government activities--national defense, international
affairs, transportation, education, health, and so on.
The functions have antecedents dating back decades, but
they are not directly linked to specific congressional
committees, agencies of the Executive Branch, or, for the most
part, particular programs; they transcend these units. Because
the totals in the functions are prospective--the budget is a
planning document, not an audit--they are not binding; they
simply describe how the Budget Committee views the expected
distribution of resources under the budget's guidelines. But
the committee allocations that flow from these function levels
(see ``The Congressional Budget Process'' later in this report)
do have a means of enforcement; and in that sense, the function
levels in the resolution are relevant to the programs over
which legislative committees have jurisdiction.
The budget functions presented here are the following:
050 National Defense
150 International Affairs
250 Science, Space, and Technology
270 Energy
300 Natural Resources and Environment
350 Agriculture
370 Commerce and Housing Credit
400 Transportation
450 Community and Regional Development
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services
550 Health
570 Medicare
600 Income Security
650 Social Security
700 Veterans Benefits and Services
750 Administration of Justice
800 General Government
900 Net Interest
920 Allowances
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
970 Overseas Deployments and Other Activities
When the function totals and committee allocations differ
from those estimated in baseline spending projections, it means
some form of policy change must occur to meet the budget
levels. The budget does not prescribe the specific policies--
the committees of jurisdiction make those decisions--but it
does drive changes in policy.
This budget assumes significant policy changes, and a major
readjustment of the Federal government's fiscal course. To
demonstrate the viability of these assumptions--and to prove
the credibility of the budget itself--this report offers a
range of policy options to help demonstrate how the budget's
fiscal goals could be achieved. These options are illustrative;
as noted, any actual policy changes are the discretion of the
committees with jurisdiction over the programs involved.
Nevertheless, the options are serious proposals, the
projections are based on Congressional Budget Office estimates,
and the proposals are justified in the report text. They are
worthy of consideration when House committees develop their
legislative proposals.
FUNCTION 050: NATIONAL DEFENSE
----------
Function Summary
The first job of the Federal Government is securing the
safety and liberty of its citizens from threats at home and
abroad. Whether defeating the terrorists who attacked this
country on September 11, 2001, combating piracy off the Horn of
Africa, or battling insurgents who would harbor terrorist
networks that threaten Americans' lives and livelihoods, the
men and women of the United States' military have performed
superbly. As reflected in the National Defense function, this
budget provides for the best equipment, training, and
compensation for their continued success.
National Defense includes funds to compensate, train,
maintain, and equip the military forces of the United States.
More than 95 percent of the funding in this function goes to
Department of Defense [DOD] military activities; the remainder
applies to the atomic energy defense activities of the
Department of Energy, and other defense-related activities
(primarily in connection with homeland security).
Funding for the Department of Defense's non-enduring
activities in Afghanistan and Iraq is reflected in Function 970
rather than in this account.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $562.2 billion in budget authority
and $621.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Most of the
spending in the function is discretionary, which in fiscal year
2013 totals $554.2 billion in budget authority and $613.5
billion in outlays. Mandatory spending in 2013 is $7.9 billion
in budget authority and $7.9 billion in outlays. The 10-year
totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.306 trillion and
$6.293 trillion, respectively.
The recommended discretionary levels are $2.4 billion above
the President's requested levels and equal to the amounts
enacted for fiscal year 2012. With nearly 70,000 U.S. soldiers,
airmen, sailors, and marines engaged in combat operations
against a fierce and stubborn enemy, it is simply not the time
to reduce defense spending. This funding level will ensure
adequate resources to maintain a high level of operational
readiness in fiscal year 2013 and address the numerous
operational readiness needs identified by the House Armed
Services Committee in its Views and Estimates letter on the
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
This resolution also protects the defense budget from the
nearly $1 trillion in indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts
that would result from the planned sequester under section 302
of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (see ``Reprioritizing
Sequester Savings'' for full details on how this budget
addresses the sequester). Instead of the 10 percent reduction
that would result from the sequester, this resolution provides
for modest real growth in each of the out-years of the budget
resolution. This funding path allows for the much-needed
modernization of the military's conventional and strategic
weapons systems.
This resolution does not, however, provide a blank check
for the Department of Defense. More than two decades after the
legal requirement was imposed, DOD is still not auditable.
Moreover, the civilian workforce at DOD has grown by 89,000
personnel (11 percent) since 2008. The Department can and
should become a better steward of the taxpayer funds entrusted
to it and more efficient in how it chooses to expend those
funds.
Secretary Panetta is to be commended for his focus on
achieving auditability, but the poor track record of DOD in
achieving previous audit improvement plans raises serious doubt
as to the likelihood of success in these efforts.
In 2011, the Department made a good start toward becoming
more efficient with the $78 billion in efficiency savings that
were proposed by Secretary Gates and incorporated into the
budget resolution passed by the House of Representatives.
Secretary Panetta has proposed an additional $60 billion in
savings through the more disciplined use of defense resources.
This resolution assumes these savings can be achieved, but
cautions against ephemeral savings that merely push costs
outside DOD's five-year planning window or that produce near-
term savings but result in greater long-term costs.
A robust national defense requires a substantial commitment
of national resources, and Congress and the administration must
remain vigilant to ensure the national defense program is
executed efficiently and accountably. The Armed Services
Committee has conducted an aggressive oversight agenda in the
112th Congress to ``ensure that the Department of Defense is
operated efficiently and with fiscal discipline in order to
maximize the return on the taxpayers' investments.'' A critical
element of that oversight agenda is a review of acquisition
programs with an eye toward reevaluating those programs that
``no longer represent the best value for the taxpayer.'' The
Committee commends the Armed Services Committee for its work in
this area and encourages further detailed examination of ways
for the United States to maximize the value of every defense
dollar.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Fully Fund Military Modernization. The new strategic
orientation toward the Asia-Pacific region announced by the
President will place greater reliance on the size and
capability of U.S. air and naval forces. Unfortunately the
budget requested by the President in furtherance of this
strategy does little to address the modernization needs of
these forces.
General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force,
has noted that today's Air Force is ``already smaller and older
than at the end of the post-Cold War downsizing.''\2\ The
President's budget proposes to delay the Air Force's major
modernization program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\General Norton Schwartz, ``Air Force Strategic Choices and
Budget Priorities Brief at the Pentagon,'' January 27, 2012. http://
www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid
=4965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget also proposes to abandon the
longstanding goal of expanding the naval battle fleet to 313
ships. Instead, the President's budget would result in a
persistently smaller fleet than at any time since the Second
World War. While U.S. naval forces unquestionably have
tremendous capabilities, any battle group can only be in one
place at one time. This reality is why, despite the purported
``pivot'' to Asia, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Jonathan Greenert, has said that there will not be any increase
in the naval presence in the region.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Sandra Jontz, ``Greenert reviews Navy's upcoming changes with
Naples sailors,'' Stars and Stripes, February 23, 2012. http://
www.stripes.com/mobile/news/greenert-reviews-navy-s-upcoming-changes-
with-naples-sailors-1.169556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By providing for real budget growth in future years, this
budget resolution ensures that the men and women of the armed
forces will have the resources needed to procure the equipment
and capabilities that will be essential to protecting American
interests abroad.
High priorities include ensuring adequate funding for the
modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons, forces, and supporting
infrastructure in accord with the President's commitments made
at the time of the ratification of the New START treaty; and
restoring needed funding to the shipbuilding and naval aircraft
accounts to ensure the full potency of U.S. carrier strike
groups.
Reject cost-shifting. The President's budget request
assumes over $42 billion in savings over the next five years
from restructuring several major procurement programs. What the
President's budget doesn't say is that most of those
``savings'' are merely shifted into the second five years of
the budget window when the only means of actually achieving
them will be additional draconian cuts in military end-strength
and compensation. This budget rejects this shell game, which
would otherwise result in the delayed fielding of needed
military capabilities; increased costs for major procurement
programs; and an unwise and precipitous reduction in the size
of the armed forces.
Air National Guard. The Air National Guard remains a
critical component of our national air defense system. This
budget recognizes the relative cost-effectiveness of the Air
Guard, which currently provides 35 percent of the U.S. Air
Force's capability for 6 percent of the budget. Forty-nine (49)
of our nation's governors have called on the U.S. Air Force to
reconsider its fiscal year 2013 budget request wherein the Air
National Guard absorbs 59 percent of the total aircraft budget
reductions and nearly six times the per capita personnel
reductions. The Committee takes a continuing interest in
ensuring that precipitous defense spending reductions do not
jeopardize the nation's security.
FUNCTION 150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
---------- --
--------
Function Summary
The foreign affairs budget plays a critical role in
advancing American interests abroad, including national
security. This budget includes programs pertaining to
international development and humanitarian assistance;
international security assistance; the conduct of foreign
affairs; foreign information and exchange activities; and
international financial programs. The primary agencies
responsible for executing these programs include the
Departments of Agriculture, State, Treasury, the United States
Agency for International Development [USAID], and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC].
Over the past 10 years, Function 150 funding has more than
doubled, increasing by 135 percent. This budget reflects a
thorough re-evaluation of accounts in Function 150 and
prioritizes programs that are both integral to the core budget
and that achieve desired results in an efficient manner. U.S.
interests are best achieved when these goals are met, and
taxpayer dollars should only be used to fund programs that are
effective. This budget assumes continued funding only for those
programs critical to advancing U.S. interests abroad.
Funding for the State Department and USAID's non-enduring
civilian activities in the frontline states of the global war
on terrorism is reflected in Function 970 rather than in this
account.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
For fiscal year 2013, the resolution proposes $43.128
billion in total budget authority (including mandatory and
discretionary spending) and $46.999 billion in outlays. For
fiscal year 2013, Function 150 discretionary spending, which
accounts for the vast majority of the budget, is $40.905
billion in budget authority and $47.522 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending for 2013 is $2.223 billion in budget
authority and -$523 million in outlays. (The negative outlay
figure reflects receipts from foreign military sales and
foreign military financing transactions.) Over 10 years, budget
authority totals $421.981 billion, with outlays of $462.974
billion.
Illustrative Policy Options
While final policy and funding decisions will ultimately be
made by the committees of jurisdiction, the following policies
are recommendations for these committees on how to meet the
proposed budget targets.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Consolidate USAID's Development Assistance [DA] with MCC.
The United States has two primary foreign development
assistance programs: USAID's Development Assistance program and
the Millennium Challenge Corporation [MCC]. Investing in
foreign aid and helping other nations rise towards prosperity
keeps the United States safe and strengthens the economy by
establishing new trading partners and markets. However,
development assistance is only worthwhile if it produces
results for aid recipients.
America's experience with having two development assistance
programs has shown that MCC's model better reflects this
principle when compared to DA. MCC's emphasis on outputs rather
than inputs needs to be the foundation of all U.S. foreign
assistance programs. Other elements of MCC's model that should
be extended throughout U.S. development assistance programs
include:
strict requirements on recipient countries
to prove strong commitments to good governance,
economic freedom, and investment in their citizens in
order to be considered for aid;
willingness of the U.S. Government to
terminate assistance if an aid recipient starts
slipping on these critical commitments;
country ownership, which requires the
country to plan its own aid project and lead
implementation; and
strict timelines for aid projects.
These principles are critical to ensuring the long-term
sustainability of projects once U.S. assistance concludes, thus
avoiding creating a culture of dependency on U.S. aid. USAID
claims to be moving toward adoption of more accountable policy
standards, country ownership, and timetables, but success
remains elusive. MCC's model is more effective and efficient in
delivering foreign aid and results in the most benefits for the
taxpayer dollar. For these reasons, this budget proposes MCC to
be the lead agency on foreign development assistance.
Eliminate Complex Crises Fund [CCF]. Established in 2010 to
support stabilization activities and conflict prevention in
countries demonstrating high risks of insecurity, the CCF has
never been authorized by the committee of jurisdiction and is
duplicative of the missions performed by the recently re-
organized Bureau of Conflict Stabilizations at the State
Department. The Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
is similarly responsible for developing a civilian capacity to
prevent and counter crises in nations where security issues are
of high concern. Due to mission overlap, eliminating the CCF
and allowing the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization
Operations to lead conflict prevention efforts is recommended.
The House Committee on Foreign Affairs makes the same
recommendation in its Views and Estimates letter for fiscal
year 2013.
Eliminate Funding for Peripheral Foreign Affairs
Institutions. The U.S. funds multiple independent agencies and
quasi-private institutions through the foreign affairs budget.
Included in this list are the Inter-American Foundation, the
African Development Foundation, the East-West Center, the Asia
Foundation, and the Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue.
These institutions all engage in programming that is redundant
of the State Department and USAID activities. Consolidating and
eliminating funding for multiple institutions that perform
similar tasks will make U.S. engagement with the world more
efficient and cost-effective. Further, some of these
organizations already receive private funding, and could
continue on with non-government funds.
Reduce Funding for Broadcasting Board of Governors. The
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) manages all U.S. civilian
international broadcasting and helps connect people around the
world in support of democracy. While the goals of the BBG are
laudable, its budget has increased by almost 40 percent over
the past decade and some of these programs are proving to be
less effective than intended. Further, although the Cold War
ended over 20 years ago, the BBG still provides broadcasting
services to 10 Eastern European countries. Given the fiscal
situation of the U.S. Government, the time has come to
reevaluate the usefulness of some of these services and to
reduce funding accordingly.
Reduce Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs. The
purpose of educational and cultural exchange programs is to
encourage mutual understanding between Americans and citizens
around the world through scholarship and leadership programs.
While this mission is laudable, exchange programs are not an
essential component of the foreign affairs budget. Over the
past five years, funding for these programs has increased by 24
percent. The administration has requested less funding for
these activities relative to last year's spending levels. This
budget reflects the priority accorded these activities.
Eliminate Contributions to Clean Technology Fund and
Strategic Climate Fund. The Clean Technology and Strategic
Climate Funds both support energy-efficient technologies
intended to reduce energy use and avert climate change. Both of
these funds were created by the Obama administration in fiscal
year 2010. At a time when fiscal restraint is necessary,
expanding U.S. international assistance into new areas is not
financially wise. Further, as discussed elsewhere in this
budget (see Function 250), the U.S. track record with energy-
related research and development is poor. This budget
recommends the elimination of both programs, reserving U.S.
foreign assistance for core foreign policy interests.
Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and
Programs. The United States voluntarily contributes to several
multilateral organizations and programs to promote U.S.
interests and achieve transnational goals. These contributions
are duplicative of funding provided in the Contribution to
International Organizations [CIO] account, which includes
obligatory payments to international organizations with which
the United States has signed treaties. While this budget fully
funds the CIO account, it does not support voluntary
contributions to the duplicative International Organizations
and Programs account.
Eliminate Feed the Future. Initiated by the Obama
administration in 2009, Feed the Future aims to end global food
insecurity through investments in nutrition and agriculture
abroad. While addressing the issues of poverty and malnutrition
around the globe is important, the U.S. Government's fiscal
condition does not permit the expansion of U.S. foreign
assistance initiatives, especially ones that overlap with
existing programs. The United States currently has two other
major food aid programs: Food for Peace (the primary food aid
account) and the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
and Child Nutrition Program. Both of these aid programs address
global food insecurity in the world's poorest countries,
including through agricultural development efforts. This budget
reflects a need to consolidate our food aid programs in order
to eliminate associated costs with mission redundancy.
Reduce funding for USAID's International Disaster
Assistance. The International Disaster Assistance [IDA] account
prepares for and mitigates emergencies overseas by providing
humanitarian assistance to individuals affected by disasters
and conflict. While America has always been the first to assist
countries experiencing catastrophe, its resources are limited
and funding levels need to reflect this reality. The
President's request for IDA, $960 million, is an 83 percent
increase from spending levels five years ago. This dramatic
increase in spending is not representative of the 10-year
spending average on international disasters, which is $590
million, nor the 20-year average, $380 million. It is time to
reassess funding for the IDA account and adjust funding levels
to be more reflective of historical disaster trends.
FUNCTION 250: GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
----------
Function Summary
The largest component of this function--about half of total
spending--is for the space flight, research, and supporting
activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
[NASA]. The function also contains general science funding,
including the budgets for the National Science Foundation [NSF]
and the Department of Energy [DOE] Office of Science.
Spending for this function has grown by about 9 percent
since President Obama took office.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $28 billion in budget authority
and $29.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Nearly all
the spending in the function is discretionary, which totals
$27.9 billion in 2013 budget authority, and $29.1 billion in
outlays. Mandatory budget authority in 2013 is $100 million,
with $116 million in related outlays. The 10-year totals for
budget authority and outlays are $302.6 billion and $301.7
billion, respectively.
The budget reduces excess and unnecessary spending, while
supporting core government responsibilities. The resolution
preserves basic research, providing stable funding for NSF to
conduct its authorized activities in science, space and
technology basic research, development and STEM education. The
budget supports the fiscal year 2013 requested level for NASA
and recognizes the vital strategic importance of the United
States remaining the pre-eminent space-faring nation. In the
President's request, the administration again shifted
priorities away from the 2010 NASA authorization, allocating
$830 billion to commercial cargo and crew initiatives. This
budget realigns funding in accordance with the NASA
authorization and its specified spending limits to support
robust space capability, allow for exploration beyond low Earth
orbit, and support our aerospace workforce and scientific as
well as educational base. While the Committee recommendation is
a disciplined budget that will require committees of
jurisdiction and agencies to set priorities and achieve
efficiencies, it does not take the arbitrary approach that will
result from the Budget Control Act's sequester. The House
Republican budget replaces the sequester. If not replaced,
based on staff estimates, this function would be reduced by
another $2.0 billion below the committee recommendation in
fiscal year 2013.
Illustrative Policy Options
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
The committees of jurisdiction will determine policies to
align with the spending levels in the resolution. The options
below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of proposals
that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
Restore Core Government Responsibilities. Spending for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science included some areas,
such as biological and environmental research, that could
potentially crowd out private investment. The resolution levels
support preserving the Office of Science's original role as a
venue for groundbreaking scientific discoveries and a driver
for innovation and economic growth, while responsibly paring
back applied and commercial research and development.
Reduce Expenses for the DHS Science and Technology. The
committee recommends reductions in management and
administrative expenses for the Department of Homeland
Security's [DHS] Directorate of Science and Technology, while
shifting funding resources to frontline missions and
capabilities.
FUNCTION 270: ENERGY
----------
Function Summary
This category includes civilian energy and environmental
programs of the Department of Energy [DOE]. Function 270 also
includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of
Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA], the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. (It does not include DOE's national security
activities--the National Nuclear Security Administration--which
are in Function 050, or its basic research and science
activities, which are in Function 250.)
Since the start of the current administration, total
outlays in Function 270 have increased by almost 390 percent.
The President has installed a heavy-handed compliance culture
dependent on regulations and spending on administration-favored
constituencies. Regulations have cost people and small
businesses some $1.75 trillion per year, according to a report
from the Small Business Administration, including $281 billion
for environmental regulations that disproportionately hit small
businesses.\4\ The President has also stifled domestic energy
production by blocking or delaying production both onshore and
offshore, destroying jobs and idling American energy sources.
As the administration took action to stifle private-sector
development of domestic energy resources, it dramatically
increased funding for favored energy sectors. The stimulus
alone allocated $80 billion of taxpayers' dollars specifically
for politically favored renewable-energy interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, September 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results are plain to see: gasoline prices have more
than doubled since the President took office and the
administration has only created additional barriers for needed
capital investment and job creation.
Burdensome and ineffective regulations have driven up the
prices of many products and services. For example: In executing
a previously enacted ban on traditional incandescent light
bulbs, the current administration tried to promote a ``green''
replacement bulb by holding a contest. The ``winning'' bulb
costs $50--a 4,900 percent increase over the price of a
traditional incandescent bulb. This policy will now have
taxpayers paying twice--once by providing $10 million in prize
money for this contest, and again in the form of more expensive
light bulbs.
All this for little gain. According to a 2011 Congressional
Research Service report, ``The potential for job creation has
become a key factor in evaluating renewable energy investment
incentives and programs, [yet] quantifying and measuring green
job creation and growth has been difficult.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Phillip Brown and Molly Sherlock, ``ARRA Section 1603 Grants in
Lieu of Tax Credits for Renewable Energy: Overview, Analysis and Policy
Options,'' Congressional Research Service, March 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $2 billion in budget authority and
$8.4 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal
year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is -$5 billion in budget
authority and $983 million in outlays. The negative balances
reflect the incoming repayment of loans, receipts from the sale
of electricity produced by Federal entities, and charges for
the disposal of nuclear waste, which are accounted for as
``negative spending.'' The 10-year totals for budget authority
and outlays are $21.7 billion and $45.1 billion, respectively,
for discretionary spending. The 10-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are -$15.4 billion and -$14.8 billion,
respectively, for mandatory spending. The large disparity
between budget authority and outlays results mainly from a
large infusion of stimulus funds that are still being expended
nearly four years later. The function grew almost four-fold
since the start of the Obama administration because of Recovery
Act funding. Over the course of the decade, outlays return to
more normal ranges.
The resolution reduces funding for non-core energy
research, loan guarantees for lower-demand programs, and excess
and unnecessary spending in the DOE's civilian accounts, which
received large funding levels in the stimulus bill.
Illustrative Policy Options
The committees of jurisdiction will determine policies to
align with the spending levels in the resolution. The options
below are offered as illustrations of the kinds of proposals
that can help meet the budget's fiscal guidelines.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reduce Administrative Costs at DOE. The resolution supports
streamlining and boosting accountability of vendor support and
administrative costs across DOE's offices. The Government
Accountability Office described the vendor selection and
procurement process as decentralized and fragmented in the
agency. This budget supports better governance and
consolidation of contract management and procurement processes
across functions to reduce costs.
Scale Back Corporate Subsidies in the Energy Industry. The
resolution provides sufficient funding for essential government
missions, including energy security and basic research and
development. It recommends paring back spending in areas of
duplication and non-core functions, such as applied and
commercial research and development projects best left to the
private sector. For example, renewable projects have received
substantial subsidies. According to the Energy Information
Administration, on a dollar-per-unit-of-production basis, the
level of subsidies received by the wind and solar industries
were almost 100 times greater than those for conventional
energy. This does not include the $27.2 billion allocated in
the 2009 ``stimulus'' bill for energy efficiency and renewable
energy research and investment. In addition, according to the
Congressional Budget Office [CBO], provisions to benefit energy
efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent of the
budgetary cost of Federal energy-related tax preferences in
2011. The budget aims to roll back such Federal intervention
and corporate welfare spending across energy sectors.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Rescind Unobligated Balances in DOE's Green Subsidies and
Loan Portfolio. The budget recommends rescinding unobligated
balances in DOE's loan portfolio. Since its introduction in the
2009 stimulus bill, DOE has issued over $20 billion in new
loans and loan guarantees for private-sector loans for
renewable energy projects that would not otherwise have been
market-viable. Already, multi-million dollar projects that were
labeled as successes have failed.
The first renewable energy loan guarantee recipient, solar
start-up Solyndra, received a loan guarantee for $535 million
in the fall of 2009, even after repeated warnings from career
Federal financial analysts. In the spring of 2010, it failed to
complete its initial public offering after an independent audit
questioned the ongoing viability of the firm. Then, in the fall
of 2010, the firm closed one of its manufacturing facilities
and laid off 180 workers. Finally, the firm declared bankruptcy
and laid off 1,100 employees only 15 months after President
Obama visited a company factory.
The Advanced Vehicle Technology Manufacturing program was
intended to provide debt capital to domestic auto manufacturers
to fund projects that help vehicles made in the United States
meet higher mileage requirements. However, the funds have
largely been unused as production has not met current demand.
Loan beneficiaries have included manufacturers shifting jobs
overseas, such as Fisker, which was provided over $500 million
and ended up assembling cars in Finland.
Moreover, Americans deserve the most honest, accurate
assessment of how Washington spends their tax dollars. Yet the
costs of DOE's loans are currently calculated using the
inadequate methodology prescribed in the Federal Credit Reform
Act [FCRA]. Under FCRA rules, government-backed loans are
discounted at risk-free interest rates--the interest rates on
U.S. Treasury securities. As CBO has stated and the White
House's own independent analysis has acknowledged, by
incorporating market-based risk premiums, fair-value estimates
recognize the financial risks that the government assumes when
issuing credit guarantees.
Repeal Stimulus-Driven Borrowing Authority Specifically for
Green Transmission. The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in
the Wester Area Power Administration's [WAPA] Transmission
Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new
transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable
energy. To date, WAPA has announced only one project under the
borrowing authority: a wind transmission project owned by a
foreign company. This authority was inserted into the stimulus
bill without the opportunity for debate. Of most concern, the
authority includes a bailout provision that would require
American taxpayers to pay outstanding balances on projects that
private developers fail to repay.
Eliminates Oil and Gas Research and Development Program.
The Ultra-Deepwater and Unconventional Natural Gas and Other
Petroleum Research Fund is primarily operated by a private-
sector consortium and duplicates efforts already made by the
private investors. The resolution supports prioritizing Federal
funding and preventing Federal investment from crowding out
private investment across energy sectors.
FUNCTION 300: NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
----------
Function Summary
Spending on programs contained in the Natural Resources and
Environment function has increased 20.4 percent since the start
of the current administration. The budget resolution recognizes
the importance of these activities--which include overseeing
water resources, conservation, land management, and
recreational resources--but bigger government has not equated
to better government, and the increase in resources has only
invited mismanagement and duplication.
The fiscal year 2013 budget resolution builds on last
year's resolution and supports the Nation's enduring energy
policy priorities--economic prosperity, lower gasoline and
energy prices, and greater revenue generation from domestic
energy production--while moving toward market-based solutions
for sustainable energy sources. The resolution draws on the
House Republicans' American Energy Initiative, which seeks to
advance an all-of-the-above energy approach for the United
States.
The administration has blocked and delayed domestic energy
production both onshore and offshore, costing jobs and
sidelining American energy sources at a time of rising gasoline
prices and instability in the Middle East and North Africa. The
budget resolution provides for a more measured approach,
allowing for more resources from bonus bids, rents, royalties,
and fees as a result of unlocking domestic energy supplies in a
safe, environmentally responsible manner. The budget also
encourages the development of American-made renewable and
alternative energy sources, while affirming the position that
environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually
exclusive goals.
In addition, the budget recognizes the importance of
preserving significant habitats, while properly maintaining
America's existing public lands. The Federal Government owns
and controls 650 million acres of land in the United States--
one out of every three acres--especially in areas of the
western United States. But the government has not adequately
maintained this land, some of which could return value to
States and counties through more productive use. The Federal
Government opts instead to acquire more while neglecting
maintenance and upkeep of what it already controls. While the
President's budget almost doubles funding for the Land and
Water Conservation Fund [LWCF] to acquire more land--from $255
million in fiscal year 2008 to $450 million in his fiscal year
2013 budget--Federal lands suffer from a current maintenance
backlog that measures in the billions of dollars. The
government has a responsibility to maintain and care for
existing resources before acquiring more land.
In addition, the budget acknowledges the importance of
maintaining our ports and waterways to encourage commercial
deep-draft navigation and economic competitiveness. In fiscal
year 2012, a total of $898 million was appropriated from the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund [HMTF], an increase of $109
million over the administration's request. However, there
continues to be a large balance in the fund and outstanding
harbor maintenance needs.
The Natural Resources and Environment category consists of
major departments and agencies such as the Department of the
Interior, which includes the National Park Service [NPS], the
Bureau of Land Management [BLM], the Bureau of Reclamation, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS]; conservation-oriented and
land management agencies within the Department of Agriculture
[USDA] including the Forest Service; the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] in the Department of
Commerce; the Army Corps of Engineers; and the Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA]. The discussion below elaborates on the
budget resolution's recommended policies in these areas.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $33.3 billion in budget authority
and $37.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
budget authority in 2013 totals $30.6 billion, with $35.4
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $2.7 billion
in budget authority and $2.4 billion in outlays. Over 10 years,
budget authority totals $331.4 billion, and outlays are $349.3
billion.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution focuses on paring back unnecessary spending
to carry out overreaching regulatory expansion. This budget
also emphasizes core government responsibilities, while
reducing spending in areas of duplication or non-core
functions. While the actual policies will be determined by the
committees of jurisdiction, options to meet budget targets
include those listed below.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Focus on Maintaining Existing Land Resources. Annual
funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has typically
ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The President's
budget requests $450 million for fiscal year 2013, but this
allocation cannot be used for maintenance. As noted previously,
the Federal Government already is struggling with a maintenance
backlog on the millions of acres it controls--a backlog
totaling between $13.2 and $19.4 billion--but the
administration is seeking to acquire even more land. This
budget focuses on eliminating the maintenance backlog before
moving to acquire additional lands.
Streamline Climate Change Activities Across Government.
This budget resolution reduces spending for government-wide
climate change-related activities and recommends better
coordination of programs and funds to eliminate duplicative and
unnecessary spending.
Streamline Fragmented and Overlapping Agency Programs. The
resolution supports consolidating programs across Federal
agencies and reducing spending in areas identified by the
Government Accountability Office [GAO], bipartisan deficit
reduction commissions, and H.R. 1. These programs include
overlapping diesel emission monitoring programs. GAO identified
14 fragmented programs at Energy, DOT and EPA whose missions
cover reducing mobile-source diesel emissions, resulting in
duplication of efforts and unnecessary funding sometimes going
to the same recipients. The President's Fiscal Commission also
identified hundreds of millions of dollars in water treatment
efforts duplicated across the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA and
USDA, not pertaining in some cases to these agencies' core
missions.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Revise and Reauthorize the Bureau of Land Management's Land
Sales Process. Instead of requiring that all proceeds from land
sales be used to acquire other parcels of land and to cover
sales expenses, this option would direct that 70 percent of the
proceeds, net of expenses, go to the Treasury for the purposes
of deficit reduction by reauthorizing and revising the Federal
Land Transaction Facilitation Act and other land management
statutes. It would limit the Department of the Interior's share
of the receipts to $60 million per year (plus an additional
amount to cover BLM's administrative costs) for land
acquisition and restoration projects on BLM lands. The option
would also reduce the amount of Federal spending not subject to
regular oversight through the congressional appropriation
process. The change would reduce the Federal budget deficit and
ensure that U.S. taxpayers benefit directly from land sales.
Stop Mine Cleanup Payments to States with Certified
Reclaimed Mines. The Federal Government collects fees from coal
mining companies to restore abandoned mining sites. Money from
those fees is paid to States to restore abandoned mines within
their state. However, several States have successfully restored
all of their abandoned mining sites but are still permitted to
use the federal mine cleanup payments. Effectively, for the
States that have been ``certified'' as having successfully
restored critical mining sites, the mine payments serve as an
unrestricted Federal subsidy. Several tribal governments also
receive payments despite having already remediated all
contaminated mining sites on their land. The administration has
proposed terminating these mine reclamation payments to States
that no longer use them for their intended purpose, and this
budget proposes terminating them as well.
FUNCTION 350: AGRICULTURE
----------
Function Summary
The agriculture function includes funds for direct
assistance and loans to food and fiber producers; export
assistance; market information; inspection services; and
agricultural research. Farm policy is driven by the Food,
Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the Farm Bill), which
provides farmers protection against uncertainties, such as poor
weather conditions and unfavorable market conditions.
Farm safety net programs are divided into three areas:
commodity programs, crop insurance, and supplemental disaster
assistance. Commodity programs, which the Farm Bill authorizes
through the 2012 crop/marketing year, include both direct
payments and price-based counter-cyclical payments; the
marketing assistance loan program; and the average crop revenue
election payment program. Due to recent strength in
agricultural markets, outlays for price-based programs have
declined. Nevertheless, direct payments, which do not vary with
market prices, have remained steady at $5 billion each year.
Crop insurance outlays, while volatile, have trended sharply
higher and averaged $5.6 billion over 2008-10, more than double
their 2000-02 average level.
With farm income, crop prices, and Federal deficits hitting
new highs, and with food prices going up, it is time to reform
agricultural support programs, while maintaining a strong
safety net for farmers.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $21.7 billion in budget authority
and $24.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
spending in fiscal year 2013 is $5.9 billion in budget
authority and $5.8 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the
majority of the function's total, is $15.8 billion in budget
authority, with outlays of $18.8 billion. The 10-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $197.3 billion and $198.2
billion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
Specific policies in this function will be determined by
the committees of jurisdiction. Among the options they may wish
to consider are the following.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform Agricultural Commodity and Insurance Programs. Under
this option, mandatory agricultural outlays, other than food
and nutrition programs, will be reduced by $29.3 billion
relative to the currently anticipated levels from fiscal year
2013 through fiscal year 2022. These savings could be achieved
by reducing both direct payments and crop insurance subsidies,
and by reforming export assistance programs. The Committee on
Agriculture is responsible for implementing these reductions,
and to maintain the committee's flexibility, this option
assumes the savings will not take effect until the beginning of
the next Farm Bill. Farmers will benefit greatly from other
provisions in this budget, including regulatory relief, the
maintenance of low capital gains and estate taxes, and lower
interest rates due to reduced Federal borrowing.
FUNCTION 370: COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT
----------
Function Summary
The Federal Government's commerce and housing activities
should focus limited resources on efforts to bolster free
enterprise and economic growth. Such an approach would have the
additional direct benefit of reducing government spending,
easing the demand for higher taxes or more borrowing, and
curbing corporate welfare in the housing, financial services,
and telecommunications industries. This budget calls for an end
to the cycle of future bailouts perpetuated by the financial
regulation law authored by Senator Dodd and Representative
Frank, as well as putting a stop to taxpayer subsidies and
bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This budget function has four components: mortgage credit;
the Postal Service (mostly off budget); deposit insurance
(negligible spending due to reserve-supporting fees and the
like); and other commerce activities (the majority of the net
discretionary and mandatory spending in this function).
The mortgage credit component of this function includes
housing assistance through the Federal Housing Administration
[FHA], the Federal National Mortgage Association [Fannie Mae],
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation [Freddie Mac], the
Government National Mortgage Association [Ginnie Mae], and
rural housing programs of the Department of Agriculture. The
function also includes net postal service spending and spending
for deposit insurance activities of banks, thrifts, and credit
unions. Finally, most of the Commerce Department is provided
for in this function, including the International Trade
Administration, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Patent and
Trademark Office, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, and the Bureau of the Census. Also funded
through this function are independent agencies such as the
Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC], the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal
Communications Commission [FCC], and the majority of the Small
Business Administration [SBA].
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
In this function, the budget resolution provides for -$7.9
billion in budget authority and -$3.9 billion in outlays in
fiscal year 2013. Of that total, 2013 discretionary spending is
-$7.8 billion in budget authority and -$6.1 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2013 is -$0.1 billion in budget authority
and $2.1 billion in outlays. The function totals over 10 years
are $22.2 billion in budget authority and -$125.9 billion in
outlays.
On-budget totals for fiscal year 2013 are -$7.1 billion in
budget authority and -$3.2 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$1.1 billion, with
outlays of -$1.1 billion as well. Mandatory on-budget spending
for fiscal year 2013 is $0.9 billion in budget authority and
$3.2 billion in outlays. Over 10 years, the on-budget totals
are $45.3 billion in budget authority and -$102.9 billion in
outlays.
Negative discretionary totals for budget authority and
outlays mainly reflect the negative subsidy rates applied to
certain loan and loan guarantee programs scored under the
guidelines of the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA], such as FHA
and Ginnie Mae programs. It should be noted that FHA loans are
scored using a different accounting method than the fair-value
estimates that CBO applies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
resulting in budget disparities (see discussion under Mandatory
Spending).
Negative mandatory totals for outlays in this function
mainly result from the wind-down of several programs created in
response to the financial crisis that initially produced large
positive outlays, such as those associated with the Troubled
Asset Relief Program [TARP] and various deposit insurance
programs. It should be noted that from 2008 through 2009, total
outlays in Function 370 were a positive $319 billion.
Off-budget totals for fiscal year 2013 are -$0.8 billion in
budget authority and -$0.8 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary budget authority is $0.26 billion in
budget authority and $0.26 in outlays. Over 10 years, the
discretionary off-budget totals are $3.1 billion in budget
authority and $3.1 billion in outlays. Mandatory off-budget
spending for fiscal year 2013 is -$1.1 billion in budget
authority and -$1.1 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the
mandatory off-budget totals are -$26.1 billion in budget
authority and -$26.1 billion in outlays. The negative totals
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of
this function represent savings from our two policy proposals
described below in addition to monies received by the Treasury
from the U.S. Postal Service Public Enterprise Fund.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution aims to limit and reform programs in this
function to reduce spending; to limit the Federal Government's
role in housing, financial, and telecommunications markets; and
to curtail the corporate welfare that distorts and misdirects
the flow of capital in the free market. While the committees of
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of
these goals, the options below offer several potential
approaches.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Corporate Welfare Within the Department of
Commerce. Business subsidies distort the economy, impose unfair
burdens on taxpayers, and are especially problematic given the
fiscal problems facing the U.S. Government. With potential
savings of roughly $6.9 billion over 10 years, programs that
should be considered for elimination include the following:
The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Program,
which subsidizes a network of nonprofit extension centers that
provide technical, financial and marketing services for small
and medium-size businesses that are largely available in the
private market. The program already obtains two-thirds of its
funding from non-Federal sources, and was originally intended
to be self-supporting.
Trade Promotion Activities at the International
Trade Administration [ITA]. This agency, within the Department
of Commerce, provides trade promotion services for U.S.
companies. The fees it charges for these services do not cover
the cost of these activities. Businesses can obtain similar
services from State and local governments and the private
market. The ITA should be eliminated or charge for the full
cost of these services.
Tighten the Belts of Government Agencies. Duplication,
hidden subsidies, and large bureaucracies are symptomatic of
many agencies within Function 370. Among them are the
following:
The General Services Administration's [GSA]
Federal Citizen Services Fund. This fund is the e-mail, print,
and telephone information service of the GSA, managing websites
for the general public such as USA.gov. Many of its
responsibilities, however, duplicate those of other offices
within the GSA, including the Electronic Government Fund. In
light of cutbacks in various government agencies, this
resolution supports rationalizing the GSA wherever possible. As
an agency whose mission is to provide services to other parts
of the government, the GSA stretches across many budget
functions: It has 6,900 full-time employees; owns or leases
about 9,600 buildings and related assets; and has a budget of
more than $960 million, an increase of 220 percent since 2008.
The Small Business Administration [SBA]. The SBA
provides almost $60 million in grants, hidden in its
discretionary salaries and expenses budget, which could be
canceled.
The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC]. In
2011, the SEC spent more than $1.2 billion on salaries and
expenses, with $760 million going to compensation and benefits
alone. More than 3,800 full-time employees occupied the SEC at
the end of 2011, with an average compensation and benefits
package of about $198,000 per employee. The SEC's budget has
swollen by 34 percent since 2008. The President's budget
requests $1.6 billion in 2013, an increase of 73 percent from
2008 levels. On top of this, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act [Dodd-Frank] requests doubling the
size of the SECs budget from current levels, increasing it to
$2.25 billion in fiscal year 2015.
In its 2013 Views and Estimates, the House Committee on
Financial Services notes the regulatory failures of the SEC
leading up to the financial crisis:
In the run-up to the financial crisis, the SEC
repeatedly failed to fulfill any part of its mission:
the SEC failed to adequately supervise the Nation's
largest investment banks, which resulted in the bailout
of Bear Stearns and the collapse of Lehman Brothers and
the ensuing financial panic; the SEC failed to
supervise the credit rating agencies that bestowed AAA
ratings on securities that later proved to be no better
than junk; and the SEC failed to ensure that issuers
made adequate disclosures to investors about securities
cobbled together from poorly underwritten mortgages
that were bound to fail. Apart from these failures, the
SEC's inability to detect the Madoff and Stanford Ponzi
schemes cast further doubt on its ability to protect
investors.
The Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a report
in 2010 in which it identified material weaknesses in the SEC's
controls. It demonstrated deficiencies in the SEC's reporting
of financials, budgetary resources, and other internal
controls.
While the administration requests expanding the SEC's
budget, this resolution questions the premise that more funding
for the SEC means better, smarter regulation. It denies the
claim that adding reams of regulations to the books and scores
of regulators to the payrolls will provide greater
transparency, consumer protection, and enforcement for
increasingly complex markets. At a time when trimming the
deficit is imperative, the SEC should create headroom in its
budget by streamlining and making more efficient its operations
and resources; defraying taxpayer expenses by designating self-
regulatory organizations (subject to SEC oversight) to perform
needed examinations of investment advisors; and enhancing
collaboration with other agencies, such as the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, to reduce duplication, waste, and
overlap in supervision. Ultimately, the committees of
jurisdiction will establish the specific policies.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Terminate Grants to Worsted Wool Manufacturers and Payments
to Wool Manufacturers. The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical
Corrections Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429) established the
Wool Apparel Manufacturers Trust Fund. This fund authorizes the
Department of Commerce to provide grants to certain
manufacturers of worsted wool products to ease adjustment to
changes in trade law. The grants, originally slated to end in
2007, still exist and have been extended until 2014.
Termination of this temporary grant program is overdue. This
Act also directs Customs to make payments to wool manufacturers
from certain duties collected to provide import tax relief.
This account has been extended twice through amendments and has
also outlived its original purpose.
Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010, the
Congress established a new annual payment to the travel
industry and created a new government agency, the Corporation
for Travel Promotion (now called Brand USA), to conduct
advertising campaigns encouraging foreign travelers to visit
the United States. This budget recommends ending these
subsidies and eliminating the new agency because it is not a
core responsibility of the Federal Government to pay for and
conduct advertising campaigns for a certain industry. Moreover,
the travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that
it benefits from.
Restrict New FDIC Authority to Bail Out Bank Creditors.
This budget proposes to preempt the cycle of future bailouts
set in motion by Dodd-Frank.
This financial regulatory overhaul is not reform. It
expands and centralizes power in Washington, doubling down on
the root causes of the 2008 crisis. It contains layer upon
layer of new bureaucracy sewn together by complex regulations,
yet it fails to address key problems, such as Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, that contributed to the worst financial meltdown
in recent history. Although the bill is dubbed ``Wall Street
Reform,'' it actually intensifies the problem of too-big-to-
fail by giving large, interconnected financial institutions
advantages that small firms will not enjoy.
While the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths to
denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] now has the authority to
access taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of
large, ``systemically significant'' financial institutions. CBO
estimates the cost for this new authority at $26 billion,
although CBO Director Elmendorf has testified that ``the cost
of the program will depend on future economic and financial
events that are inherently unpredictable.'' In other words,
another large-scale financial crisis in which creditors are
guaranteed government bailouts could cost much, much more.
This resolution calls for ending this regime, now enshrined
into law, which paves the way for future bailouts. House
Republicans put forth an enhanced bankruptcy alternative that--
instead of rewarding corporate failure with taxpayer dollars--
would place the responsibility of large, failing firms in the
hands of the shareholders who own them, the managers who run
them, and the creditors who finance them.
This resolution also supports cancelling the ability of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (created by Dodd-Frank)
to fund its operations by spending from the Federal Reserve's
yearly remittances to the Treasury Department. The bill was
written to provide off-budget financing for the new Bureau,
which will be housed at the Federal Reserve but have complete
autonomy from the Fed. To preserve its independence as the
Nation's monetary authority, the Federal Reserve is off-budget
and its excess earnings from monetary operations are returned
to the Treasury to reduce the deficit. Now, instead of
directing these remittances to reduce the deficit, Dodd-Frank
requires diverting a portion of them to pay for a new
bureaucracy with the authority to write far-reaching rules on
financial products and restrict credit to the very customers it
seeks to ``protect.''
Privatize the Business of Government-Controlled Mortgage
Giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since being placed into
government conservatorship in 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
absent major reforms, are expected to have an all-in cost to
taxpayers of more than $335 billion through 2022, according to
CBO estimates. This includes losses on preexisting
commitments--those entered into prior to conservatorship--of
about $248 billion. CBO has recorded Fannie and Freddie as
explicit financial components of the Federal budget, accounting
for their liabilities as liabilities of the government. In
contrast, the administration does not fully account for
taxpayer exposure to Fannie and Freddie and leaves them off
budget instead.
So far, Treasury has bailed out Fannie and Freddie to the
tune of $180 billion. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA now
dominate 97 percent of the market for the issuance of new
mortgage-backed securities.
This budget recommends putting an end to corporate
subsidies and taxpayer bailouts in housing finance. It
envisions the eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, winding down their government guarantee and ending
taxpayer subsidies. In the interim, it supports removing
distortions to allow an influx of private capital and advancing
various measures that would bring transparency and
accountability to these two government-sponsored enterprises.
Reform the Credit Reform Act to Incorporate Fair-Value
Accounting Principles. As the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie
continue, another bailout to a housing giant looms. The market
share of the FHA has exploded in recent years, crowding out
private sector investment by 70 percent since 2007.
Accompanying this rise in market share has been a reduction in
the capital ratio of the FHA's Mutual Mortgage Insurance [MMI]
Fund to levels far below the Fund's congressionally-mandated
ratio of 2 percent. Should the capital ratio fall below zero,
yet another taxpayer bailout of a housing finance giant will be
automatically triggered.
Given the precarious financial position of the FHA, the
government should adopt measures to discourage shifting of
taxpayer risk to the FHA and other government-backed entities
as Fannie and Freddie are wound down. Right now, there are
notable differences between the accounting treatment of FHA-
insured loans and Fannie- and Freddie-guaranteed loans.
FHA's MMI loans are scored according to the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990, which determines budgetary cost by
calculating the net present value of the cash flows associated
with loans and discounting those flows using risk-free
marketable Treasury security rates. By contrast, CBO uses fair-
value scoring for Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-guaranteed loans.
Fair-value scoring recognizes that adverse economic events such
as market downturns can cause loan defaults to rise, thus it
reflects the full financial risk incurred by the taxpayer of
backing these loans.
In other words, the current budgetary treatment of FHA
loans understates the full costs associated with them, thus it
encourages policymakers to shift risk from Fannie and Freddie
to FHA.
This resolution authorizes the use of fair-value scoring
for Federal credit programs. Without it, the full risk of FHA
loans--effectively borne by taxpayers--cannot be properly
accounted for in the budget.
As the government reforms its role in the U.S. housing
markets, which this resolution supports, Fannie, Freddie and
FHA loans should be treated with parity and full transparency
on the budget. The housing-finance system of the future,
however, will allow private-market secondary lenders to fairly,
freely, and transparently compete, with the knowledge that they
will ultimately bear appropriate risk for the loans they
guarantee. Their viability will be determined by the soundness
of their practices and the value of their services.
OFF-BUDGET MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform the Postal Service. The United States Postal Service
[USPS] is unable to meet its financial obligations and in
desperate need of structural reforms. The budget recommends
giving the Postal Service the flexibility that any business
needs to respond to changing market conditions, including
declining mail volume, which is down more than 20 percent since
2006.
This budget also recognizes the need to reform compensation
of postal employees. The House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee reported legislation, the Postal Reform Act of 2011,
which recommends lowering the Postal Service's share of
employee health and life insurance premiums. Currently, USPS
pays 79 percent of the health insurance premiums and 100
percent of the life insurance premiums for the majority of its
employees. As a result, these employees are paying a smaller
share of the costs of their health and life insurance premiums
than other Federal employees. The Postal Reform Act reforms
compensation by requiring that USPS employees contribute at
least as much as other Federal employees to their health and
life insurance premiums.
Taken together, these reforms could potentially allow the
Postal Service to save $25.7 billion over 10 years and help
restore it to solvency.
FUNCTION 400: TRANSPORTATION
----------
Function Summary
Transportation infrastructure is a vital component of the
U.S. economy, but the funding mechanisms for Federal highway
and transit spending have become distorted, leading to
imprudent, irresponsible, and sometimes downright wasteful
spending. Further, however worthy some transportation projects
might be, their capacity as job creators has been vastly
oversold, as demonstrated by the extravagant but unfulfilled
promises that accompanied the 2009 ``stimulus'' bill. Spending
in the function has increased over 30 percent since the start
of the administration.
This budget category includes ground, air, water and other
transportation funding. The major agencies and programs here
include the Department of Transportation (including the Federal
Aviation Administration [FAA]; the Federal Highway
Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; highway,
motor carrier, rail and pipeline safety programs; and the
Maritime Administration); the Department of Homeland Security
(including the Federal Air Marshals, the Transportation
Security Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard); the
aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration [NASA]; and the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation [Amtrak].
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $57.1 billion in budget authority
and $49.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
budget authority in 2013 is $30.2 billion, with outlays of
$47.9 billion; and mandatory spending is $26.9 billion in
budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays. The large
discrepancies between budget authority and outlays here results
from the split treatment of the transportation trust funds,
such as the Highway Trust Fund, through which funding is
provided as a type of mandatory budget authority; and outlays,
which are controlled by annual limitations on obligations set
in appropriations acts. Over 10 years, budget authority totals
$787.7 billion, with outlays of $789 billion.
Illustrative Policy Options
The budget supports maintaining essential funding for
highways, aviation and safety, offset by reductions in other
transportation activities of lower priority to the Federal
Government. As is true elsewhere, actual policy decisions will
be determined by the committees of jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
the options below suggest one set of policies that can help
meet the budget's levels.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Funding for High-Speed Rail. High-speed rail
projects and any new intercity rail projects should be pursued
only if they can be established as self-supporting commercial
services. The threat of large, endless subsidies is precisely
the reason governors across the country are rejecting federally
funded high-speed rail projects. There are only two high-speed
rail lines in the world that break even: one in Europe and one
in Japan. Both are in areas that have unusually high population
densities and extremely high gasoline prices.
Terminate and reform spending on ineffective, wasteful
subsidies and underperforming programs. The budget includes
reductions for terminating the New Starts and Small Starts
programs within the Department of Transportation. The benefits
of these mass transit projects are local, not national. They
should be funded at the local level. The budget supports
continued reforms for Amtrak--including requiring overtime
limits for Amtrak employees--and reductions in headquarters and
administrative costs for agencies.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Avert the Bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund. The budget
recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund is projected by CBO to
go bankrupt in the spring of 2013. By current law and practice,
the Department of Transportation would need to reduce spending
immediately upon the exhaustion of trust fund balances.
Congress needs to reform this critically important program to
put it on a sound financial footing--without further bailouts
using borrowed money.
The budget recommends sensible reforms to avert the
bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund by aligning spending from
the Trust Fund with incoming gas revenues collected. The budget
also includes additional provisions to: (1) assume a new
potential funding stream in the form of oil and gas revenues;
(2) allow flexibility for a transportation reauthorization so
long as the legislation does not increase the deficit and is
fully offset (such an authorization is currently being
discussed in both the House and the Senate); and (3) plug a
loophole in the budget that ensures any future general fund
transfer will be fully offset.
Simplify the Fee Structure and Help Offset Costs in
Aviation Security. Taxpayers currently subsidize more than half
the cost of aviation security for the travelers who use and
directly benefit from the system. This burden could be eased by
shifting greater responsibility to these beneficiaries. One way
to do so would be by applying a simple flat fee of $5 per one-
way trip for security system users, instead of a $2.50 fee for
a one-way trip with no stops and a $5 fee for a trip with one
or more stops.
Reducing Subsidies for Pilot Registration and Licensing
Fees for the FAA. The FAA regulates the registration of
aircraft and the licensing and certification of pilots.
Currently, taxpayers subsidize aircraft owners and operators
because there is no charge for some of these licenses, while
others are issued below cost. The costs for these services
should be borne by those who benefit from them.
Terminate the Ocean Freight Differential Program for Food
Aid. Current law requires the Department of Transportation to
reimburse other Federal agencies for the extra costs the
agencies pay because of legal requirements that food aid be
shipped on U.S. ships. The budget exempts food aid from this
required reimbursement, which needlessly adds to taxpayer cost
for these humanitarian missions.
FUNCTION 450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
----------
Function Summary
This category includes programs that provide Federal
funding for economic and community development in both urban
and rural areas, including: Community Development Block Grants
[CDBGs]; the non-power activities of the Tennessee Valley
Authority; the regional commissions, including the Appalachian
Regional Commission; the Economic Development Administration
[EDA]; and partial funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Homeland Security spending in this function includes the
State and local government grant programs of the Department of
Homeland Security, including partial funding for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency [FEMA].
Aside from those programs related to emergency preparedness
and critical needs, this resolution supports streamlining non-
essential community and regional initiatives that are not core
functions of the Federal Government.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $11 billion in budget authority
and $21.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
budget authority in 2013 is $10.9 billion, with $19.9 billion
in associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2013 is $120
million in budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays. The
10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $78.3
billion and $111.2 billion, respectively.
The large gap between budget authority and outlays in the
function totals and discretionary levels results mainly from
the spending out of budget authority provided in the stimulus
bill.
Illustrative Policy Options
As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate
policy options that might be considered.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Eliminate Non-Core Programs. At a time when shrinking
spending is imperative for the government's fiscal well-being,
this resolution recommends taking a hard look at community and
regional programs; focusing on those that deliver funds for
non-core Federal Government functions; and consolidating and
streamlining programs wherever possible. Among programs that
should be considered in this review are the following:
The Community Development Fund [CDF]. Historically, about
80 to 90 percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the
Community Development Block Grant [CDBG]. CDBG is an annual
formula grant directed to State and local governments to
address a broad array of initiatives. In 2012, $2.9 billion was
appropriated for CDBG. Currently, there is no maximum community
poverty rate to be eligible for funds, nor is there an
exclusion for communities with high average income.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget
supports FEMA reforms advocated in the House, including
improving efficiencies in state and local programs. The budget
also supports efforts in the FEMA authorization this year to
incorporate initiatives such as improved cost-estimating and
efforts to help states and localities use existing resources to
help communities recover from disasters expeditiously and cost-
effectively.
The budget also acknowledges the need to look at reforms in
disaster-relief assistance to ensure that those state and local
governments most in need are receiving the assistance required.
The current administration has issued a total of 2,213 disaster
declarations--66 percent of all FEMA disaster declarations
since 1953 in the span of three years alone.\6\ According to
the Government Accountability Office [GAO], this is part of a
broader trend.\7\ From 2002 to 2011, presidents have declared
35 percent more disasters than they did during the preceding
decade. The disaster declaration is intended as a process to
help state and local governments receive Federal assistance
when the severity and magnitude of the disaster exceeds state
and local resources, and when Federal assistance is absolutely
necessary. When disaster-relief decisions are not made
judiciously, limited resources are diverted away from
communities that are truly in need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Matt Mayer, ``Congress Should Limit the Presidential Abuse of
FEMA'', Heritage Foundation, January 2012.
\7\``2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication,
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue,''
Government Accountability Office, February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget supports GAO recommendations and takes a closer
look at: (1) reducing Federal expenditures by updating disaster
declaration eligibility indicators, like per capita thresholds
and other major disaster metrics, by (for example) adjusting
for inflation; and (2) providing more scrutiny on cost-share
levels and waivers. For example, preparedness programs like the
Emergency Management Performance Grants have shown greater buy-
in by state and local governments; demonstrated better
performance in delivering resources to first responders; and
ensured efficient and effective response operations. These
types of reforms will increase transparency in the way that
disaster declaration decisions are made and in accurately
measuring a state's capacity to respond to a disaster.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Reform the National Flood Insurance Program [NFIP]. This
program, administered by FEMA, provides subsidized and
unsubsidized flood insurance to the private sector and seeks to
provide an alternative to disaster assistance by reducing the
damage done to property by flooding. While collections from
policyholders should cover the costs associated with flood
insurance activities, the NFIP owes a debt of $17.8 billion to
the Treasury, on which it must also pay debt service. Most of
this debt accumulated during the hurricane season of 2005.
Currently, 20 percent of NFIP policies are subsidized. On
average, taking into account subsidized and unsubsidized
policies under NFIP, premium collections cover only 35 to 40
percent of the actuarial value of the insurance.
NFIP, like many other government programs, was designed as
a temporary incentive for homeowners who were unaware of their
flood risks (before flood-mapping began in 1975) to purchase
flood insurance. At present, however, homeowners can receive
NFIP subsidies for new purchases of existing properties with
high-flood risk (even though flood mapping occurred decades
ago), including for second and vacation homes, and for
properties that realize repeated losses from flood damage. The
budget supports the House-passed bill, H.R. 1309, to protect
taxpayers from excessive and unwarranted exposure, implement
these reforms to strengthen the NFIP's financial position,
level the playing field for private insurers to enter the
market, and sustain the Fund's ability to make good on future
claims.
Reduce energy subsidies for commercial interests. The
budget reduces spending for rural green energy loan guarantees.
These loan guarantees come with Federal mandates that channel
private investments into financing the administration's
preferred renewable energy and energy efficiency interests at
taxpayers' expense.
FUNCTION 500: EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
----------
Function Summary
One of the key drivers of strong economic growth is a well-
trained and educated workforce. As the U.S. economy becomes
more complex in the face of globalization and technological
advances, it is vital that workers have the ability to pursue
effective life-long learning. While Federal spending on the
Department of Education and related education programs has
grown significantly over the past few decades, academic
achievement has not seen a commensurate improvement.
Now more than ever, the Nation's students must have the
opportunity to access the high-quality education and skills-
training needed to enable the workforce to compete in the
rapidly changing global economy. At the same time, Congress
must make every dollar count by eliminating wasteful,
duplicative, and ineffective programs. In March 2011, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office [GAO] identified many areas
that are ripe for reform. In the area of education, their
report identified 82 separate programs designed to improve
teacher quality across 10 Federal agencies, and dozens of
overlapping job training programs.
Reforms in these areas are reflected in Function 500, which
covers Federal spending primarily in the Departments of
Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services for programs
that directly provide--or assist States and localities in
providing--services to young people and adults. Activities
reflected here provide developmental services to low-income
children; help fund programs for disadvantaged and other
elementary and secondary school students; make grants and loans
to post-secondary students; and fund job-training and
employment services for people of all ages.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution provides $57.6 billion in budget authority
and $78.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. In that year,
discretionary spending is $91.5 billion in budget authority and
$93.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2013 is -$33.9
billion in budget authority and -$15.3 billion in outlays. Over
10 years, spending in this function totals $771.8 billion in
budget authority and $799.3 billion in outlays.
The large gap between budget authority and outlays in the
function totals and discretionary levels results mainly from
prior-year outlays from the stimulus bill. The negative
mandatory numbers are due to the direct lending program, in
which the Education Department acts effectively as a bank
making student loans. However, for reasons addressed later in
this section, these projected future savings are somewhat
misleading because they fail to account for the market risk of
the loans.
While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates, this
function would be reduced by another $9.0 billion below the
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.
Illustrative Policy Options
The committees of jurisdiction will make final policy
determinations, but options worthy of consideration include the
following.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reform Job Training Programs. Federal job training programs
are balkanized, difficult to access, and lacking in
accountability. There are at least 49 job training programs
spread across nine different agencies. In January 2011, the
Government Accountability Office [GAO] issued a report that
found almost all federal employment and training programs
overlap with at least one other program, providing similar
services to similar populations. Together, these programs spent
$18 billion in fiscal year 2009, including stimulus dollars,
and at least $14.5 billion in fiscal year 2010. Additionally,
Senator Coburn has presented a report highlighting the high
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that occurs in these
programs.
All congressional committees with jurisdiction over job
training programs should look to consolidate as many
administrative structures as possible to eliminate duplication
and maximize taxpayer funds by focusing them on the most
effective means of delivering job training activities. The
Education and the Workforce Committee, for instance, recently
introduced legislation to that end.
This budget improves accountability by calling for the
consolidation of duplicative federal job-training programs into
more accountable, targeted career scholarship programs. A
streamlined approach with increased oversight and
accountability will not only provide administrative savings,
but improve access, choice, and flexibility to enable workers
and job seekers to respond quickly and effectively to whatever
specific career challenges they face.
Make the Pell Grant Program Sustainable. Pell Grants are
the perfect example of promises that cannot be kept. The
program is on an unsustainable path, a fact acknowledged by the
President's own fiscal year 2013 budget. The College Cost
Reduction and Access Act of 2007 [CCRAA], the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 [HEOA], the ``stimulus'' bill, and the
Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010 [SAFRA] all
made Pell Grants more generous than the Federal budget could
afford. This, along with a dramatic rise in the number of
eligible students due to the recession, has caused program
costs to more than double since 2008, from $16.1 billion in
2008 to an estimated $36.4 billion in fiscal year 2013.
Moreover, the program is beginning to increasingly rely on
mandatory funding to solve its discretionary shortfalls. For
instance, the Department of Education warned in 2012 that
without changes to reduce program costs, Pell Grants would have
an ending shortfall of $20.4 billion.
Instead of making necessary reforms, Congress again
resorted to short-term funding patches--a temporary answer that
will not prevent another severe funding cliff for the program
in the future. The President has increased the maximum Pell
Grant by more than $900 since 2008, to $5,635 for the 2013-2014
award year. However, his budget only provides funding for that
level of award through the 2014-2015 academic year. This
irresponsible spending serves only to put the program at
greater risk of ultimately being unable to fulfill its promises
to students.
Urgent reforms are necessary to enable the program to
continue as the foundation of the Nation's commitment to
helping low-income students gain access to higher education.
The budget recommends the following:
Roll back certain recent expansions to the needs
analysis to ensure aid is targeted to the truly needy. The
Department of Education attributes 14 percent of program growth
since 2008 to recent legislative expansions to the needs
analysis formula. The biggest cost drivers come from changes
made in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007
[CCRAA], such as the expansions of the level at which a student
qualifies for an automatic zero ``Expected Family
Contribution'' [EFC] and the income protection allowance. These
should be returned to pre-CCRAA levels.
Eliminate administrative fees paid to
participating institutions. The government pays participating
schools $5 per grant to administer and distribute Pell awards.
Schools already benefit significantly from the Pell program
because the aid makes attendance at those schools more
affordable.
Consider a maximum income cap. Currently there is
no fixed upper-income limit for a student to qualify for Pell.
Figures are simply plugged into a formula to calculate the
amount for which the student qualifies. The higher the income
level of the student and the student's family, the smaller
grant they receive.
Eliminate eligibility for less-than-half-time
students. Funding should be reserved for students with a larger
commitment to their education.
Adopt a sustainable maximum award level. The
Department of Education attributed 25 percent of recent program
growth to the $619 increase in the maximum award done in the
stimulus bill that took effect in the 2009-10 academic year. To
get program costs back to a sustainable level, the budget
recommends a maximum award of $5,550. This award would be fully
funded through discretionary spending.
Encourage Policies That Promote Innovation. Federal
intervention in higher education should increasingly be focused
not solely on financial aid, but on policies that maximize
innovation and ensure a robust menu of institutional options
from which students and their families are able to choose. Such
policies should include reexamining the data made available to
students to make certain they are armed with information that
will assist them in making their postsecondary decisions.
Additionally, the Federal Government should act to remove
regulatory barriers in higher education that act to restrict
flexibility and innovative teaching, particularly as it relates
to non-traditional models such as online coursework.
Eliminate Ineffective and Duplicative Federal Education
Programs. The current structure for K-12 programs at the
Department of Education is fragmented and ineffective.
Moreover, many programs are duplicative or are highly
restricted, serving only a small number of students. Given the
budget constraints, Congress must focus resources on programs
that truly help students. The budget calls for reorganization
and streamlining of K-12 programs and anticipates major reforms
to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA], which was
last reauthorized as part of the No Child Left Behind Act
[NCLB]. The budget would terminate and reduce programs that are
failing to improve student achievement. It also recommends that
the committees of jurisdiction address the duplication among
the 82 programs that are designed to improve teacher quality.
Encourage Private Funding for Cultural Agencies. Federal
subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, and the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting can no longer be justified. The activities and
content funded by these agencies go beyond the core mission of
the Federal Government and they are generally enjoyed by people
of higher income levels, making them a wealth transfer from
poorer to wealthier citizens. These agencies can raise funds
from private-sector patrons, which will also free them from any
risk of political interference.
Eliminate the Corporation for National and Community
Service. Programs administered out of this agency--which
created the oxymoron ``paid volunteer''--provide funding to
students and others who work in certain areas of public
service. Participation in these programs is not based on need.
The Federal Government already has aid programs focused on low-
income students, and paying volunteers is not a core Federal
responsibility, especially in times of high deficits and debt.
Further, it is much more efficient to have such efforts operate
at the State and local level by the community that receives the
benefit of the service.
Eliminate Administrative Fees Paid to Schools in the
Campus-Based Student Aid Programs. Under current law,
participating higher education institutions are allowed to use
5 percent of Federal program funds for administrative purposes.
The budget recommends prohibiting these funds from being used
for administrative costs. Schools already benefit significantly
from participating in federal student aid programs.
Terminate the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. This
program funds grants to reduce youth substance abuse. Program
evaluations have repeatedly found the program to be
ineffective.
Promote State, Local, and Private Funding for Museums and
Libraries. The Federal Institute of Museum and Library Services
is an independent agency that makes grants to museums and
libraries. This is not a core Federal responsibility. This
function can be funded at the State and local level and
augmented significantly by charitable contributions from the
private sector.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Repeal New Funding From the Student Aid and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2010 [SAFRA]. During the debate on SAFRA,
the Congressional Budget Office provided estimates showing that
projected future savings from a government takeover of all
Federal student loans decreased dramatically when ``market
risk'' was taken into account. Since that time, the President's
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and the Pew-
Peterson Commission on Budget Reform have recommended the
incorporation of fair-value accounting for all Federal loan and
loan guarantee programs to enable a true assessment of their
cost to taxpayers. And earlier this year the House passed H.R.
3581, the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2011, which
would mandate fair-value accounting. Unfortunately, SAFRA used
the higher non-adjusted savings projection to subsidize the new
health care law and to increase spending on several education
programs. Although much of the funding allocations have already
been spent, Congress could cancel the future spending in the
following ways:
First, it could repeal the expansion of the
Income-Based Repayment [IBR] program. SAFRA made more generous
the IBR plan for new borrowers of Direct Loans. This program,
created by the CCRAA, is still relatively new. Congress should
ensure the program is meeting its intended goals before it is
expanded.
Second, Congress could repeal the new mandatory
College Access Challenge Grants. SAFRA dedicated $750 million
in mandatory spending to this discretionary program and created
a ``funding cliff'' with resources abruptly terminating in
2014.
Third, it could make discretionary payments,
rather than mandatory payments, to non-profit servicers. SAFRA
established two separate funding categories for Direct Loan
servicing contracts, a mandatory stream for eligible non-profit
services and a discretionary stream for other servicers. Both
of these types of servicers should be funded with discretionary
funds.
Fourth, it could move funding for the Community
College/TAA grant program to the discretionary side of the
budget. SAFRA provides an additional $500 million in mandatory
funding per year for fiscal years 2011-14 for the Trade
Adjustment Assistance [TAA] Community College and Career
Training program--a competitive grant program administered by
the Department of Labor. This is a discretionary program that
should not be funded with mandatory funds.
Accept the Fiscal Commission's Proposal To Eliminate In-
School Interest Subsidies for Undergraduate Students. The
Federal Government focuses aid decisions on family income prior
to a student's enrollment, and then provides a number of
repayment protections and, in some cases, loan forgiveness
after graduation. There is no evidence that in-school interest
subsidies are critical to individual matriculation.
Terminate the Duplicative Social Services Block Grant. The
Social Services Block Grant is an annual payment sent to States
without a matching requirement to help achieve a range of
social goals, including child care, health services, and
employment services. Most of these are also funded by other
Federal programs. States are given wide discretion to determine
how to spend this money and are not required to demonstrate the
outcomes of this spending, so there is no evidence of its
effectiveness. The budget recommends eliminating this
duplicative spending.
FUNCTION 550: HEALTH
----------
Function Summary
The principal driver of spending in this function is
Medicaid, the Federal-State low-income health program. It
represents more than 70 percent of the function total, and is
growing at a rate of 5 percent per year--far faster than the
growth of the overall economy. The Congressional Budget Office
[CBO] projects federal spending on this program to be $258
billion in fiscal year 2012. This is expected to more than
double within the next 10 years, reaching $622 billion by
fiscal year 2022.
But this represents only the Federal share of Medicaid.
State spending on the program is expected to follow these same
trends. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services' December 2010 Actuarial Report on the Financial
Outlook on Medicaid, total State spending will rise from $133.5
billion in 2010 to $327.6 billion in 2019.
While these spending trends are clearly unsustainable,
Medicaid also has fostered a two-tiered hierarchy in the health
care marketplace that stigmatizes Medicaid enrollees. Its
perverse funding structure is exacerbating budget pressures at
the State and Federal level, while creating a mountain of
waste. With administrators looking to control costs and
providers refusing to participate in a system that severely
under-reimburses their services, Medicaid beneficiaries are
ultimately finding it increasingly difficult to obtain even the
most basic medical care. Absent reform, Medicaid will not be
able to deliver on its promise to provide a sturdy health-care
safety net for society's most vulnerable.
Medicaid's current structure gives States a perverse
incentive to expand the program and little incentive to save.
For every dollar that a State government spends on Medicaid,
the Federal Government pays an average of 57 cents. Expanding
Medicaid coverage during boom years is tempting and easy to
do--State governments pay less than half the cost. Yet to
restrain Medicaid's growth, States must rescind a dollar's
worth of coverage to save 43 cents.
The recently enacted health care law adds even more
liabilities to an already unsustainable program. CBO estimates
the new law will increase Federal Medicaid spending by $931
billion. This is due to the millions of new beneficiaries that
the law drives into the program. In fact, CBO estimates that
over the next 10 years, no fewer than 30 million new enrollees
will be added the Medicaid program.
For all these reasons, this budget recommends a fundamental
reform of the Medicaid Program. One potential approach is
described below.
In addition to Medicaid, this budget function includes
spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program
[SCHIP], health research and training, including the National
Institutes of Health [NIH] and substance abuse prevention and
treatment; and consumer and occupational health and safety,
including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Discretionary spending in this function includes funding
for Project Bioshield, NIH, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service, and the Food and Drug Administration.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $363.3 billion in budget authority
and $365.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013.
Discretionary spending for the year is $56.6 billion in budget
authority and $58.2 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is
$306.7 billion in budget authority and $307.3 billion in
outlays. The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays
are $4.05 trillion and $4.04 trillion, respectively.
While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates,
discretionary spending in this function would be reduced by
another $6.5 billion below the committee recommendation in
fiscal year 2013.
Illustrative Policy Options
The exact contours of a Medicaid reform--as well as other
policies flowing from the fiscal assumptions in this budget
resolution--will be determined by the committees of
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the need for fundamental Medicaid
reform and other measures to slow the growth of Federal
spending are unquestioned, and one set of potential approaches
is described below.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Transform and Strengthen the Medicaid Safety Net. One way
to secure the Medicaid benefit is by converting the Federal
share of Medicaid spending into an allotment tailored to meet
each State's needs, indexed for inflation and population
growth. Such a reform would end the misguided one-size-fits-all
approach that has tied the hands of State governments. States
would no longer be shackled by federally determined program
requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, each State would
have the freedom and flexibility and to tailor a Medicaid
Program that fit the needs of its unique population.
The Chairman's mark proposes to turn Medicaid from an open-
ended entitlement into a block-granted program like SCHIP.
These programs would be unified under the proposal and grown
together for population growth and inflation.
This reform also would improve the health care safety net
for low-income Americans by giving States the ability to offer
their Medicaid populations more options and better access to
care. Medicaid recipients, like all other Americans, deserve to
choose their own doctors and make their own health care
decisions, instead of having Washington make those decisions
for them.
Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $810
billion in savings over 10 years, easing the fiscal burdens
imposed on State budgets and contributing to the long-term
stabilization of the Federal Government's fiscal path.
Repeal the Medicaid Expansions in the New Health Care Law.
The recently enacted health care law calls for major expansions
in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. These expansions
will have a significant impact on the Federal share of the
Medicaid Program, and will dramatically increase outlays.
In the face of enormous stress on Federal and State budgets
and declining quality of care for Medicaid, the new health care
law would increase the eligible population for the program by
one-third. For fiscal years 2014 through 2023, CBO projects the
new law will increase Federal spending by $932 billion.
This future fiscal burden will have serious budgetary
consequences for both Federal and State governments. While the
health law requires the Federal Government to finance 100
percent of the Medicaid costs associated with covering new
enrollees, this provision begins to phase out in fiscal year
2016. At that time, State governments will be required to
assume a share of this cost. This share increases from fiscal
year 2016 through 2020, when States will be required to finance
10 percent of the health law's expansion of Medicaid.
Not only does this expansion magnify the challenges to both
State and Federal budgets, it also binds the hands of local
governments in developing solutions that meet the unique needs
of their citizens. The health care law would exacerbate the
already crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates that
have resulted in below-market reimbursements, poor health care
outcomes, and restrictive services. The budget calls for
repealing the Medicaid expansions contained in the health care
law and removing the law's burdensome programmatic mandates on
State governments. Adopting this option would save $932 billion
over 10 years.
Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes
to spend $800 billion over the next 10 years providing eligible
individuals with subsidies to purchase government-approved
health insurance. These subsidies can only be used to purchase
plans that meet standards determined by the new health care
law. In addition to this enormous market distortion, the law
also stipulates a complex maze of eligibility and income tests
to determine how much of a subsidy qualifying individuals may
receive.
The new law couples these subsidies with a mandate for
individuals to purchase health insurance and bureaucratic
controls on the types of insurance that may legally be offered.
Taken together, these provisions will undermine the private
insurance market, which serves as the backbone of the current
U.S. health care system. Exchange subsidies will undermine the
competitive forces of the marketplace. Government mandates will
drive out all but the largest insurance companies. Punitive tax
penalties will force individuals to purchase coverage whether
they choose to or not. Further, this budget does not condone
any policy that would require entities or individuals to
finance activities make health decisions that violate their
religious beliefs. This budget repeals the President's onerous
health care law for this and many other reasons.
Left in place, the health law will create pressures that
will eventually lead to a single-payer system in which the
Federal Government determines how much health care Americans
need and what kind of care they can receive. This budget
recommends repealing the architecture of this new law, which
puts heath care decisions into the hands of bureaucrats, and
instead allowing Congress to pursue patient-centered health
care reforms that actually bring down the cost of care by
empowering consumers.
For Function 550, repeal of the insurance subsidies and
other exchange-related spending would save roughly $640 billion
over 10 years. To be clear, this budget repeals all federal
spending related to the health law's exchange subsidies and
related spending. CBO's $800 billion estimate for the spending
associated with exchange subsidies combines a mix of both
outlays and revenues. Function 550 reflects only the savings
that would result from repealing the federal outlay portion of
this spending. The remaining $160 billion in savings is
associated with the revenues spent under the new law for
premium credits. This budget assumes full repeal of all of the
new health care law's tax increases as part of comprehensive
tax reform.
Other Related Savings: Interactions from repealing unspent
stimulus funding and other associated provisions in the new
health care law save roughly $4 billion over 10 years. This is
largely to do streamlining discretionary programs and promoting
efficiencies within existing programs.
FUNCTION 570: MEDICARE
----------
Function Summary
With the creation of Medicare in 1965, the United States
made a commitment to help fund the medical care of elderly
Americans without exhausting their life savings or the assets
and incomes of their working children and younger relatives. In
urging the creation of Medicare, President Kennedy said that
such a program was chiefly needed to protect, not the poor, but
people who had worked for years and suddenly found all their
savings gone because of a costly health problem.
But spending for Medicare has grown quickly in recent
decades--in part because of rising enrollment and in part
because of rising costs per enrollee--and has reached
unsustainable rates. Between 1970 and 2011, gross federal
spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7
percent. Under the alternative fiscal scenario in CBO's The
Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2011), mandatory spending on
Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP by 2035 and 14
percent of GDP by 2085. CBO's March baseline projects that
Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be bankrupt by
2022.
Medicare's imbalance threatens beneficiaries' access to
quality, affordable care. The program's fundamentally flawed
structure is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn,
threatening to bankrupt the system--and ultimately the Nation.
Without reform, the program will end up causing exactly what it
was created to avoid: millions of America's seniors without
adequate health security and a younger working generation
saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that
cannot be sustained.
Letting government break its promises to current seniors
and to future generations is unacceptable. In addition, placing
Medicare on a sustainable path is an indispensable part of
restoring the Federal Government's fiscal balance. The reforms
outlined in this budget protect and preserve Medicare for those
in or near retirement, while saving and strengthening the
program so future generations can count on it when they retire.
The Medicare program's spending appears in Function 570 of
the budget resolution. The function reflects the Medicare Part
A Hospital Insurance [HI] Program, Part B Supplementary Medical
Insurance [SMI] Program, Part C Medicare Advantage Program, and
Part D Prescription Drug Benefit, as well as premiums paid by
qualified aged and disabled beneficiaries.
The various parts of the program are financed in different
ways. Part A benefits are financed primarily by a payroll tax
(currently 2.9 percent of taxable earnings), the revenues from
which are credited to the HI Trust Fund. For Part B, premiums
paid by beneficiaries cover about one-quarter of outlays, and
the Treasury General Fund covers the rest. (Payments to private
insurance plans under Part C are financed by a blend of funds
from Parts A and B.) Enrollees' premiums under Part D are set
to cover about one-quarter of the cost of the basic
prescription drug benefit, although many low-income enrollees
receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the
remaining cost.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $510 billion in budget authority
and $510 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and $6.6 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is
$503 billion in budget authority and $503 billion in outlays.
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.5
trillion and $6.5 trillion respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
The Medicare program attempts to do two things to make sure
that all seniors have secure, affordable health coverage.
First, the program pools risk among a specific population of
Americans, ensuring that seniors enjoy secure access to
coverage. The policies supported by this budget strengthen and
enhance this aspect of Medicare so seniors will have more
health-care choices within the same stabilized risk pool.
Second, Medicare subsidizes coverage for seniors to ensure
that coverage is affordable. Affordability is a critical goal,
but the subsidy structure of Medicare is fundamentally broken
and drives costs in the wrong direction. The open-ended, blank-
check nature of the Medicare subsidy fuels health care
inflation, threatens the solvency of the program, and creates
inexcusable levels of waste in the system.
While the committees of jurisdiction will make the final
determinations on specific Medicare reforms, the options
described below offer one clear and reliable path toward
solvency.
PREMIUM SUPPORT
In the Medicare system, the Federal Government--not the
patient--is the customer; and the government has been a clumsy,
ineffective steward of value. Controlling costs in an open-
ended fee-for-service system has proved impossible to do
without limiting access or sacrificing quality. Over the
program's entire history, in a vain attempt to get control of
the waste in the system, Washington has made across-the-board
payment reductions to providers without regard to quality or
patient satisfaction. It has not worked. Costs have continued
to grow, seniors continue to lose access to quality care, and
the program remains on a path to bankruptcy. Absent reform,
Medicare will be unable to meet the needs of current seniors
and future generations.
Reform aimed at empowering individuals--with a strengthened
safety net for the poor and the sick--will not only ensure the
fiscal sustainability of this program, the Federal budget, and
the U.S. economy, but also guarantee that Medicare can fulfill
the promise of health security for America's seniors.
The Medicare reform envisioned in this budget resolution
begins with a commitment to keep the promises made to those who
now are in or near retirement. Consequently, for those 55 and
older, the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as
they are, without change.
For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known
as ``premium support.''
Starting in 2023, seniors (those who first become eligible
by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2023) would be given a
choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional
fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare
Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium-support payment
either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by
the senior, depending on the plan's cost.
The Medicare recipient of the future would choose, from a
list of guaranteed coverage options, a health plan that best
suits his or her needs. This is not a voucher program; a
Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare,
directly to the plan or the fee-for-service program to
subsidize its cost. The program would operate in a manner
similar to that of the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The
Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the
sick would receive higher payments if their conditions
worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional
assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier
seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of
their premiums. Also starting in 2023, the age of eligibility
for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with
Social Security's retirement age.
This approach to strengthening the Medicare program--which
is based on a long history of bipartisan reform plans--would
ensure security and affordability for seniors now and into the
future. It would set up a carefully monitored exchange for
Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the
Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all
Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that
Medicare's sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive
coverage.
While there would be no disruptions in the current Medicare
fee-for-service program for those currently enrolled or
becoming eligible in the next 10 years, all seniors would have
the choice to opt-in to the new Medicare program once it began
in 2023. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to
choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health
security throughout their retirement years. It would also
expand that freedom to non-retirees by giving certain employers
the option to offer their employees a free choice option,
smoothing the transition from their working years to when
seniors become Medicare-eligible. This would enable workers to
devote their employer's health coverage contribution to the
purchase a health insurance plan that works best for them.
This reform also ensures affordability by fixing the
currently broken subsidy system and letting market competition
work as a real check on widespread waste and skyrocketing
health care costs. Putting patients in charge of how their
health care dollars are spent will force providers to compete
against each other on price and quality.
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
A Long-Term ``Doc Fix.'' In recent years, Medicare's
physician reimbursement formula--the ``sustained growth rate''
[SGR]--has threatened steep reductions in payments, leaving
doctors uncertain about their incomes and, in some cases,
reluctant to take on additional Medicare patients. Congress has
patched over the problem numerous times with ad hoc increases
in reimbursements--a practice known as the ``doc fix.'' These
measures have become increasingly expensive to taxpayers
without stabilizing the program. This budget accommodates
legislation that fixes the Medicare physician payment formula
for the next 10 years so that Medicare beneficiaries continue
to have access to health care. It provides for a reimbursement
system that fairly compensates physicians who treat Medicare
beneficiaries while providing incentives to improve quality and
efficiency.
Ending the Raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. Supporters of
the 2010 government takeover of health care insisted the law
would both shore up the Medicare Trust Fund and pay for a new
health care entitlement program. In testimony before the
Committee, Medicare's chief actuary stated the truism that the
same dollar could not be used twice. This budget calls for
directing any potential Medicare savings in current law toward
shoring up Medicare, not paying for new entitlements. The
budget also urges repeal of the health care law's new rationing
board (the Independent Payment Advisory Board), in addition to
stabilizing plan choices for current seniors.
Medical Liability Insurance Reform. This budget also
advances common-sense curbs on abusive and frivolous lawsuits.
Medical lawsuits and excessive verdicts increase health care
costs and result in reduced access to care. When mistakes
happen, patients have a right to fair representation and fair
compensation. But the current tort litigation system too often
serves the interests of lawyers while driving up costs. The
budget supports several changes to laws governing medical
liability, including limits on noneconomic and punitive
damages.
Means-Testing Premiums for High-Income Seniors. This budget
also advances a bipartisan proposal to further means-test
premiums in Medicare Parts B and D for high-income seniors,
similar to the President's proposal in his fiscal year 2013
budget.
FUNCTION 600: INCOME SECURITY
----------
Function Summary
The welfare reforms of the late 1990s are a success story
of modern domestic policy, but they did not go as far as many
think. Reformers were not able to extend their work beyond cash
welfare to other means-tested programs. Notably, programs that
subsidize food and housing for low-income Americans remain
dysfunctional, and their explosive growth is threatening the
overall strength of the safety net. If the government continues
running trillion-dollar deficits and experiences a debt crisis,
the poor and vulnerable will undoubtedly be the hardest hit, as
the Federal Government's only recourse will be severe, across-
the-board cuts.
Most of the Federal Government's income-support programs
are included in Function 600, Income Security. These include:
general retirement and disability insurance (excluding Social
Security)--mainly through the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation [PBGC]--and benefits to railroad retirees. Other
components are Federal employee retirement and disability
benefits (including military retirees); unemployment
compensation; low-income housing assistance, including Section
8 housing; food and nutrition assistance, including food stamps
and school lunch subsidies; and other income security programs.
This last category includes: Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families [TANF], the Government's principal welfare program;
Supplemental Security Income [SSI]; spending for the refundable
portion of the Earned Income Credit [EIC]; and the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP]. Agencies administering
these programs include the Departments of Agriculture, Health
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Social
Security Administration (for SSI), and the Office of Personnel
Management (for Federal retirement benefits).
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $517.1 billion in budget authority
and $516.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013.
Discretionary spending is $59.9 billion in budget authority and
$63.9 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory
spending in 2013 is $457.2 billion in budget authority and
$452.9 billion in outlays. The 10-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $4.9 trillion and $4.8 trillion,
respectively.
While the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget
that will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to
set priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the
sequester. If not replaced, staff estimates show that this
function would be reduced by another $4.7 billion below the
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.
Illustrative Policy Options
Reforming the Federal Government's income security programs
can both strengthen the safety net and protect taxpayers. Among
reforms that could be considered by the committees of
jurisdiction are the following.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Reduce Spending on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program [LIHEAP]. This budget assumes the same level of funding
for LIHEAP in President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget
request. This saves approximately $500 million in budget
authority for fiscal year 2013.
MANDATORY SPENDING
Block Grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
[SNAP]. Spending on SNAP--formerly known as the Food Stamp
Program--has increased dramatically over the past three years.
SNAP spending grew from $20.6 billion in 2002 to nearly $40
billion in 2008, and is projected to be over $80 billion in
2012. While the increase between 2008 and 2012 is partially due
to the recession, SNAP spending is forecast to be permanently
higher than previous estimates even after employment has
recovered. A variety of factors are driving this growth, but
one major reason is that while the States have the
responsibility of administering the program, they have little
incentive to ensure it is well run.
The budget resolution envisions converting SNAP into an
allotment tailored for each State's low-income population,
indexed for inflation and eligibility. This option would make
no changes to SNAP until 2016--after employment has recovered--
providing States with time to structure their own programs. It
would also envision improving work incentives by requiring a
certain amount of people to engage in work activity, such as
job search, community service activities and education and job
training. This proposal is estimated to save $122.5 billion
over 10 years.
Eliminate Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility. Broad-based
categorical eligibility allows for households to be made
eligible through receiving a minimal Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families [TANF] fund benefit or service. Typically, an
individual is made eligible by receiving a TANF brochure or
being referred to a social services ``800'' telephone number.
This allows individuals to qualify for SNAP benefits under less
restrictive criteria. For example, 40 states currently have no
asset test for receiving SNAP benefits.
Eliminate Abuse of LIHEAP: The Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program [LIHEAP] provides low-income families with
help to pay heating bills. However, many states are providing
families with $1.00 in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase
SNAP benefits (see ``Categorical Eligibility'' above). This
proposal would eliminate that abuse.
Reform Civil Service Pensions. In keeping with a
recommendation from the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility, this option calls for Federal employees--
including Members of Congress and staff--to make greater
contributions toward their own retirement. It would also
eliminate the ability for individuals to receive a ``special
retirement supplement,'' which pays Federal employees the
equivalent of their Social Security benefit at an earlier age.
As the Office of Personnel Management states on its website,
this benefit is ``unique'' to the Federal Employee Retirement
System. This would achieve significant budgetary savings and
also help facilitate a transition to a defined contribution
system for new Federal employees that would give them more
control over their own retirement security. From a fiscal
responsibility standpoint, this option would replace a system
that is creating unfunded future liabilities for taxpayers with
a fully funded system: it could save an estimated $112.7
billion over 10 years.
Conform Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits to Social
Security Benefits. Tier 1 benefits for railroad retirees are
supposed to mimic Social Security benefits, but they are more
generous than Social Security in many ways. This option would
conform Tier 1 so that its benefits would equal those of Social
Security, with an estimated savings to taxpayers of $2 billion
over 10 years.
Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation [PBGC].
Currently, the PBGC faces a $26 billion unfunded liability.
While this budget does not assume the President's proposal, it
recognizes the need to reform the PBGC to ensure that a future
taxpayer funded bailout does not occur. Potential savings could
total an estimated $8.34 billion over 10 years.
Eliminate the Failed Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]
Housing Subsidies. This resolution supports jettisoning the
loan subsidy initiative, Home Affordable Modification Program
[HAMP], created by the Obama administration as part of TARP for
homeowners delinquent on mortgage payments. While the program
announced in early 2009 that it would help up to four million
homeowners avoid foreclosure, since then it has made only
762,839 loan modifications permanent--just 19 percent of the
target. Eliminating HAMP could save $1.4 billion over 10 years.
Unemployment Insurance. This budget resolution assumes that
unemployment benefit expansions and extended benefits expire as
scheduled under current law and does not assume another
extension of emergency unemployment insurance benefits. The
previous expansions have increased UI benefits to 99 weeks--the
longest that had ever been offered prior to this recession, and
have been extended a record 11 times.
Reform Supplemental Security Income. Welfare programs
typically pay benefits on a sliding scale. However, SSI is
different, paying an average of $600 for each and every child
in a household that receives benefits. This reform would create
a sliding scale for children on SSI. Advocates for the disabled
have expressed support for creating a sliding scale for
children on SSI in the past. For example, Jonathan Stein, a
witness for the Democrats at an October 27, 2011 Ways and Means
Subcommittee hearing said about this proposal in 1995: ``(W)e
have a long list of reforms that we do not have time to get
into, but we would say for very large families there should be
some sort of family cap or graduated sliding scale of
benefits.'' Providing SSI on a sliding scale would save $3.5
billion over 10 years.
Reform Means-Tested Entitlements. Congress should act to
reform means-tested entitlements. These programs have grown
rapidly over the past 10 years, and Congress should cap these
programs and begin devolving them to the States. This would
build upon the historic progress of bipartisan welfare reform
in the late 1990s. These reforms transformed cash welfare by
encouraging work, limiting the duration of benefits, and giving
states more control over how money was being spent. The TANF
reforms of the old Aid for Families with Dependent Children cut
welfare caseloads in half as poverty rates declined.
FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY
----------
Function Summary
This category consists of the Social Security Program, or
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance [OASDI]. It is the
largest budget function in terms of outlays and provides funds
for the Government's largest entitlement program. Under
provisions of the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget
Enforcement Act, Social Security trust funds are considered to
be off-budget. But a small portion of spending within Function
650--including general fund transfers of taxes paid on Social
Security benefits--is on-budget. Therefore, although the
discussion below describes both the on-budget and off-budget
components, the budget resolution itself contains only the on-
budget portion.
Social Security must be reformed to prevent severe cuts in
future benefits. This budget strengthens the program by
establishing a requirement that policymakers come to the table
and enact common-sense reforms to keep the program solvent for
current beneficiaries and make it stronger for future
generations.
The President's Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
Reform put forward a proposal in December of 2010 to make
Social Security sustainably solvent over the 75-year actuarial
period that is used to measure the soundness of the program--
demonstrating that there is a bipartisan way forward.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
Social Security contains both on-budget and off-budget
spending--the latter consisting of benefit payments for the
OASDI program. The budget resolution reflects only the on-
budget spending. In that category, the resolution calls for
$53.2 billion in budget authority and $53.3 billion in outlays
in fiscal year 2013. Over 10 years, the on-budget totals are
$490.5 billion in budget authority and $490.8 billion in
outlays.
In the off-budget category, the resolution calls for $769.0
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2013 and $765.5
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2013. Over 10 years, the
off-budget totals are $10.1 trillion in budget authority and
$10.1 trillion in outlays.
Illustrative Policy Options
FACING SOCIAL SECURITY'S FISCAL PROBLEM
An all-too-common reaction to the fiscal problem in Social
Security has been denial that a problem exists. It is claimed
that the Social Security Trust Fund will remain solvent for at
least a decade, at which point the government could
theoretically cover any shortfall by raising taxes. Others
downplay the necessity for change, contending that sustained
economic growth could take care of the problem all by itself.
Neither is correct. First, any value in the balances in the
Social Security Trust Fund is derived from dubious government
accounting. The trust fund is not a real savings account. From
1983 to 2011, it collected more Social Security taxes than it
paid out in Social Security benefits. But the government
borrowed all of these surpluses and spent them on other
government programs unrelated to Social Security. The Trust
Fund holds Treasury securities, but the ability to redeem these
securities is completely dependent on the Treasury's ability to
raise money through taxes or borrowing.
Beginning in 2011, Social Security started paying out more
in benefits than it collected in taxes--in other words, running
cash deficits--a trend that will worsen as the baby boomers
continue to retire. To pay full benefits, the government must
pay back the money it owes Social Security.
Those who wish to solve this problem by raising taxes
ignore the profound economic damage that such large tax
increases would entail. Just lifting the cap on income subject
to Social Security taxes, as some have proposed, would, when
combined with the Obama administration's other preferred tax
policies, lift the top marginal tax rate above 50 percent. Most
economists agree that raising marginal tax rates that high
would create a significant drag on economic growth, job
creation, productivity and wages.
Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers
support the generation preceding them, and earn the support of
those who follow.
There is a bipartisan path forward on Social Security--one
that requires all parties first to acknowledge the fiscal
realities of this critical program. The President's Fiscal
Commission made a positive first step by advancing solutions to
ensure the solvency of Social Security. They suggested a more
progressive benefit structure, with benefits for higher-income
workers growing more slowly than those of workers with lower
incomes who are more vulnerable to economic shocks in
retirement. The Commission also recommended reforms that take
account of increases in longevity, to arrest the demographic
problems that are undermining Social Security's finances.
In addition, there is bipartisan consensus that Social
Security reform should provide more help to those who fall
below the poverty line after retirement. There is no security
in a program that is blind to the needs of the Nation's most
vulnerable citizens--lower-income seniors should receive more
targeted assistance than those who have had ample opportunity
to save for retirement.
While certain details of the Commission's Social Security
proposals, particularly on the tax side, are of debatable
merit, the Commission undoubtedly made positive steps forward
on bipartisan solutions to strengthen Social Security. This
budget seeks to build on the Commission's important work,
calling on action to solve this pressing problem by requiring
the President to put forward specific ideas on fixing Social
Security. The budget also puts the onus on Congress to offer
legislation to ensure the sustainable solvency of this critical
program.
STARTING THE PROCESS
This budget calls for setting in motion the process of
reforming Social Security by altering a current-law trigger
that, in the event that the Social Security program is not
sustainable, requires the President, in conjunction with the
Social Security Board of Trustees, to submit a plan for
restoring balance to the fund. This option would then require
congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas as well.
Although the Committee on Ways and Means would make the final
determination, this option would require that:
If in any year the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, in its annual
Trustees' Report, determines that the 75-year actuarial balance
of the Social Security Trust Funds is in deficit, and the
annual balance of the Social Security Trust Funds in the 75th
year is in deficit, the Board of Trustees should, no later than
the 30th of September of the same calendar year, submit to the
President recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive
annual balance in the 75th year.
No later than the 1st of December of the same
calendar year in which the Board of Trustees submits its
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress including
recommendations necessary to achieve a positive 75-year
actuarial balance and a positive annual balance in the 75th
year;
Within 60 days of the President submitting
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which the
legislation has been referred shall report the bill which shall
be considered by the full House or Senate under expedited
procedures.
Again, the aim of this option is to force recognition of
the need to save Social Security. This procedure offers a first
step in that direction.
FUNCTION 700: VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES
----------
Function Summary
This category includes funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs [VA], which provides benefits to veterans who
meet various eligibility rules. Benefits range from income
security for veterans, principally disability compensation and
pensions; veterans education, training, and rehabilitation
services; hospital and medical care for veterans; and other
veterans' benefits and services, such as home loan guarantees.
The past two decades have seen extraordinary growth in the
costs of providing benefits and services for the nation's 22
million veterans. The two largest categories of veterans
spending are for income security and medical care. This growth
occurred despite the declining size of the veterans population
and reflects increased benefits legislated by Congress and the
aging of the veterans population.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $134.6 billion in budget authority
and $135.2 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. This is an
increase of 5 percent from last year's level. Discretionary
spending is $61.3 billion in budget authority and $62.1 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. This resolution also provides
for up to $54.5 billion in advance appropriations for medical
care, consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and
Reform Transparency Act of 2009. Mandatory spending in 2013 is
$73.3 billion in budget authority and $73.2 billion in outlays.
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $1.5
trillion and $1.5 trillion, respectively. This is in line with
the President's request.
This budget fully funds the Nation's commitment to the
services and benefits earned by veterans through their selfless
military service. Those who have served in harm's way have
earned the gratitude of their countrymen and are the highest
priority within this budget.
While the Committee does not assume any savings in Function
700, it notes the bipartisan support for certain mandatory
savings proposals. These proposals include:
Repeal Hartness v. Nicholson court decision. In 2006, the
Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims determined that age can be
used to determine qualification for certain pension benefits
rather than disability status. Addressing this judicial
expansion of the scope of veterans benefits through legislation
would clarify eligibility for pension benefits for veterans age
65 and over and reaffirm the original intention of the law:
that disability status, and not age, determines eligibility for
certain pension benefits. This policy proposal was included in
the joint House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees' letter
to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction [JSCDR] last
year.
COLA Round-down. Another savings recommendation included in
the joint House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees' letter
to the JSCDR is to round down to the nearest dollar the annual
cost of living adjustment [COLA] for veterans' disability
compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. This
minor adjustment to compensation payments would have little
impact, if any, on veterans and was also included in the
President's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
Slow the growth in VA contributions towards increasing
tuition rates. Veteran education benefits became significantly
more generous following the 2008 passage of the Post-911 GI
Bill. The Post-911 GI Bill covers veterans' tuition, fees, and
textbook costs, in addition to providing a monthly living
stipend. The rapidly increasing average cost of tuition
nationwide--about 6 percent per year--is causing unexpected and
considerable increases in education benefit spending.
Furthermore, there is strong evidence that uncapped federal
student loan programs--both for veterans and for other
populations--are enabling the rapid rise of tuition costs. As
higher-education analyst Art Hauptman has written, ``it is
difficult to believe that colleges and universities could have
increased their charges so rapidly over time without the ready
availability of students' ability to borrow.''
Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees
proposed to the JSCDR that capping the annual increase in
tuition support at 3 percent would lead to substantial savings
and, by no longer enabling rapidly rising tuition, would not
adversely impact veterans at all.
FUNCTION 750: ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
----------
Function Summary
The Administration of Justice function consists of Federal
law enforcement programs, litigation and judicial activities,
correctional operations, and State and local justice
assistance. Activities funded within this function include: the
Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]; the Drug Enforcement
Administration [DEA]; border and transportation security; the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF]; the
United States Attorneys; legal divisions within the Department
of Justice [DOJ]; the Legal Services Corporation; the Federal
Judiciary; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This function
also includes several components of the Department of Homeland
Security.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $54.3 billion in budget authority
and $57.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
spending is $51.8 billion in budget authority and $53.8 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is
$2.4 billion in budget authority and $3.9 billion in outlays.
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $579.4
billion and $596.3 billion, respectively.
Spending in this function has increased by $26.7 billion or
an increase of 75 percent over the past decade. According to
the Government Accountability Office [GAO], since fiscal year
2005, over $30 billion has been disbursed to more than 200 DOJ
programs authorized through three sources: Community Oriented
Policing Services, the Office of Justice Programs, and the
Office on Violence Against Women. The GAO has determined that
many of these grants--several of which have been used to fund
recreational activities, fashion shows, pool parties, and even
doughnut-eating contests--could be viewed as wasteful,
overlapping and duplicative.
With our nation facing dangerous terrorist threats as well
as a tidal wave of debt, Federal taxpayer money for the
Department of Justice should be focused on administering
justice, arresting and prosecuting terrorists, investigating
crimes, and seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful
behavior. It's the job of the States and communities to
determine the best course of action in deterring crime. The
budget focuses on funding core government responsibilities and
reducing duplication, excess, and unnecessary spending. While
the Committee recommendation is a disciplined budget that will
require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to set
priorities and achieve efficiencies, it does not take the
arbitrary approach that will result from the Budget Control
Act's sequester. The House Republican budget replaces the
sequester. If not replaced, based on staff estimates, this
function would be reduced by another $5.7 billion below the
committee recommendation in fiscal year 2013.
Illustrative Policy Options
As elsewhere, the committees of jurisdiction will make
final policy determinations. The proposals below indicate
policy options that might be considered.
DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
Consolidate Justice Grants. In 2010, DOJ awarded nearly
$3.9 billion in grants, including $4.0 billion provided in the
2009 stimulus bill. The Congressional Research Service [CRS]
and GAO identified overlap and duplication within many of these
grant programs. CRS suggested ``possible policy options could
include altering the current grant programs to target funding
for specific activities in each grant program or consolidating
the different grant programs into one large program.'' In
addition, these grant programs address law-enforcement issues
that are primarily state and local responsibilities. This
option streamlines grants into three categories--first
responder, law enforcement, and victims--while eliminating
waste, inefficiency and bureaucracy.
Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also supports
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One proposal in Function
750 is the elimination of the duplicative National Drug
Intelligence Center, which would save more than $400 million
over 10 years.
FUNCTION 800: GENERAL GOVERNMENT
----------
Function Summary
General government consists of the activities of the
Legislative Branch; the Executive Office of the President;
general tax administration and fiscal operations of the
Department of the Treasury (including the Internal Revenue
Service [IRS]); the Office of Personnel Management, and the
real property and personnel costs of the General Services
Administration; general purpose fiscal assistance to States,
localities, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories; and
other general government activities.
Several programs in general government have seen steady
growth since 2008. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
increased the General Services Administration's budget by $5.8
billion, for example. The President's 2013 budget requests
significant increases for this function, boosting budget
authority by 20 percent compared to 2008 levels.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $23.2 billion in budget authority
and $25.1 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Discretionary
spending is $16.8 billion in budget authority and $18.5 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2013. Mandatory spending in 2013 is
$6.3 billion in budget authority and $6.6 billion in outlays.
The 10-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $239.6
billion and $241.0 billion, respectively.
Illustrative Policy Options
The resolution aims to eliminate identified waste across
all Federal Government branches and agencies. Federal pay,
benefits, and mismanagement of properties are just a few areas
into which the government can look for savings that would
reduce economic distortions harmful to the private sector.
While the committees of jurisdiction will determine the actual
policies in pursuit of these goals, the options below offer
several potential approaches.
Prohibit New Construction. In fiscal year 2010, the
government owned 77,700 properties which were either
underutilized or not utilized at all, at a cost of $1.7
billion. This budget adopts the policy of the fiscal year 2011
continuing resolution, H.R. 1, to prohibit new construction for
one year of government buildings managed by the General
Services Administration.
Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget also incorporates
several of the House Republican ``YouCut'' proposals introduced
during the 111th and 112th Congresses. One example in Function
800 is the elimination of the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund, which saves over $350 million over 10 years.
Reduce Student Loan Repayment for Government Jobs. As the
Nation struggles with high unemployment and uncertainty in the
private sector, taxpayer dollars go to fund Federal jobs that
are not only insulated from market forces, but enjoy above-
average pay and benefits, one of which is repayments of student
loans. The budget calls for reducing this extra benefit that is
not generally available in the private sector.
Terminate the Election Assistance Commission [EAC]. This
independent agency was created in 2002 as part of the Help
America Vote Act to provide grants to States to modernize
voting equipment. Its mission has been fulfilled. Even the
National Association of Secretaries of State has passed
resolutions stating that the EAC has served its purpose and
funding is no longer necessary. EAC should be eliminated and
any remaining valuable functions transferred to the Federal
Election Commission.
Accompany pro-growth tax reform with responsible reductions
to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. Changes in the tax code
are occurring at a rate of approximately one a day and the
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately four million
words. Each year, taxpayers and businesses spend an
unbelievable six billion hours complying with filing
requirements. This resolution calls for simplifying the
burdensome tax code, naturally reducing the agency's size by
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS.
FUNCTION 900: NET INTEREST
----------
Function Summary
One of the worst effects of large, chronic budget deficits
is the high interest cost it produces. Interest payments yield
no government services or benefits; they are simply excess
costs resulting from a history of spending beyond the
government's means. These costs are reflected in Function 900,
which presents the interest paid for the Federal Government's
borrowing less the interest received by the Federal Government
from trust fund investments and loans to the public. It is a
mandatory payment, with no discretionary components.
For the past three years, the Federal Government has run
deficits in excess of $1 trillion, and despite some
discretionary spending reductions since the beginning of the
112th Congress, the Federal budget is on track for another year
with a deficit above $1 trillion. Because much of this spending
is so deeply entrenched, reducing the associated interest costs
will require sustained spending restraint. This budget
resolution does so and it reduces net interest by $514 billion
over 10 years compared with the President's budget.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for $234.2 billion in mandatory budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2012. The 10-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $4.26 trillion.
On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $344.4
billion in fiscal year 2013, and $5.32 trillion over 10 years.
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments
to the Social Security Trust Fund, which are reflected as
negative numbers.
Off-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are
-$110.2 billion in fiscal year 2013, and -$1.06 trillion over
10 years.
FUNCTION 920: ALLOWANCES
----------
Function Summary
Function 920 represents a category called ``allowances''
that captures the budgetary effects of cross-cutting proposals
or contingencies that impact multiple functions rather than one
specific area of the budget. It also represents a place-holder
category for any budgetary impacts that the Congressional
Budget Office [CBO] has yet to assign to a specific budget
function. CBO typically reassigns the budgetary effects of any
legislation enacted within Function 920 once a new baseline
update is released.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
In August 2011, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of
2011 [BCA] (P.L. 112-25) that provided for significant spending
reductions enforced by statutory spending caps and an automatic
sequestration process. The BCA did not specify a distribution
of spending reductions in specific budget functions other than
defense (Function 050) and Medicare (Function 570). The law,
however, did require reductions in non-defense and non-Medicare
areas of the budget. At the time that the March 2012 baseline
was released, CBO did not have account-level information on
what non-defense and non-Medicare accounts the administration
had determined were exempt from reduction under the terms of
the BCA. CBO, therefore, has assigned the non-defense and non-
Medicare reductions required by the BCA to Function 920.
The CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of $689
billion and $629 billion in reductions for budget authority and
outlays, respectively, to reflect the impact of the BCA on non-
defense and non-Medicare spending. The following four
components are included in the baseline:
1. A $265 billion and $235 billion reduction in non-defense
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply
with the discretionary spending caps set by the BCA in section
101(c).
2. An additional $362 billion and $336 billion reduction in
total non-defense budget authority and outlays, respectively,
needed to comply with the automatic sequester provision and
revised discretionary spending caps under Section 302 of the
BCA.
3. A $15 billion and $11 billion reduction in discretionary
budget authority and outlays, respectively, for disaster-
relief-designated spending not subject to the BCA spending
caps. Under CBO's normal scoring conventions, the discretionary
baseline reflects the most recently enacted discretionary level
adjusted for inflation in the out years. Section 251(b)(2)(D)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as
amended by the BCA, however, limits upward adjustments in
spending limits for disaster-relief-designated spending to the
10-year rolling average of previous disaster-relief-designated
spending (excluding the highest and lowest years in calculating
that average). CBO has estimated that a discretionary baseline
carrying an inflated level of disaster spending, as provided
for in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-
74), would result in disaster-relief spending levels greater
than the rolling average limit set forth in the BCA. Therefore,
CBO has added a downward adjustment in Function 920 to reduce
disaster relief-designated spending in its baseline to comply
with the BCA limit.
4. A $46 billion reduction in both budget authority and
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs
necessary to comply with the terms of the BCA.
Illustrative Policy Options
Reconciliation and Sequester. This budget resolution
assumes all savings called for by the BCA will, in fact, be
realized. The budget, however, replaces the BCA's fiscal year
2013 automatic sequester process for discretionary programs and
its arbitrary across-the-board reductions in these programs
with a more strategically sensible policy that meets the
primary responsibility of government--the common defense, as
well as other priorities. Accordingly, it achieves these
savings through non-defense discretionary and mandatory savings
that will be achieved through the reconciliation process.
For fiscal year 2013, the CBO baseline projects the BCA
sequester would reduce non-defense discretionary budget
authority and outlays by $43 billion and $23 billion,
respectively. The budget replaces the non-defense discretionary
savings assumed in Function 920 for fiscal year 2013 with
specific spending reductions in other functions while leaving
the mandatory spending reductions in Function 920 in place. For
fiscal years 2014 and beyond, the budget abides by the lower
total discretionary and mandatory spending caps enacted as part
of the BCA. In this way, the budget ensures that all of the
remaining savings called for by the BCA will be achieved either
through future policy decisions or the automatic enforcement
procedures of the BCA.
Federal Employee Pay Freeze and Attrition. The budget
assumes cumulative discretionary savings of $256 billion over
10 years by extending a freeze in federal employee pay that
began in 2011 for three more years through 2015 and assuming a
reduction in the federal civilian workforce through attrition
whereby the administration would be permitted to hire one
employee for every three that leave government service.
Agencies involved in national security would be exempt from any
limitation on hiring.
Adjustment for Disaster-Spending Plug in the CBO Baseline.
The budget assumes that any future disaster-relief-designated
spending will be fully offset within the discretionary levels
provided in this resolution. Accordingly, the budget does not
assume the extension of the disaster funding enacted last year
and the upward adjustment in the BCA's spending caps for
subsequent years, and it reflects the removal of this spending.
Over 10 years, the budget includes savings of $101 billion in
budget authority and $91 billion in outlays by assuming that
any future disaster funding is accommodated within the caps.
The impact of removing CBO's disaster-relief-designated
spending adjustment included in the Function 920 baseline is
$15 billion and $11 billion in budget authority and outlays,
respectively.
Elimination of Student Loan Repayment for Government
Employees. The budget assumes cumulative discretionary savings
over 10 years of $800 million in budget authority and $670
million in outlays by eliminating the repayment by the
government of student loans for government employees.
Program Integrity. The budget assumes that program
integrity funding is accomplished within existing BCA cap
levels for fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2021. By
providing full funding for anti-fraud and other program
integrity programs, this saves, on net, $11.8 billion.
FUNCTION 950: UNDISTRIBUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
----------
Function Summary
This function consists of offsetting receipts to the
Treasury, which are recorded as negative budget authority and
outlays. Receipts recorded in this function are either
intrabudgetary (a payment from one Federal agency to another,
such as agency payments to the retirement trust funds) or
proprietary (a payment from the public for some kind of
business transaction with the government). The main types of
receipts recorded in this function are: the payments Federal
employees and agencies make to employee retirement trust funds;
payments made by companies for the right to explore and produce
oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, and payments by
those who bid for the right to buy or use public property or
resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum. The function
also contains an off-budget component that reflects the Federal
Government's share of Social Security contributions for Federal
employees.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
The resolution calls for -$100.6 billion in budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2013 (with the minus sign
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over 10 years, budget
authority and outlays total -$1.139 trillion.
On-budget amounts are -$84.7 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2012, and -$954.3 billion in budget
authority and outlays over 10 years.
Off-budget amounts are -$15.8 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2013, and -$185.3 billion in budget
authority and outlays over 10 years.
Illustrative Policy Options
Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission
recommended several ways to achieve discretionary savings. This
resolution adopts many of their proposals, such as reducing the
Federal auto fleet by 20 percent, excluding the Department of
Defense and the U.S. Postal Service. In 2010, the Federal
Government reported a worldwide inventory of more than 662,000
vehicles and spent $4.6 billion on its fleet. In addition, the
2009 stimulus bill provided $300 million to ``green the Federal
fleet'' by purchasing 17,205 vehicles--most of which became
another back-door bailout for General Motors and Chrysler.
This resolution builds on the Fiscal Commission's
recommendation by proposing to sell a portion of the Federal
fleet to reduce the deficit and to get rid of unneeded
vehicles, saving hundreds of millions of dollars.
Federal Real Property Sales. The Fiscal Commission
highlighted potential budget savings from another area where
the mismanagement of taxpayer-owned assets and sheer amount of
waste are staggering: Federal real estate and other property.
The Federal real property inventory is so massive that the
report accounting for it lags two years behind the current
budget year. The most recent General Services Administration's
Federal Real Property Report is from fiscal year 2010 and
summarizes data from 2009. With such large timing differences
and accompanying confusion, there is very little incentive for
agencies to dispose of unneeded properties and very few
repercussions from holding onto these properties indefinitely.
The Federal Government owns, leases, or manages 1.1 million
properties nationwide. Of those, non-defense buildings
accounted for at least 400,000 of the total. Yet the
government's track record for real estate asset sales has been
poor.
In 2009, Federal agencies received only about $50 million
in proceeds from the sale of 2,228 assets--an average of
$22,500 per property. Many buildings were simply given away as
below-market-value bargains or even for free. On top of that,
agencies reported spending $150 million in 2009 on the
operating costs alone of properties that were already deemed to
be unneeded and were waiting to either be sold or disposed.
This resolution supports the Office of Management and
Budget's continued advocacy of streamlining the asset sale
process; loosening regulations for the disposal and sale of
Federal property to eliminate red tape and waste; setting
enforceable targets for asset sales; and holding government
agencies accountable for the buildings they oversee. If done
correctly, taxpayers can recoup billions of dollars from
selling unused government property.
Federal Land. In addition to Federal fleet and real
property sales, this resolution supports examining Federal land
to see where cost savings can be achieved by selling unneeded
acreage in the open market while simultaneously protecting land
considered a national treasure, such as the 84 million acres
managed by the National Park Service. Currently, the Federal
Government owns 650 million acres of land--almost 30 percent of
the land area of the United States.
FUNCTION 970: GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
----------
Function Summary
This function includes funding for prosecution of the
global war on terrorism [GWOT] and other closely related
activities.
Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution
This resolution calls for $96.7 billion in budget authority
and $51.1 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2013. This
includes amounts equal to the President's request to account
for any future House consideration of appropriations for the
global war on terrorism and other activities. This function
accommodates all of the funding requested by the Department of
Defense for military operations and by the Department of State
for the incremental, non-enduring civilian activities in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. The funding budgeted in this
function is not to be used as a reserve fund for other non-war
activities.
Defense Activities. This resolution assumes $88.5 billion
for the military activities of the Department of Defense
related to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Given the complete withdrawal of U.S. military forces from
Iraq at the end of 2011, the funding requested for Iraq is
solely for the purpose of providing security assistance and
cooperation with Iraqi security forces. As the U.S.-Iraq
relationship transitions to a more normal state-to-state
relationship, the funding for these activities should also
transition to the base budget. It is our expectation that these
activities will not be funded on a permanent basis outside the
appropriate agency budgets.
For Afghanistan, the budget request assumes average troop
levels of 68,000 personnel as requested by the Department of
Defense. This troop level is expected to be achieved by
September 2012, a month before the start of fiscal year 2013.
Defense Secretary Panetta has recently stated that Afghan
security forces could assume lead responsibility for providing
security during 2013, which suggests that the assumed force
level may well be in excess of the levels that will be
realized. Uncertainty is an inherent element of warfare, but
the troop level assumption on which this budget request was
built would seem to provide a cushion to offset the President's
proposed cuts in the base defense budget. On top of this, the
President's request also shifts all compensation costs for
nearly 65,000 soldiers and marines from the base budget to the
war budget. Viewed together, it appears that the administration
is attempting to ameliorate the effects of its precipitous cuts
in the defense budget by hiding costs in the uncapped war
budget. Any such effort abuses Congress's efforts to fully
budget for the war's extraordinary expenses and not allow these
funds to be used for other purposes.
Civilian Activities. This resolution assumes $8.2 billion
for the activities of civilian agencies--primarily the State
Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development--
as part of the integrated civil-military strategy for securing
American objectives in the frontline states.
Of this total, $4 billion will be used for the civilian
presence in Iraq to continue the transition process. The
majority of Iraq GWOT funding will support diplomatic
operations and military assistance programs recently
transitioned from the Department of Defense.
This budget also assumes a full year of operations funding
for the Police Development Program [PDP] which trains Iraqi
Security Forces to administer and sustain policing operations
and provide for Iraq's internal security. The Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction [SIGIR] has raised concerns
regarding PDP's effectiveness and the transparency of program
spending. SIGIR notes that only 12 percent of program funds
will be used for the program's purpose--advising and developing
Iraqi police forces--while the majority of the budget (88
percent) will fund security and life support. Assessing whether
outputs of this program justify the substantial financial
inputs needs to be further investigated. SIGIR also cites the
State Department's failure to provide sufficient details on
program costs, budgets, and measurements of performance
outcomes. The State Department needs to respond to these
concerns and ensure transparency and accountability of costs
for PDP in the future.
As the U.S. relationship with Iraq transitions to a more
normal state-to-state relationship, future funding for U.S.
operations in that country should also shift to the base
budget.
For Afghanistan, this budget assumes $3.2 billion to
support U.S. civilian-led efforts to transfer security and
governance responsibilities to the Afghans, in addition to
providing foreign assistance programs that promote economic
development and improve governance capacity. This budget also
includes funding for counternarcotics and criminal justice
programs. All of these efforts are in support of the U.S.
counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan.
In order to succeed in Afghanistan, the United States must
continue partnering with Pakistan to counter the spread of
extremism, which threatens America and the world. Approximately
$1 billion is provided for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency
Capability Fund, which builds the capacity of Pakistan's
security forces to effectively combat terrorism within its
borders.
REVENUE
----------
Led by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of
Michigan, this budget advances a framework that calls for an
American tax system that is simple, efficient and fair to
promote innovation and sustained job creation in the private
sector.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See also, following this section of the report, the Views and
Estimates letter from the Committee on Ways and Means that was signed
by every Republican on the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The House Ways and Means Committee held more than a dozen
hearings devoted to tax reform last year. Last October,
Chairman Camp formally released an international tax reform
discussion draft, with proposals designed to boost
competitiveness and job creation in the United States. This
budget reflects the progress that has been made over the past
year by the House Ways and Means Committee, and calls for
continued leadership to advance tax reform in the year ahead.
This budget starts with the proposition that first,
Congress must do no harm. It assumes that Congress will not
allow massive, across-the-board tax increases to hit the
economy in 2013. This budget then attacks complexity,
unfairness, and inefficiency in the tax code with a set of
fundamental reforms designed to lower tax rates, broaden the
tax base, and reform the U.S. international tax rules, while
getting rid of distortions, loopholes and preferences that
divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.
Following the unveiling of a principled approach to tax
reform in last year's budget resolution, an overwhelming
consensus has emerged that the country is in dire need of
reform that lowers rates, broadens the tax base, and addresses
global competitiveness. After three years, the administration
also has begun to recognize the need for tax reform. The
outline for corporate tax reform released by the administration
in February, however, falls woefully short: the rates are too
high; the tax base is too narrow (and used as a tool to provide
political favors); and the international reforms are anti-
competitive.
By contrast, the principles of reform outlined in this
budget ensure a simpler, fairer tax code not just for large
corporations but for small businesses and American families as
well. Unlike the administration's plan, it improves the
competitiveness of American workers and businesses in the
global economy. America's trading partners have already
reformed their tax systems to provide their companies with a
competitive advantage. Competing in a 21st century global
economy requires that America do the same.
Simplifying the Tax Code and Promoting Job Creation and Economic Growth
Major proposals in this area are:
Reject the President's call to raise taxes.
Consolidate the current six individual income tax
brackets into just two brackets of 10 and 25 percent.
Reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Broaden the tax base to maintain revenue at the
appropriate level designated by this budget resolution for the
next 10 years, and at a share of the economy consistent with
historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades.
These are levels compatible with growth, and--if the spending
restraints in this budget are enacted--sufficient to fund
government operations over time.
Shift from a ``worldwide'' system of taxation to a
``territorial'' tax system that puts American companies and
their workers on a level playing field with foreign competitors
and ends the ``lock-out effect'' that discourages companies
from bringing back foreign earnings to invest in the United
States.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top
rate of 28 percent. Reagan's tax reforms proved to be a
cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in
the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade
that followed.
Over time, additional brackets, credits, carve-outs and
lobbyist loopholes have undone the simpler and fairer tax code
ushered in by the 1986 tax reform. In the last 10 years alone,
there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the tax code. The
current version for individuals has six brackets, with a top
rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb to over 40 percent
after the end of 2012, when hidden rates are considered).
Individuals react negatively toward the tax code partly because
it is complex and attempts to steer them toward certain
activities and away from others. In addition, there are always
a few ``surprises'' that end up raising their tax bills. One
such surprise--the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--was initially
designed to hit only the very highest-income taxpayers but now
ensnares a growing number of middle-class households because of
a flawed design.
This budget affirmatively rejects President Obama's efforts
to raise tax rates on small businesses and investors and to add
new loopholes to the tax code for favored interests. Economic
theory and analysis show that increasing marginal tax rates--
tax increases that reduce incentives to work, save and invest
that next dollar of income--reduces economic output. By
contrast, reductions in marginal tax rates increase output,
mainly by letting people keep more of each dollar they earn and
thereby strengthening incentives to work, produce, and invest
in the future. The House plan both realizes the job-promoting
benefits of lower rates and ensures these reductions are
revenue neutral through base broadening.
Unlike President Obama's proposal, the House plan would not
penalize the nearly three quarters of America's small
businesses that file taxes as individuals by imposing higher
individual rates that make it harder for these vital
enterprises to compete. As President Obama repeatedly says,
small businesses have been responsible for two-thirds of the
jobs created in the United States over the past 15 years, yet
he often neglects to point out that roughly 50 percent of
small-business profits are taxed at the top two individual tax
rates. Raising these rates means increasing taxes on the most
successful job creators.
Raising taxes on capital is another idea that purports to
affect the wealthy but actually hurts all participants in the
economy. Mainstream economics, not to mention common sense,
teaches that raising taxes on any activity generally results in
less of it. Economics and common sense also teach that the size
of a nation's capital stock--the pool of saved money available
for investment and job creation--has an effect on employment,
productivity, and wages. Tax reform should promote savings and
investment because more savings and more investment mean a
larger stock of capital available for job creation. That means
more jobs, more productivity, and higher wages for all American
workers.
The negative effects of high tax rates on work, savings and
investment are compounded when a large mix of exemptions,
deductions and credits are added to the system. These tax
preferences are similar to government spending--instead of
markets directing economic resources to their most efficient
uses, the government directs resources to politically favored
uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation.
In the worst cases, these tax subsidies literally take the
form of spending through the tax code, because they take taxes
paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to
individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all.
In fact, President Obama's corporate tax ``reform'' framework
would expand this practice by transferring taxes paid by
middle-income Americans to the pockets of politically favored
industries.
Eliminating large tax subsidies would not be for the
purpose of increasing total tax revenues. Instead, when offset
by lower rates, it would have a doubly positive impact on the
economy--it would stop diverting economic resources to less
productive uses, while making possible the lower tax rates that
provide greater incentives for economic growth.
There is an emerging bipartisan consensus for tax reform
that lowers tax rates, broadens the tax base, and promotes
growth and job creation. President Reagan's tax reforms
inaugurated an era of great prosperity. It is time to build
upon his leadership and advance a fundamental reform of the
broken tax code as a critical step in rebuilding the
foundations for economic growth: spending restraint, reasonable
and predictable regulations, sound money, and a simple tax code
with low rates.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2012.
Hon. Paul Ryan,
Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
207 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Last year's budget resolution provided
the initial outlines of the Ways & Means Committee's agenda for
tax reform. The Committee intends to build on the significant
work it undertook over the last year to advance tax reform and
believes that the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2013 should
reflect the progress that has been made and the work the
Committee intends to undertake this year. Therefore, the
Committee is expanding on the discussion of tax reform
contained in the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012. The
Committee is transmitting the attached paper as our
recommendation for inclusion in the Budget Resolution for
Fiscal Year 2013.
Sincerely,
Dave Camp,
Chairman.
PRO-GROWTH TAX REFORM
The American tax system should be simple, efficient and
fair to promote innovation and sustained job creation in the
private sector. The current U.S. tax code fails on all these
fronts. The system is notoriously complex, as individuals,
families and employers spend over six billion hours and over
$160 billion per year trying to negotiate a labyrinth of
deductions and credits, a tangle of different rules for
characterizing income, and a variety of schedules for taxing
that income. Simply put, the code is too costly and too
burdensome and is hindering job creation.
The U.S. tax system is highly inefficient, as tax
considerations rather than economic fundamentals often distort
individual decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to
slower economic growth. For example, on April 1, 2012, the
United States will achieve the dubious distinction of having
the highest corporate tax rate (federal and state combined) in
the developed world--a factor that discourages employers and
investors from locating in the United States. Furthermore, the
United States has become an outlier in that it still uses a
``worldwide'' system of taxation. That system has not been
substantially reformed in 50 years--when the United States
accounted for half of global economic output and had no serious
competitors around the world. This combination of the highest
corporate tax rate with an antiquated ``worldwide'' system
subjects American companies to double taxation when they
attempt to compete with foreign companies in overseas markets
and then reinvest their earnings in the United States.
The code is also patently unfair. It is littered with
lobbyist loopholes that benefit narrow special interests.
Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and
losers based on which industry is politically popular or
powerful. Nor should two families in similar circumstances pay
very different tax bills based on which has the better
accountant. A tax code that leads to such results violates the
fundamental American principle of equal justice.
This budget starts with the proposition that first,
Congress must do no harm. It assumes that Congress will not
allow massive, across-the-board tax increases to hit the
economy in 2013, when current law calls for the tax cuts that
were first enacted in 2001 and 2003 to expire. And it assumes
that Congress will not let the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--
originally designed to catch a handful of super-wealthy
households who paid no federal income tax--ensnare tens of
millions of middle-class American families. This budget then
attacks all three of the problems described above with a set of
fundamental reforms designed to lower tax rates, broaden the
tax base, and reform the U.S. international tax rules, while
getting rid of distortions, loopholes and preferences that
divert economic resources from their most efficient uses.
Following the unveiling of these principles in last year's
budget resolution, an overwhelming consensus has emerged that
the country is in dire need of tax reform that lowers rates,
broadens the tax base, and addresses global competitiveness.
After three years, the Administration also has begun to
recognize the need for tax reform. The outline for corporate
tax reform released by the Administration in February, however,
falls woefully short: the rates are too high; the tax base is
too narrow (and used as a tool to provide political favors);
and the international reforms are anti-competitive.
By contrast, the principles of reform outlined in this
budget ensure a simpler, fairer tax code not just for large
corporations but for small businesses and American families as
well. Unlike the Administration's plan, it improves the
competitiveness of American workers and businesses in the
global economy. Our trading partners have already reformed
their tax systems to provide their companies with a competitive
advantage. Competing in a 21st century global economy requires
that we do the same.
Simplifying the Tax Code and Promoting Job Creation and Economic Growth
Major proposals
Reject the President's call to raise taxes.
Consolidate the current six individual income tax
brackets into just two brackets of 10 and 25 percent.
Reduce the corporate rate to 25 percent.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Broaden the tax base to maintain revenue at the
appropriate level designated by this budget resolution for the
next ten years, and at a share of the economy consistent with
historical norms of 18 to 19 percent in the following decades.
These are levels compatible with growth, and--if the spending
restraints in this budget are enacted--sufficient to fund
government operations over time.
Shift from a ``worldwide'' system of taxation to a
``territorial'' tax system that puts American companies and
their workers on a level playing field with foreign competitors
and ends the ``lock-out effect'' that discourages companies
from bringing back foreign earnings to invest in the United
States.
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan inherited a stagnant
economy and a tax code that featured 16 brackets, with a top
rate of 70 percent. When he left office in 1989, the tax code
had been simplified down to just three brackets, with a top
rate of 28 percent. Reagan's tax reforms proved to be a
cornerstone of the unprecedented economic boom that occurred in
the decade during his presidency and continued in the decade
that followed.
Over time, additional brackets, credits, carve-outs and
lobbyist loopholes have undone the simpler and fairer tax code
ushered in by the 1986 tax reform. In the last ten years alone,
there have been nearly 4,500 changes made to the tax code. The
current version for individuals has six brackets, with a top
rate of 35 percent (which is set to climb to over 40 percent
after the end of 2012, when hidden rates are considered).
Individuals react negatively toward the tax code partly because
it is complex and attempts to steer them toward certain
activities and away from others. In addition, there are always
a few ``surprises'' that end up raising their tax bills. One
such surprise--the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)--was initially
designed to hit only the very highest-income taxpayers but now
ensnares a growing number of middle-class households because of
a flawed design.
The House plan affirmatively rejects President Obama's
efforts to raise tax rates on small businesses and investors
and to add new loopholes to the tax code for favored interests.
Economic theory and analysis show that increasing marginal tax
rates--tax increases that reduce incentives to work, save and
invest that next dollar of income--reduces economic output. By
contrast, reductions in marginal tax rates increase output,
mainly by letting people keep more of each dollar they earn and
thereby strengthening incentives to work, produce, and invest
in the future. The House plan both realizes the job-promoting
benefits of lower rates and ensures these reductions are
revenue neutral through base broadening.
Unlike President Obama's proposal, the House plan would not
penalize the nearly three quarters of America's small
businesses that file taxes as individuals by imposing higher
individual rates that make it harder for these vital
enterprises to compete. As President Obama repeatedly says,
small businesses have been responsible for two-thirds of the
jobs created in the United States over the past 15 years, and
almost 50 percent of small-business profits are taxed at the
top two rates. Raising these rates means increasing taxes on
the most successful job creators.
Raising taxes on capital is another idea that purports to
affect the wealthy but actually hurts all participants in the
economy. Mainstream economics, not to mention common sense,
teaches that raising taxes on any activity generally results in
less of it. Economics and common sense also teach that the size
of a nation's capital stock--the pool of saved money available
for investment and job creation--has an effect on employment,
productivity, and wages. Tax reform should promote savings and
investment because more savings and more investment mean a
larger stock of capital available for job creation. That means
more jobs, more productivity, and higher wages for all American
workers.
The negative effects of high tax rates on work, savings and
investment are compounded when a large mix of exemptions,
deductions and credits are added to the system. These tax
preferences are similar to government spending--instead of
markets directing economic resources to their most efficient
uses, the government directs resources to politically favored
uses, creating a drag on economic growth and job creation.
In the worst cases, these tax subsidies literally take the
form of spending through the tax code, because they take taxes
paid by hardworking Americans and issue government checks to
individuals and corporations who do not owe any taxes at all.
In fact, President Obama's corporate tax ``reform'' framework
would expand this practice by transferring taxes paid by middle
class Americans to the pockets of politically favored
industries.
Eliminating large tax subsidies would not be for the
purpose of increasing total tax revenues. Instead, when offset
by lower rates, it would have a doubly positive impact on the
economy--it would stop diverting economic resources to less
productive uses, while making possible the lower tax rates that
provide greater incentives for economic growth.
President Reagan's tax reforms inaugurated an era of great
prosperity. It is time to reclaim his legacy and once again
enact a fundamental reform of the tax code as the final step in
rebuilding the foundations for economic growth: spending
restraint, reasonable and predictable regulations, sound money,
and a simple tax code with low rates.
Geoff Davis.
David G. Reichert.
Vern Buchanan.
Lynn Jenkins.
Kenny Marchant.
Erik Paulsen.
Patrick J. Tiberi.
Aaron Schock.
Rick Berg.
Adrian Smith.
Peter J. Roskam.
Jim Gerlach.
Tom Price.
Kevin Brady.
Charles W. Boustany, Jr.
Wally Herger.
Tom Reed.
Diane Black.
Sam Johnson.
Devin Nunes.
Reprioritizing Sequester Savings
----------
Last year, as the nation approached the statutory limit on
how much it could legally borrow, the Obama administration
asked Congress for a ``clean piece of legislation'' to increase
the government's legal borrowing authority without any spending
cuts to match.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Brian Patrick, ``Debt Limit Tick Tock,'' Blog Update, Office of
Majority Leader Eric Cantor, August 1, 2011. http://majorityleader.gov/
blog/2011/08/debt-limit-tick-tock.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Republicans refused to give the President the blank
check he requested. Instead, Speaker of the House John Boehner
insisted that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied
by a greater amount of spending reduction. Speaker Boehner made
clear on May 9, 2011 that, ``Without significant spending cuts
and reforms to reduce our debt, there will be no debt limit
increase. And the cuts should be greater than the accompanying
increase in debt authority the President is given.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Remarks by House Speaker John Boehner. Economic Club of New
York. May 9, 2011. http://www.speaker.gov/News/
DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=240370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once it became clear that Congress would not rubber-stamp
his requested increase in the debt ceiling, President Obama
announced that he would not accept a debt-ceiling deal that did
not include large tax increases on American families and
businesses.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Patrick, ``Debt Limit Tick Tock.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Republicans succeeded in protecting hardworking
taxpayers by preventing the President from securing a bill
containing tax hikes. Instead, a bipartisan agreement was
forged to achieve savings from limits on discretionary spending
and to set in motion a framework to achieve additional savings.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 [BCA] paired a $2.1 trillion
increase in the public debt limit with equivalent deficit
reduction over the ensuing 10 years.
The BCA called for deficit reduction in three phases:
1. First, it established caps on discretionary spending,
achieving approximately $917 billion in savings over 10 years.
2. Second, it established and called upon a Joint Select
Committee on Deficit Reduction (JSCDR) to produce legislation
with at least an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction.
3. Third, it established an automatic sequestration process
to force spending reductions in the event the JSCDR did not
produce a deficit-reduction bill or Congress refused to pass
it. This ``sequester'' would result in immediate discretionary
spending reductions effective January 2, 2013.
Understanding each component of the BCA is critical to
understanding the fiscal impact of the law as a whole. The
BCA's pre-sequester spending caps reduced discretionary
spending for fiscal year 2013 to a maximum of $1.047 trillion.
Some, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, are still
insisting that House Republicans are obligated to pass fiscal
year 2013 spending bills at these levels.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Naftali Bendavid, ``Fight Breaks Out Over 2013 Budget Cuts,''
Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2012. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/
2012/03/14/fight-breaks-out-over-2013-budget-cuts/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Congress is no longer operating in a pre-sequester
world. Last November, the JSCDR announced that it could not
reach agreement on a deficit-reduction bill by the statutorily
required deadline, thus triggering the sequester. Congress is
now operating in a post-sequester world one in which
discretionary spending for fiscal year 2013 is capped at $949
billion, and defense spending will be cut by $55 billion, or 10
percent, in January 2013 unless Congress acts to replace this
sequester by reprioritizing the savings.
These cuts would be devastating to America's defense
capabilities. Leaders of both parties agree that sequester
savings should be reprioritized. On August 4, 2011, then-
director of the Office of Management and Budget (now White
House Chief of Staff) Jack Lew wrote that the sequester was not
intended to be implemented: ``Make no mistake: the sequester is
not meant to be policy. Rather, it is meant to be an
unpalatable option that all parties want to avoid.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Jack Lew, ``Security Spending in the Deficit Agreement,''
August 4, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/08/04/security-
spending-deficit-agreement (accessed March 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the JSCDR's failure, the President issued a veto
threat against legislation overturning the sequester unless
offset. The President called on Congress to develop an
alternative:
The only way these spending cuts will not take place is if
Congress gets back to work and agrees on a balanced plan to
reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion. That's exactly
what they need to do. That's the job they promised to do. And
they've still got a year to figure it out.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Statement by the President on the Supercommittee, November 21,
2011, the White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/
11/21/statement-president-supercommittee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
While both parties have expressed their desire to avoid the
consequences of the sequester, there is profound disagreement
over how. This disagreement was evident in the JSCDR's failure
to produce a deficit-reduction bill last year.
Despite the good-faith effort on the part of committee
Republicans to avoid the sequester (and, by extension, to avoid
its disproportionate impact on defense), the negotiations
exposed a fundamental lack of seriousness by some in Washington
regarding the need to control government spending and address
the structural drivers of the debt. As JSCDR Co-Chairman Jeb
Hensarling made clear, Democrats on the committee ``were
unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax
hikes--and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our
health care entitlements on a permanently sustainable
basis.''\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Hensarling, Jeb. ``Why the Super Committee Failed,'' Wall
Street Journal, November 22, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052970204531404577052240098105190.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Democrats refused to address the problem, so the
problem remains. Therefore, the immediate question of how to
reprioritize sequester savings--and the larger challenge of
averting a debt-fueled economic crisis--have become central to
this year's budget debate during this year's budget season.
The President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget calls on Congress
to replace the sequester, but it does not make a specific
proposal to turn the sequester off. It assumes that the
sequester does not occur, but it does not lay out a specific
path forward to avoid its consequences. The President's budget
includes tax increases and spending cuts (including a $487
billion reduction in defense spending), which it claims are
enough to offset the sequester--but it includes a net spending
increase that consumes nearly all of its claimed deficit
reduction.
This approach is deeply flawed, for three reasons. First,
it imposes a net tax increase on American families and
businesses of $2.0 trillion. Washington's fiscal imbalance is
overwhelmingly driven by runaway spending, not insufficient tax
revenue, and reducing the deficit by taking more from
hardworking Americans would simply slow the economy, reduce job
opportunities, and ultimately prove counterproductive as a
deficit-reduction strategy.
Second, despite the large tax increase, the President's
budget also contains a net spending increase of $1.4 trillion,
for a total of only $605 billion in deficit reduction. The rest
of the President's deficit-reduction claims are based on
discredited budget gimmicks, including almost $1 trillion in
``savings'' that come from projecting current wartime spending
in Iraq and Afghanistan out for the next 10 years, then
proposing not to spend that money, even though it was never
requested and never going to be spent.
And third, much of the President's actual spending
reduction comes from cutting too deeply into the Defense
Department. Although the President's budget does not cut
defense as deeply as the sequester would, these cuts would
still jeopardize the capability of the U.S. military.
The Senate's Lack of a Budget
It has been three years since the Senate passed a budget,
and the legal deadline for passing a congressional budget
resolution this year is fast approaching. Yet there has been no
indication that Senator Reid plans to put forward an
alternative plan for prioritizing spending, much less for
averting the sequester. Instead, he continues to insist that
Congress is still operating in a pre-sequester world, even
though the President's own budget admits that ``the sequester
was triggered and will take effect in January 2013 if no action
is taken.''\16\ Senator Reid's approach has been the very
definition of inaction. There is a better way forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\``Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government,'' Office of
Management and Budget, February 2012. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/ budget.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Path to Prosperity Approach:
Reprioritize Savings Through Reconciliation
This budget reprioritizes sequester savings to focus on the
problem, which is government spending, and to protect national
security from deep and indiscriminate cuts. It achieves these
goals by giving six House committees reconciliation
instructions to produce actual legislation that achieves the
sequester savings without the haphazard cuts that the sequester
entails.
How Reconciliation Works
The 1974 Budget Act provides Congress with a special
procedure to give expedited consideration to bills enacting the
spending, revenue, and debt policies contained in the budget
resolution. To trigger these expedited procedures, the budget
resolution must include reconciliation instructions calling on
specific committees to achieve specified amounts of savings in
programs within their jurisdictions. The committees choose
which programs to address and which policies to adopt.
Reconciliation in the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Resolution
This budget gives reconciliation instructions to six
committees Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, Financial
Services, Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways
and Means that in aggregate would produce at least $18.5
billion of deficit reduction in the first year, $129.1 billion
over the first five years, and $331.4 billion over the first 10
years.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\Because there is overlapping jurisdiction for some of these
committees and the same savings are reconciled to more than one
committee, the net savings amount to $18.4 billion in the first year,
$116.3 billion over five years, and $261.5 billion over 10 years.
Ultimately, the committees will be responsible for
determining how to meet their reconciliation instructions. But
savings could be achieved in the areas of making pensions for
federal workers more like those for workers in the private
sector, repealing recent expansions of the federal role in
financial services, saving money in health care, means-testing
entitlements, and reforming the medical liability system.
This budget provides a clear solution that would be
implemented quickly to replace the sequester. It does so by
using an expedited procedure to reduce lower-priority spending.
This solution would cut through the gridlock in Washington to
start eliminating excessive autopilot spending immediately. It
would protect taxpayers, and it would shield the U.S. military
from a crippling, 10 percent across-the-board reduction in its
funding.
Unfortunately, the House cannot unilaterally implement this
solution--and the Senate Democratic leadership's only plan has
been to oppose solutions put forward in the House. U.S. troops
and their families should not have to suffer because the
Democratic Party's leaders refuse to lead. House Republicans
will continue to show a way forward by directly addressing the
nation's most urgent fiscal and economic challenges. It is not
too late for Americans to choose a better path.
The Long-Term Budget Outlook
----------
As noted previously, the Federal budget trends of the next
10 years, daunting as they are, reflect only the first surge of
spending and debt that threaten the government's fiscal
stability and the economy's potential for growth. Beyond that
budget window, conditions continue to worsen, driven by
unsustainable rates of spending growth and promises of
government benefits that cannot be kept. Therefore, Congress
must examine the longer-term effects of its fiscal policy
choices.
The Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has conducted such an
analysis of the policies in this budget.\18\ It shows that the
reforms outlined in this proposal would put the Federal budget
on the path to balance and the American economy on the path to
prosperity. The discussion below describes these long-term
effects and compares them to those likely to result from the
President's budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See CBO's Long-Term Analysis of a Budget Proposal by Chairman
Ryan: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-
Ryan_Specified_Paths_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government Spending
Under the President's budget, as re-estimated by CBO, the
Federal Government will spend $45.4 trillion over the next
decade. Government spending runs at record post-World War II
levels, never falling below 22.5 percent of the economy in this
decade.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\``An Analysis of the President's 2013 Budget,'' Congressional
Budget Office, March 2012. http://cbo.gov/publication/43083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond that point, the President's budget not only fails to
curb the unsustainable spending trajectory--it makes matters
worse. According to the Office of Management and Budget's
``Analytical Perspectives'' for the President's fiscal year
2013 budget, the President's path allows the Federal
Government's fiscal position to ``gradually deteriorate'' after
2022.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\``Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government: Analytical
Perspectives,'' Office of Management and Budget, February 2012. http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/
spec.pdf.
CBO has not directly estimated the long-term impact of the
President's budget. But the ``alternative fiscal scenario''
presented in CBO's The Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2011) is
similar, but not identical to the President's policy.\21\ (The
alternative fiscal scenario differs from CBO's standard
``current law baseline'' projection. The current law baseline
assumes that everything scheduled to occur in law--including
significant changes in spending or tax laws, such as a lapse of
the 2001 and 2003 tax rates--will occur as expected. The
alternative fiscal scenario, by contrast, assumes Congress will
continue various spending and tax policies that it has
generally extended in the past.) Under this alternative fiscal
scenario projection, CBO estimates mandatory spending will soon
crowd out all other priorities in the Federal budget. Borrowing
and spending by the public sector will crowd out investment and
growth in the private sector. In the years ahead, government
spending will skyrocket to record levels that a free economy
simply cannot sustain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See the CBO June 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook at http://
cbo.gov/publication/41486 for a description of the Alternative Fiscal
Scenario. [GPO: Insert Figure 3 here]
This budget, The Path to Prosperity, charts a brighter
future. With responsible spending cuts now and structural
reforms of government spending programs going forward, the
budget ensures government spending remains on a sustainable
path. Government spending will fall to its post-war historical
norm of 20 percent of the economy by 2015. Within this fiscal
restraint, the budget nevertheless maintains or increases
funding levels for government's core responsibilities and
advance national priorities--albeit at a more sustainable rate.
As the economy grows, government spending as a share of the
economy will steadily recede over the decades ahead.
Deficits
When he first took office, the President promised to cut
the deficit in half by the end of his term. Four straight
trillion-dollar deficits later, he hasn't even come close. His
latest budget projects a deficit of $1.3 trillion for fiscal
year 2012 and a deficit near $1 trillion for fiscal year 2013.
By contrast, this budget charts a sustainable path going
forward, ultimately erasing the entire budget deficit. It
brings the deficit below $800 billion in fiscal year 2013.
Relative to the President's budget, it reduces the deficit by
$3.3 trillion over the next 10 years. And based on CBO
estimates, it reaches balance in the years ahead, produces
surpluses, and ultimately pays down the debt.
This budget gets the deficit below 1 percent of GDP by
2016. By contrast, under the status quo, as measured by the
alternative fiscal scenario, the annual deficit would grow to
nearly 15.5 percent of the entire U.S. economy by 2035.
Debt
By continuing Washington's spending spree, the President's
budget adds $8.7 trillion to debt held by the public over the
next decade. Publicly held debt as a share of the economy would
increase from 68 percent to 76 percent--well past the level
that economists warn is the tipping point for a fiscal crisis.
After that, by his budget's long-term projections, the publicly
held debt would surge past 100 percent of GDP and continue to
climb in the years ahead. Under the alternative fiscal
scenario, which uses a more realistic baseline of current
policies, CBO projects publicly held debt as a share of the
economy to reach 96 percent of the economy in 2023, 128 percent
in 2030, and 194 percent in 2040.
The CBO has warned that ``Growing debt also would increase
the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which
investors would lose confidence in the government's ability to
manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its
ability to borrow at affordable rates.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\June 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Path to Prosperity lifts the crushing burden of debt,
making it possible for the economy to grow and for Americans to
prosper. This budget would cut trillions of dollars from the
debt relative to the current path in every year of CBO's long-
term analysis. In 2023, the debt would be more than 36 percent
lower than would be the case under the status quo; 59 percent
less in 2030; and 80 percent less in 2040. By 2050, this budget
would reduce debt relative to the size of the economy to only
10 percent and keep the nation on the path to a debt-free
future.
Section-by-Section Description
----------
The concurrent resolution on the budget for a fiscal year
establishes an overall budgetary framework which includes:
aggregate levels of total new budget authority and outlays;
total revenues and the amount by which revenues should be
changed; the surplus or deficit; new budget authority and
outlays for each major functional category; the debt held by
the public; and the debt subject to the statutory limit.
SECTION 1. THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
Subsection (a), in as required by section 301(a) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
establishes the levels for fiscal year 2013, and each of the
nine years following the budget year, fiscal years 2014 through
2022.
For fiscal year 2013, the concurrent resolution on the
budget reported by the Committee on the Budget establishes a
ceiling on spending and a floor on revenue. Under the terms of
section 301 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974, this report sets an allocation of budget authority
and outlays to the Committee on Appropriations of the House.
That committee in turn suballocates that amount to its twelve
subcommittees for spending on the various programs, projects
and activities with the jurisdiction of the subcommittees.
Allocations are also given to authorizing committees, those
committees with spending authority, though in addition to the
fiscal year 2013 allocation to the Appropriations Committee,
these authorizing committees may not spend more than the
allocation for the budget year and over the 10-year period
provided for by the concurrent resolution on the budget.
Subsection (b) sets out the table of contents of the
resolution.
Title I--Spending and Revenue Levels
SECTION 101. LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
As required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, this section establishes the
recommended levels for revenue, reduction in revenue, total new
budget authority, total budget outlays, surpluses or deficits,
debt held by the public, and the debt subject to the statutory
limit. The recommended level of revenue operates as a floor
against which all revenue bills are measured pursuant to
section 311 of the Budget Act.
Similarly, the recommended levels of new budget authority
and budget outlays serve as a ceiling on the consideration of
subsequent spending. The surplus or deficit levels reflect only
on-budget outlays and revenue and do not reflect most outlays
and receipts related to the Social Security program and certain
United States Postal Service operations. The debt subject to
statutory limit aggregates refers to the portion of gross
Federal debt issued by the Treasury to the public or another
government fund or account, whereas the debt held by the public
is the amount of debt issued and held by entities or
individuals other than the U.S. Government.
SECTION 102. FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
As further required by section 301(a) of the Budget Act,
this section establishes the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal year 2013, and for each of the fiscal years 2014 through
2022.
The functional categories are as follows:
050 National Defense
150 International Affairs
250 General Science, Space, and Technology
270 Energy
300 Natural Resources and Environment
350 Agriculture
370 Commerce and Housing Credit
400 Transportation
450 Community and Regional Development
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services
550 Health
570 Medicare
600 Income Security
650 Social Security
700 Veterans Benefits and Services
750 Administration of Justice
800 General Government
900 Net Interest
920 Allowances
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism and Related Activities
Title II--Reconciliation
SECTION 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
As permitted by section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, this concurrent resolution on the budget includes
reconciliation instructions to specified committees of the
House. These instructions require those committees to submit
legislative text to amend laws in their jurisdictions to
achieve an amount of deficit reduction by a certain date. The
various committee recommendations are submitted to the
Committee on the Budget, which then binds them together and
votes whether to report the resulting bill to the House. The
Committee on the Budget may only report the legislation
submitted to it. The Committee may not make any substantive
changes.
Section 201(a) directs six authorizing committees to
transmit changes in programs within their jurisdiction to the
Committee on the Budget by April 27, 2012.
Section 201(b) provides that the committees instructed to
submit legislative language to the Committee on the Budget are
as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on
Energy and the Commerce, the Committee on the Financial
Services, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Ways and
Means. (See reconciliation instructions for each committee in
Table 9.)
The reconciliation instructions in this concurrent
resolution instruct each committee to reduce the deficit by a
specified amount. Deficits are calculated by the net effect of
changes in outlays and revenue a measure may make.
Though the committees receiving instructions determine the
policy and program changes, outlay savings must be in the
direct spending category. For instance, a reduction in an
authorization level for spending subject to annual
appropriations is categorized as authorizing future
discretionary spending and would not be estimated as producing
direct spending savings as the reconciliation process requires.
In addition, clause 7 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives prohibits the consideration of a concurrent
resolution on the budget that includes instructions for a
reconciliation bill that has the net effect of increasing
outlays.
Similarly, the committee receiving reconciliation
instructions determines the policy as to how revenue changes
are made. A submission to the Committee on the Budget may
increase or decrease revenue, depending on the instruction.
The committees determine the changes in law necessary to
achieve the specified amount of deficit reduction for the
period of fiscal years 2012 through 2013, for the period of
fiscal years 2012 through 2017, and for the period of fiscal
years 2012 through 2022.
SECTION 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Section 202(a) directs the Committee on the Budget to
report a bill with the directives described in subsection (b).
Subsection (b) sets out guidelines for the legislation the
concurrent resolution directs the Committee on the Budget to
report. Those guidelines include replacing the sequestration
required under section 251A of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The reforms included in the measure the Committee on the
Budget is directed to report only take effect upon enactment of
the reconciliation bill referred to in section 201.
Title III--Recommended Levels for Fiscal Years 2030, 2040, and 2050
SECTION 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING
This section sets out recommended budgetary levels for
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2040,
and 2050 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
Fiscal Year 2030: 19 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 19 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 19 percent
Budget Outlays
Fiscal Year 2030: 20.25 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 18.75 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 16 percent
Deficit
Fiscal Year 2030: 1.25 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: -.25 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: -3 percent
Debt Held by the Public
Fiscal Year 2030: 53 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 38 percent
Fiscal Year 2050: 10 percent
Title IV--Reserve Funds
SECTION 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS
This section permits the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to revise allocations of spending authority, provided to
committees of the House, and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels for a measure that repeals the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public
Law 111-152). Those measures are the health care bills enacted
into law in 2010.
SECTION 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
RATE OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
This section permits the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to applicable committees and to adjust other budgetary
enforcement levels in this resolution for a measure amending or
superseding the system for updating payments under section 1848
of the Social Security Act, as long as the measure is deficit-
neutral for the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
SECTION 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES
This section permits the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means for legislation that causes
a decrease in revenue. The Chair of the Committee on the Budget
may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this concurrent
resolution if the measure would not increase the deficit over
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
This concurrent resolution on the budget allows for a
certain amount of revenue loss from projected levels, but only
for the policies specified in section 503. This section allows
additional net revenue reductions for a measure not specified
in that section if it decreases outlays by the same amount over
the ten-year period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
SECTION 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND
SCHOOLS
This section provides for a reserve fund that accommodates
legislation making changes to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act
of 1976 (Public Law 94-565), or that reauthorizes the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Public Law
106-393), to the extent the legislation does not increase the
deficit or direct spending in fiscal year 2013, fiscal years
2013 through 2017, or fiscal years 2013 through 2022. These
laws provide economic assistance to States and counties
containing National Forest System lands and public domain lands
managed by the Bureau of Land Management for the benefit of
public schools, roads, and other purposes.
SECTION 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
REAUTHORIZATION
This section allows the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the levels of the resolution for any measure
that reauthorizes surface transportation programs so long as
such measure maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund
and is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 2013
through 2022.
Title V--Budget Enforcement
SECTION 501. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against
providing appropriations for fiscal year 2014, unless they fall
into certain specified exceptions. Under this rule, advance
appropriations are allowed for fiscal years following that
fiscal year.
Subsection (b) provides for the list of excepted programs
that may receive advance appropriations. Those accounts are
referred to in this report in the section designated as
``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations.''
Subsection (c) specifically sets a limit on the amount of
total allowable advance appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
It allows advance appropriations of up to $54.462 billion
for fiscal year 2014 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
It also allows up to $28.852 billion for other programs
named in this report.
Subsection (d) defines advance appropriations as any new
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint
resolution making general or continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 2014.
SECTION 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS
This section permits the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust levels and allocations in this budget
resolution upon enactment of legislation changing concepts or
definitions.
SECTION 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS
This section sets out a special enforcement procedure for
measures reducing revenue. This concurrent resolution on the
budget sets out a revenue floor as required by section
301(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Normally,
any measure affecting revenue that causes revenue levels to be
below that floor would be subject to a point of order. This
section establishes a special adjustment process for certain
revenue measures that may cause a net revenue loss relative to
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, but the
aggregate level of revenue loss caused by those specified
measures may not drop the level below the revenue floor.
Subsection (a) states that the baseline revenue levels for
enforcing this concurrent resolution are those contained in the
March 2012 CBO baseline. Hence any measure decreasing revenue
relative to that baseline violates the terms of the concurrent
resolution unless specifically listed in subsection (b).
Subsection (b) specifies the revenue measures allowed to
cause revenue loss relative to the above mentioned CBO baseline
and permits the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to make
adjustments to aggregates and allocations of the concurrent
resolution for their budgetary effects:
Extending the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001
Extending the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003
Adjusting the Alternative Minimum Tax
exemption amounts to prevent a larger number of
taxpayers as compared with tax year 2008 from being
subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax or of allowing
the use of nonrefundable personal credits against the
Alternative Minimum Tax, or both as applicable
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
Establishing a 20 percent deduction in
income to small businesses
Establishing or amending trade agreements
Repealing the tax increases in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care
and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010
Reforming the tax code and lowering tax
rates
Reforming the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act [PPACA] and the Health Care and
Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010
[HERA], which allows a revenue adjustment, but only to
the extent measures are deficit neutral in the fiscal
years 2013 through 2022. To the extent revenue
increases are used to achieve deficit neutrality during
this period, those revenue raisers may only be either
(or both):
(1) Repealing the individual mandate included in
PPACA/HERA;
(2) Modifying the subsidies to purchase health
insurance as set in PPACA/HERA.
It is the intent of this concurrent resolution on the
budget that measures which extend the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 are for provisions included
in those laws as originally enacted.
The subparagraph providing for adjustments related to tax
reform is intended for comprehensive tax reform. Comprehensive
tax reform includes those reforms outlined in the letter from
Representative Dave Camp, Chair of the Ways and Means Committee
to Representative Paul Ryan, Chair of the Committee on the
Budget dated March 1, 2012.
Subsection (c) sets out a procedure to facilitate the
consideration of legislation subjecting direct spending to
annual appropriations. Under current law, there are impediments
to changing direct spending to discretionary spending since if
the former is eliminated, the purpose of spending is also
eliminated on the direct spending side of the budget. Under
current practice, if the intent is to preserve the purpose, but
authorize the program and subject it to annual appropriations,
the Committee on Appropriations would have to find additional
resources within its section 302(a) allocation (as required to
be set in the report on the budget resolution by section
301(e)(2)(F) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974).
Under the terms of this subsection, should an authorizing
committee want to retain the purpose of a direct spending
program, but determines it should be subject to annual
appropriations, it can, at the time it eliminates the direct
spending, authorize appropriations for the program. If that
elimination of the direct spending and authorization of
appropriations is enacted, the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget may increase the 302(a) allocation of budgetary
resources to the Committee on Appropriations by an amount up to
the authorized level of appropriations for the same purpose in
fiscal year 2013.
This rule effectively holds the Committee on Appropriations
harmless if it appropriates money under the terms of that
authorization because the allocation under section 302(a) set
in this report is adjusted.
Subsection (d) specifies that the chair of the Committee on
the Budget makes the determinations of the levels and
adjustments provided for in this concurrent resolution on the
budget.
SECTION 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM INCREASES IN SPENDING
Subsection (a) establishes a point of order against the
consideration of measures increasing direct spending by $5
billion or more for any 10-year period within 40 years starting
in fiscal year 2023.
Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) which would
be as follows:
Fiscal years 2023 through 2032;
Fiscal years 2033 through 2042;
Fiscal years 2043 through 2052;
Fiscal years 2053 through 2062.
SECTION 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
Subsection (a) provides that the administrative expenses of
the Social Security Administration and the United States Postal
Service are reflected in the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations. This language is necessary to ensure that the
Committee on Appropriations retains control of administrative
expenses through the annual appropriations process.
Subsection (b) provides for a special rule stating the
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations of the House is
enforced under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 using
estimates of the budgetary effects of a measure and includes
any off-budget discretionary amounts.
Subsection (c) allows the Chair of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust the spending or revenue levels of this
concurrent resolution for legislation, if reported by the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to reform the
Federal retirement system. The Chair is permitted to make
adjustments only if a measure would not cause an increase in
the deficit in fiscal year 2013 and fiscal years 2013 through
2022.
SECTION 506. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES
Subsection (a) details the allocation and aggregate
adjustment procedures required to accommodate legislation
provided for in this resolution. It provides that the
adjustments apply while the legislation is under consideration
and take effect upon enactment of the legislation. In addition,
the subsection requires the adjustments to be printed in the
Congressional Record.
Subsection (b) requires, for purposes of enforcement of the
concurrent resolution, aggregate and allocation levels
resulting from adjustments made pursuant to the terms of this
resolution have the same effect as if adopted in the originally
adopted aggregates and allocations.
Subsection (c) provides an exemption for legislation for
which the Chair of the Committee on the Budget has made
adjustments in the allocations or aggregates of the resolution
and that complies with this Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget. By such an exemption, such legislation is subject to
neither the Cut-As-You-Go point of order (clause 10 of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives) nor section 504
of the concurrent resolution on the budget (the long-term
spending point of order).
SECTION 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES
Section (a) provides specific authority for the Chair or
Ranking Member of the Committee on the Budget to request a
supplemental estimate for any program affecting or establishing
Federal loans or loan guarantees. Under current law, such a
measure would be scored on a ``net present value'' basis under
the terms of the Federal Credit Reform Act found in Title V of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The supplemental estimate
would be scored using a ``fair value'' basis which generally
incorporates a more realistic market risk factor. It also
allows the Chair of the Committee on the Budget to use the
supplemental estimate for enforcing compliance with the
resolution.
Section (b) provides that any increases in receipts from
reforms of the National Flood Insurance Program, if included in
a reconciliation bill considered under the terms of this
concurrent resolution, are to be used for deficit reduction.
SECTION 508. BUDGET RULE RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF
THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT INCREASE PUBLIC
INDEBTEDNESS
This section provides that for purposes of budget
enforcement, transfers of funds from the general fund of the
Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund are to be counted as new
budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs. This budget
rule is not relevant for, nor is it applied to, transfers of
revenue under current law from the general fund to the Highway
Trust Fund pursuant to Section 9503 of Title 26 of the United
States Code.
SECTION 509. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Subsection (a) provides for a separate section 302(a)
allocation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and set out
in this report, to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas
contingency operations and the global war on terrorism (OCO/
GWOT). For purposes of enforcing section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 the ``first fiscal year'' and
the ``total fiscal years'' refer to fiscal year 2013 only. The
separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/GWOT
under section 302(a). It states that any provision designated
as such under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, which raises the
statutory spending limits by the amount so designated, also
will be counted toward the separate OCO/GWOT allocation and not
to the general section 302(a) allocation.
Subsection (b) provides that the current procedure of
adjusting the general 302(a) allocation under section 314 of
the Budget Act is no longer in effect since with the special
allocation it is not necessary.
SECTION 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS
Subsection (a) provides for general technical application
of the legislative text of the resolution.
Subsection (b) clarifies that certain provisions of H. Res.
5 (112th Congress) are no longer applicable.
Title VI--Policy
SECTION 601. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget is ``to protect those in and near
retirement from any disruptions to their Medicare benefits and
offer future beneficiaries the same health care options
available to Members of Congress.''
Subsection (c) sets out the assumptions of the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for the parameters of future Medicare
reforms.
SECTION 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget's policy on Social Security.
SECTION 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
Subsection (a) sets out several findings.
Subsection (b) directs congressional committees through
their oversight activities to identify and achieve savings
through the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances
that neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Federal
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
Subsection (c) provides that the Congress, with the
assistance of the Government Accountability Office, the
Inspectors General, and other appropriate agencies should make
it a high priority to review unobligated balances and identify
savings for deficit reduction.
While there is year-to-year variability, unobligated
balances have generally been trending upwards over the past ten
years, from $253 billion at the end of fiscal year 2000 to $725
billion at the end of fiscal year 2011. According to the Office
of Management and Budget, federal agencies will have an
estimated $698 billion in unobligated balances at the close of
fiscal year 2013, though agencies tend to overestimate their
rate of obligations. Legislation introduced by Dr. Tom Price of
Georgia (H.R. 1111) would rescind $45 billion in unobligated
discretionary funds within 60 days of enactment. CBO has
informally estimated that such a measure could reduce spending
by approximately $22 billion.
The large sums of unobligated balances indicate that there
are major opportunities for savings to reduce the deficit.
Additional investigation is necessary to determine what portion
of these anticipated unobligated balances can be cancelled or
rescinded for deficit reduction without abrogating the Federal
Government's contractual obligations or reducing or disrupting
federal commitments under high priority programs and Treasury's
authority to finance the national debt.
A reasonable goal would be to reduce unobligated balances
by 10 percent, excluding Departments of Defense, Treasury,
Veterans' Affairs, and the Social Security Administration, to
achieve savings for deficit reduction.
SECTION 604. POLICY STATEMENT ON WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that each Congressional Committee
shall as part of its annual Views and Estimates letter to the
Committee on the Budget submit recommendations for reductions
in spending that result from that committee's oversight
activities.
Title VII--Sense of House Provisions
SECTION 701. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
This sense of the House expresses the sense that the
authorizing committees are encouraged to ensure that States
have the resources to collect child support owed to families
and then to pass 100 percent of support on to families without
financial penalty.
The Congressional Budget Process
----------
The spending and revenue levels established in the budget
resolution are executed through two parallel, but separate,
mechanisms: allocations to the appropriations and authorizing
committees; and, when necessary, reconciliation directives to
the authorizing committees.
As required under section 302(a) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the discretionary
spending levels established in the budget resolution are
allocated to the Appropriations Committee and the direct
spending levels are allocated to each of the authorizing
committees with direct spending authority of each House of
Congress. These allocations appear in the report accompanying
the budget resolution, and they are enforced through points of
order (see the section of this report titled: ``Enforcing the
Budget Resolution''). Amounts provided under ``current law''
encompass programs that affect direct spending--entitlements
and other programs that have spending authority or offsetting
receipts. Amounts subject to discretionary action refer to
programs that require subsequent legislation to provide the
necessary spending authority. Amounts provided under
``reauthorizations'' reflect amounts assumed to be provided in
subsequent legislation reauthorizing expiring direct spending
programs.
Allocations of budget authority and outlays are provided
for the budget year (fiscal year 2013), and the 10-year period
(fiscal years 2013 through 2022). Section 302 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as
modified by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997) requires that
allocations of budget authority be provided in the report
accompanying the budget resolution for the 1st fiscal year and
at least the 4 ensuing fiscal years (except for the Committee
on Appropriations, which receives an allocation only for the
budget year).
COMMITTEES OF AUTHORIZATION
The report (or the joint statement of managers in the
instance of a conference report) accompanying the concurrent
resolution on the budget allocates to the authorizing
committees a sum of new budget authority along with the
attendant outlays required to fund the direct spending within
their jurisdiction. The committees may be allocated additional
budget authority should increases in spending be required in
their jurisdiction. This occurs when the budget resolution
assumes a new or expanded direct spending program. Such
spending authority must be provided through subsequent
legislation and is not controlled through the annual
appropriations process.
302(a) Allocations
Because the spending authority for authorizing committees
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations are established for
the budget year commencing on October 1, and a 10-year total
for fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
Unlike the Committee on Appropriations, each authorizing
committee is provided a single allocation of new budget
authority (divided between current law and expected policy
action) not provided through annual appropriations. These
committees are not required to file 302(b) allocations. Bills
first effective in fiscal year 2013 are measured against the
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2013 budget
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2013
through 2022.
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
The report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the
budget allocates to the Committee on Appropriations a lump sum
of discretionary budget authority assumed in the resolution and
corresponding outlays for a single fiscal year.
302(a) Allocations
Because the spending authority for authorizing committees
is multi-year or permanent, the allocations in the budget
resolution are for the budget year, which is the fiscal year
2013 which commences on October 1, 2012, and a 10-year total
for fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
302(b) Allocations
Once a 302(a) allocation is provided to it by the
concurrent resolution on the budget for a budget year, the
Appropriations Committee is required to divide the allocation
among its subcommittees. Though the number of subcommittees has
varied over time, for budget year 2013, there are twelve. The
amount each subcommittee receives constitutes its suballocation
pursuant to section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
Each appropriation bill reported by a subcommittee
providing budget authority for programs within its jurisdiction
for the budget year must not breach this 302(b) suballocation.
The sum of the suballocations must equal the 302(a) allocation
provided, though an additional 302(b) suballocation may be made
and assigned to the full Appropriations Committee. This
additional suballocation must be an amount in the form of a
positive whole number.
Under section 302(c) of the Budget Act, Appropriations Acts
may not be considered on the floor of the House before these
302(b) suballocations are made.
The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 defines a ``budget
year'' as the fiscal year starting in the calendar year in
which a session of Congress first meets. Since the second
session of the 112th Congress first met on January 5, 2012
(pursuant to Public Law 111-289), for the purposes of this
concurrent resolution on the budget, the budget year is fiscal
year 2013.
In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions,
concurrent resolutions, cease to exist at the end of each
Congress (in the House of Representatives). When a new Congress
meets, though, the House extends rules from the previous
Congress through a simple House Resolution. In this way, the
Budget Resolution is extended into the new Congress. The budget
year, thus, may change, but for purposes of enforcement, the
first fiscal year for the budget resolution remains the same.
Enforcing Budgetary Levels
----------
THE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
The concurrent resolution on the budget is more than a
planning document. The allocations of spending authority and
the aggregate levels of both spending authority and revenues
are binding on the Congress when it considers subsequent
spending and tax legislation. Legislation breaching the levels
set forth in the budget resolution is subject to points of
order on the floor of the House of Representatives. The
concurrent resolution is established pursuant to the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which includes various
requirements as to its content and enforcement. While a budget
resolution sets levels of spending, revenue, deficits and debt,
it also may include special procedures in order to enforce
Congressional budgetary decisions.
Any Member of the House may raise a point of order against
any tax or spending bill that breeches the allocations and
aggregate spending levels established in the budget resolution.
If the point of order is sustained, the House is precluded from
further consideration of the measure.
Section 302(f)
Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
prohibits the consideration of legislation that exceeds a
committee's allocation of budget authority. For authorizing
committees this section applies to the first fiscal year and
the period of fiscal years covered by the budget resolution in
force. For appropriations bills, however, it applies only to
the first fiscal year.
Section 303
Section 303 prohibits the consideration of spending and
revenue legislation before the House has passed a concurrent
resolution on the budget for a fiscal year. Measures that cause
an increase or decrease in revenue, or cause an increase in
budget authority, in a fiscal year for which a budget
resolution has not been adopted violate section 303(a). Section
303(a) does not apply to budget authority and revenue
provisions first effective in a year following the first fiscal
year to which a budget resolution would apply, or to
appropriation bills after 15 May.
Section 311
Section 311 prohibits the consideration of legislation that
would cause a breach of the aggregate spending limits on budget
authority and outlays, or that would cause revenue levels to
fall below the revenue floor, established by the concurrent
resolution on the budget. If a measure would cause budget
authority or outlays to be greater than the ceiling established
for the first fiscal year of a budget resolution, a section 311
violation occurs. If a measure would cause revenue to be lower
than the revenue floor in the first fiscal year or the period
of years of the budget resolution, a section 311 violation
occurs. Section 311 does not apply to measures that provide
budget authority but do not breach a committee's 302(a)
allocations.
BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE
Clause 7 of Rule XXI
This clause prohibits the consideration of a concurrent
resolution on the budget containing reconciliation directives
(section 310 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974) that would cause a net increase in direct
spending.
Clause 10 of Rule XXI
House Resolution 5 established in the Rules of the House of
Representatives a point of order against any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause a
net increase in direct spending. The rule, termed ``Cut-as-you-
go,'' prohibits the consideration of legislation that increases
direct spending over 5 years or 10 years, and requires spending
increases to be offset by spending decreases over those time
periods.
Clause 4 of Rule XXIX
This clause specifies that the Chair of the Committee on
the Budget is responsible for providing authoritative guidance
concerning the impact of a legislative propositions related to
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending,
and new entitlement authority.
Section 3 of House Resolution 5 of the 112th Congress
House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 111th
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the
budget process. This section requires that each general
appropriations bill contain a ``spending reduction'' account,
for which the level provided is a recitation of the amount by
which, through the amendment process, the House has reduced
spending in other portions of the bill and indicated that such
savings should be counted toward spending reduction. It
provides that any other amendment increasing spending must
include an offset of an equal or greater value.
Reconciliation
----------
Section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 641) sets out a special procedure which allows a
concurrent resolution on the budget to direct any Congressional
committee to produce legislation that changes budgetary levels.
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013,
as reported by the Committee on the Budget, provides for such a
reconciliation bill. The concurrent resolution instructs six
authorizing committees to transmit changes in law necessary to
achieve certain direct spending and revenue levels provided for
in the budget resolution. They must submit legislative text and
associated material to the Committee on the Budget by April 27,
2012.
A committee receiving a reconciliation directive must
reduce the deficit in the following periods: fiscal years 2012
and 2013, 2012 through 2017, and 2012 through 2022. A committee
may reduce the deficit through net reductions in spending or
net increases in revenue. The committees may achieve the
deficit reduction specified in any manner they wish for laws
within their jurisdiction.
In general, when a committee receives a reconciliation
directive, it considers a bill to comply with the directive as
it would any other bill, but the legislative text, along with
related material, is submitted to the Committee on the Budget
instead of reported to the House. The Committee on the Budget
then binds all the submissions together, votes on the combined
measure, and reports it out of committee as a single bill. The
committee may not amend the submitted legislative text during
consideration in committee. It must report the language without
substantive revision.
A reconciliation bill is a privileged measure in the
Senate: As distinct from most Senate bills, it has a time limit
of twenty hours of debate and does not require the sixty-vote
supermajority to invoke ``cloture,'' a Senate procedure which
limits debate on legislation. Hence passage of a reconciliation
bill in the Senate only requires a simple majority.
In the Senate, as a limitation on the content of a
reconciliation bill, a provision that does not increase or
decrease spending (or revenue) is considered extraneous. If
found to be extraneous the provision violates section 313 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, commonly known as the
``Byrd Rule,'' so named after its author, the late Senator
Robert C. Byrd (WV). If the provision is found to violate the
Byrd Rule, it is removed from the bill or conference report
unless 60 Senators vote to waive the rule.
The committees receiving reconciliation instructions
pursuant to this concurrent resolution, and which must submit
legislative language and related material to the Committee on
the Budget, are as follows: the Committee on Agriculture, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on Financial
Services, the Committee on Judiciary, the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, and the Committee on Ways and
Means.
As noted above, the reconciled committees determine the
content of legislation. The reconciliation instructions in this
concurrent resolution are designed to replace the deficit
reduction that would result from $78 billion of the $98 billion
sequestration of discretionary budget authority mandated to
occur on January 2, 2013. The goal of the instructions is to
achieve this deficit reduction as rapidly as possible. Due to
the challenge of achieving mandatory savings quickly and the
importance of achieving the deficit reduction as quickly as
possible, the instruction calls on committees to report no
later than April 27, 2012. The Committee expects the House will
act promptly on this legislation. In addition, to ensure the
deficit reduction is achieved rapidly, the instructions include
the current fiscal year, fiscal year 2012, ending on September
30, 2012.
In developing these instructions, the Committee on the
Budget made certain assumptions, including quick enactment of
the reconciliation legislation and, based on preliminary
discussions with the Congressional Budget Office, an effective
date of July 1, 2012 for the policies contained in the
reconciliation legislation. The Agriculture Committee, for
example, is instructed to achieve $8.2 billion in deficit
reduction for fiscal years 2012-2013. While the Agriculture
Committee will ultimately determine how to achieve these
savings, the Committee on the Budget assumed savings from
repealing expansions enacted in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) to be effective July 1, 2012.
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations
----------
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
(Subject to a General Limit of $28,852,000,000)
Financial Services and General Government
Payment to Postal Service
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Employment and Training Administration
Education for the Disadvantaged
School Improvement Programs
Special Education
Career, Technical and Adult Education
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Tenant-based Rental Assistance
Project-based Rental Assistance
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
(Subject to a Separate Limit of $54,462,000,000)
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
VA Medical Services
VA Medical Support and Compliance
VA Medical Facilities
Votes of the Committee
----------
Clause 3(b) of House Rule XIII requires each committee
report to accompany any bill or resolution of a public
character, ordered to include the total number of votes cast
for and against on each roll call vote, on a motion to report
and any amendments offered to the measure or matter, together
with the names of those voting for and against. Listed below
are the roll call votes taken in the Committee on the Budget on
the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.
On March 21, 2012 the Committee met in open session, a
quorum being present.
Mr. Garrett asked unanimous consent that the Chair be
authorized, consistent with clause 4 of House Rule XVI, to
declare a recess at any time during the Committee meeting.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
Chairman Ryan asked unanimous consent to dispense with the
first reading of the budget aggregates, function levels, and
other appropriate matter; that the aggregates, function totals,
and other appropriate matter be open for amendment; and that
amendments be considered as read.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
The committee adopted and ordered reported the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. The Committee on
the Budget took the following votes:
1. An amendment offered by Representative Schwartz
expressing a sense of the House as to how the Affordable Care
Act affects Medicare and senior citizens.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM ......
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An amendment offered by Representative Castor expressing
a sense of the House on the effects of the Affordable Care Act
relating to prescription drug costs and other Medicare benefits
for senior citizens.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment offered by Representative Blumenauer to
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 400 to
reflect increased funding for transportation, including roads,
railroads and airports.
Budget authority and outlays for Function 400 would
increase by $50 billion in FY 2012 and outlays in the following
amounts: $19.920 billion for fiscal year 2013, $16.210 billion
for fiscal year 2014, $5.780 billion for fiscal year 2015,
$2.350 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.680 billion for fiscal
year 2017, $1.350 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.600 billion
for fiscal year 2019, $0.500 billion for fiscal year 2020,
$0.400 billion for fiscal year 2021, $0.200 billion for fiscal
year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment offered by Representative Kaptur to
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 700 to
establish an interagency Veterans Jobs Corps that will employ
veterans.
The budget authority for Function 700 would increase by: $1
billion in fiscal year 2013 and outlays in the following
amounts: $0.100 billion for fiscal year 2013, $0.225 billion
for fiscal year 2014, $0.225 billion for fiscal year 2015,
$0.225 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.225 billion for fiscal
year 2017.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen,
Schwartz, Doggett, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici
expressing a sense of the House rejecting any tax increase for
individuals with incomes under $200,000 or married couples
below $250,000 and extending the earned income tax credit as
well as the child tax credit.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. An amendment offered by Representative Yarmuth to
increase the levels of recommended revenue through increasing
taxes on individuals earning over $1 million and dedicate all
revenue to deficit reduction.
The revenue levels would increase in the following amounts:
$35 billion for fiscal year 2013, $50 billion for fiscal year
2014, $70 billion for fiscal year 2015, $85 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $100 billion for fiscal year 2017, $105 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $120 billion for fiscal year 2019, $125
billion for fiscal year 2020, $130 for fiscal year 2021, $140
billion for fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van
Hollen, Blumenauer, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici increases taxes for
U.S. businesses and offers a deduction for companies that
insource jobs. The amendment is revenue neutral.
The change in recommended levels of revenue are as follows:
$0.043 billion for fiscal year 2013, $.020 billion for fiscal
year 2014, -$0.004 million for fiscal year 2015, -$0.017 for
fiscal year 2016, -$0.012 for fiscal year 2017, -$0.027 for
fiscal year 2018, $0.025 for fiscal year 2019, -$0.045 for
fiscal year 2020, -$0.013 for fiscal year 2021, $0.030 for
fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. An amendment offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz
to increase budget authority for Function 550 for the purposes
of Medicaid spending, offset by a $700 billion revenue increase
from eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and
U.S. businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The budget authority and outlays for Function 550 would
increase by: $3 billion in fiscal year 2013, $33 billion for
fiscal year 2014, $48 billion for fiscal year 2015, $59 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $70 billion for fiscal year 2017, $81
billion for fiscal year 2018, $98 billion for fiscal year 2019,
$118 billion for fiscal year 2020, $137 billion for fiscal year
2021, $163 billion for fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. An amendment offered by Representatives Bass, Van
Hollen, Blumenauer, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici
to increase budget authority and outlays for Function 400
related to highway funding offset by a revenue increase from
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The budget authority for Function 400 would increase by:
$32.002 billion for fiscal year 2013, $9.438 billion for fiscal
year 2014, $16.716 billion for fiscal year 2015, $15.858
billion for fiscal year 2016, $15.839 billion for fiscal year
2017, $13.939 billion for fiscal year 2018, $14.110 billion for
fiscal year 2019, $11.838 billion for fiscal year 2020, $17.798
billion for fiscal year 2021, $6.517 billion for fiscal year
2022.
The amendment would increase outlays in the following
amounts: $47.185 billion for fiscal year 2013, $15.449 billion
for fiscal year 2014, $21.292 billion for fiscal year 2015,
$19.328 billion for fiscal year 2016, $19.638 billion for
fiscal year 2017, $18.548 billion for fiscal year 2018, $19.450
billion for fiscal year 2019, $18.178 billion for fiscal year
2020, $25.204 billion for fiscal year 2021, $14.934 billion for
fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 18 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. An amendment offered by Representatives Honda, Van
Hollen, Doggett, McCollum, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore,
Bass, and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays in
Function 500 for fiscal year 2013 for the purposes of primary
and secondary education, offset by a revenue increase from
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment increases budget authority for Function 500
by $1.872 billion in fiscal year 2013 and outlays in the
following amounts: $1.016 billion for fiscal year 2013, $0.550
billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.183 billion for fiscal year
2015, $0.063 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.043 billion for
fiscal year 2017.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett, Van
Hollen, McCollum, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Honda, Ryan (OH), Moore,
Bass, and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays in
Function 500 for the purposes of college assistance offset by a
revenue increase from eliminating tax deductions for domestic
oil production and U.S. businesses with international
operations, changing the depreciation schedules for certain
equipment, and raising taxes on individuals with annual income
greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays
for Function 500 by the following amounts: $0 billion for
fiscal year 2013, $3.855 billion for fiscal year 2014, $3.477
billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.247 billion for fiscal year
2016, $2.986 billion for fiscal year 2017, $2.805 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $2.786 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.633
billion for fiscal year 2020, $2.626 billion for fiscal year
2021, $2.550 billion for fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. An amendment offered by Representatives McCollum, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Doggett, Yarmouth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH),
Wasserman Schultz, Moore, Bass, and Bonamici expressing a sense
of the House relating to women and health care.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van
Hollen, McCollum, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Bass, and Bonamici to
increase budget authority and outlays by $136.6 billion for
Function 600 for the purpose of a funding increase in the Women
Infants and Children Program and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program offset by a revenue increase from
eliminating tax deductions for domestic oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, and raising taxes
on individuals with annual income greater than $1,000,000.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays
for Function 500 by the following amounts: $1.2 billion for
fiscal year 2013, $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.2
billion for fiscal year 2015, $18.4billion for fiscal year
2016, $18.5billion for fiscal year 2017, $18.8 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $19 billion for fiscal year 2019, $19.2
billion for fiscal year 2020, $19.4billion for fiscal year
2021, $19.7billion for fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. An amendment offered by Representatives Ryan (OH), Van
Hollen, McCollum, Pascrell, Castor, Bass, and Bonamici to
increase spending to fund the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) by increasing budget authority in Function
370. The increased spending would be paid for by eliminating
tax deductions for domestic oil production
The amendment would increase revenues by the following
amounts: $.599 billion in fiscal year 2013, $1.116 billion in
fiscal year 2014, $1.180 billion in fiscal year 2015, $1.251
billion in fiscal year 2016, $1.323 billion in fiscal year
2017, $1.394billion in fiscal year 2018, $1.467 billion in
fiscal year 2019, $1.542 billion in fiscal year 2020, $1.621
billion in fiscal year 2021, $1.692 billion in fiscal year
2022.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
370 by $0.102 billion in fiscal year 2013, and increases
outlays in the following amounts: $0.055 billion in fiscal year
2013, $0.030 billion in fiscal year 2014, $0.010 billion in
fiscal year 2015, $0.003 billion in fiscal year 2016,
$0.002billion in fiscal year 2017, $0 billion in fiscal year
2018 through fiscal year 2022.
The amendment would dedicate the remaining revenues to
deficit reduction.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. An amendment offered by Representatives Bonamici, Van
Hollen, Doggett, Pascrell, and Moore expressing a sense of the
House supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and
the Securities Exchange Commission.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 18 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. An amendment offered by Representatives Shuler, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, and Bonamici expressing a sense of
the House amendment that budget resolutions should enable
deficit reduction through spending reductions and tax reform.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 15 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. An amendment offered by Representative Bass, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Wasserman Schultz, Moore, Castor,
and Bonamici to increase budget authority and outlays for
Function 500 for student loans.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by the following amounts: $4.285 billion for fiscal year
2012, $2.595 billion for fiscal year 2013. The amendment would
increase outlays for Function 500 by the following amounts:
$2.480 billion for fiscal year 2012, $3.505 billion for fiscal
year 2013.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van
Hollen, Schwartz, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), and Bonamici expressing
a sense of the House with respect to changes to the Social
Security program.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Bass and Bonamici to eliminate tax
deductions for domestic oil production and use the revenues to
fund rebates to all registered vehicle owners.
The amendment would change the recommended levels of
revenue and deficits by the following amounts: -$34.370 billion
for fiscal year 2012, $2.624 billion for fiscal year 2013,
$4.066 billion for fiscal year 2014, $4.008 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $3.947 billion for fiscal year 2016, $3.859 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $3.633 billion for fiscal year 2018,
$3.222 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.955 billion for fiscal
year 2020, $2.984 billion for fiscal year 2021, $3.074 billion
for fiscal year 2022.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. An amendment offered by Representatives McCollum, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor and Bonamici to increase
budget authority in Function 500 with the purpose of
modernization and construction of public schools.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by
the following amounts: $13.362 billion for fiscal year 2013,
$8.294 billion for fiscal year 2014, $4.003 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $1.050 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.072 billion
for fiscal year 2017.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 20 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. An amendment offered by Representative Schwartz
expressing a sense of the House relating to women's health.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Bass, and Bonamici to
increase budget authority and outlays for Function 500 for the
purpose of increased funding for Head Start.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by $0.216 billion for fiscal year 2013 and increase outlays
by the following amounts: $0.117 billion for fiscal year 2013,
$0.063 billion for fiscal year 2014, $0.021 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $0.007 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.005 billion
for fiscal year 2017.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. An amendment offered by Representative Van Hollen to
increase budget authority and outlays in Function 920 for
discretionary spending.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
920 by $19.104 billion for fiscal year 2013 and increase
outlays by the following amounts: $10.370 billion for fiscal
year 2013, $5.613 billion for fiscal year 2014, $1.870 billion
for fiscal year 2015, $0.642 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$0.436 billion for fiscal year 2017.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 21 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X .........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X .........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. An amendment offered by Representative Moore expressing
a sense of the House regarding child support enforcement.
The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
25. An amendment offered by Chairman Ryan to make technical
and conforming corrections to the Chairman's Mark..
The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
26. Mr. Garrett made a motion that the Committee adopt the
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with
any amendments.
The motion offered by Mr. Garrett was agreed to by voice
vote.
Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year 2013 incorporating the aggregates,
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously
agreed.
27. Mr. Garrett made a motion that the Committee order the
Concurrent Resolution reported with a favorable recommendation
and that the Concurrent Resolution do pass.
The motion offered by Mr. Garrett was agreed to by a roll
call vote of 19 ayes and 18 noes.
ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN X VAN X
(WI) HOLLEN
(Chair (MD)
man) (Rankin
g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X SCHWARTZ X
(NJ) (PA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMPSON X KAPTUR X
(ID) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBEL X DOGGETT X
L (CA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X BLUMENAU X
(CA) ER (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AKIN X McCOLLUM X
(MO) (MN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE X YARMUTH X
(OK) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X PASCRELL X
(GA) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINT X HONDA X
OCK (CA)
(CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAFFET RYAN X
Z (UT) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUTZMA X WASSERMA X
N (IN) N
SCHULTZ
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFOR X MOORE X
D (OK) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X CASTOR X
(TN) (FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X SHULER X
(WI) (NC)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X BASS X
(TX) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULVANE X BONAMICI X
Y (SC) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HUELSKA X ........
MP
(KS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOUNG X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMASH X ........
(MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X ........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUINTA X ........
(NH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X
(GA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Mr. Garrett asked for unanimous consent that the Chair
be authorized to make a motion to go to conference pursuant to
clause 1 of House Rule XXII, the staff be authorized to make
any necessary technical and conforming corrections in the
resolution, and any committee amendments, and calculate any
remaining elements required in the resolution, prior to filing
the resolution.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent requests.
Ms. McCollum asked unanimous consent that the record
reflect that she would have voted aye on roll call tally #1
offered by Ms. Schwartz if she were present to vote.
There was no objection to the unanimous consent request.
Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House
----------
Committee on the Budget Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain
oversight findings and recommendations pursuant to clause
2(b)(1) of rule X. The Committee on the Budget has no findings
to report at the present time.
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives provides that committee reports must contain
the statement required by Section 308(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This
report does not contain such a statement because as a
concurrent resolution setting forth a blueprint for the
Congressional budget, the budget resolution does not provide
new budget authority, new entitlement authority, or change
revenues.
General Performance Goals and Objectives
Clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee report to contain a
statement of general performance goals and objectives,
including outcome-related goals and objectives, for which the
measure authorizes funding. The Committee on the Budget has no
such goals and objectives to report at this time.
Views of Committee Members
Clause 2(l) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires each committee to afford a 2-day
opportunity for members of the committee to file minority,
additional, dissenting, or supplemental views and to include
the views in its report. The following views were submitted:
Minority Views
----------
The Challenge
We consider this long-term budget plan at an especially
consequential moment for our country. Unfortunately, this
Republican budget makes the wrong choices for America. As a
result of the extraordinary actions taken over the last few
years, America avoided a second Great Depression and is
emerging from the ravages of a financial meltdown and near
economic collapse. While the economy is improving, millions
ofAmericans remain out of work through no fault of their own.
Our top priority must be to strengthen the fragile recovery and
put America back to work. It is also clear that putting
Americans back to work is the fastest and most effective ways
to reduce the short term deficit. In fact, the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) estimates that our weak economy and
underemployment is the major single contributing factor to the
deficit, accounting for over one third of the projected deficit
for fiscal year 2012.
Addressing the Challenge
Both President Obama's jobs plan and the President's
budget--and the budget we will propose as an alternative next
week--make key investments in the areas of our economy that
will spur job creation now and ensure our success over the long
term. They call for initiatives that will spur immediate
additional job creation, including funding to modernize our
nation's roads, schools, and bridges. At a time when the
unemployment rate in the construction industry stands at 17.1
percent, those kinds of investments are a win-win for the
American people. Instead of expanding incentives to ship
American jobs overseas, as the Republican budget plan does, we
need to invest in jobs here at home and Make It in America. In
addition to helping small businesses put more Americans back to
work now, the President's budget also makes strategic long-term
national investments to out-educate, out-innovate, and out-
compete the rest of the world. These investments are necessary
for long-term economic growth.
To achieve long-term economic growth we must also enact a
plan now to steadily and predictably reduce our deficits and
debt. The issue is not whether we enact a plan to reduce the
deficit, the question is how.
The Choice
To govern is to choose, and the choices made in the
Republican budget are simply wrong for America. It is not bold
to provide tax breaks to millionaires while ending the Medicare
guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for
rising health care costs. It is not courageous to protect tax
giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests
while slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific
research, and critical infrastructure. It is not visionary to
reward corporations that ship American jobs overseas while
terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of
Americans. It is not brave to give governors a blank check for
their pet initiatives and a license to cut support for seniors
in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities, and low-income
children. And it is not fair to raise taxes on middle-income
Americans to pay for big additional tax breaks for Wall Street
executives and the very wealthy.
Yet those are the choices made in the Republican budget.
Where is the shared responsibility? We have American men and
women putting their lives on line in Afghanistan while others
hide their income in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland and
refuse to pay their fair share to support our nation.
The Republican Budget Puts Tax Breaks for the Wealthy and Special
Interests Ahead of All Other Priorities
As the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform indicated, any responsible effort to
reduce the deficit requires a balanced approach that addresses
both spending and revenue. The Republican plan fails that
simple test. That is probably not a surprise, since nearly all
House Republicans have taken the position that they will refuse
to close a single special interest tax loophole or eliminate a
subsidy to big oil companies for the purposes of deficit
reduction.
Instead, the Republican budget simply rigs the rules of the
game in favor of the very wealthy and the powerful special
interests, and it does so at the expense of middle-income
Americans, seniors, and critical investments necessary to help
our economy grow stronger.
In addition to locking in the portion of President Bush's
tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the very wealthy, the
Republican budget proposes additional tax breaks for
millionaires. The Republican proposal to drop the top marginal
individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent will provide a
windfall for millionaires. Together with the Bush tax cuts,
millionaires could receive an average tax cut of over $150,000.
Moreover, the additional tax cut for millionaires is inevitably
paid for by raising taxes on middle-income and other Americans.
Cutting the top rate by 10 percent generates a new loss of over
$5 trillion. The Republican budget promises to do this in a
``revenue neutral'' way, which means raising taxes on middle-
income taxpayers to finance tax cuts for millionaires.
All of this is in service of a failed, trickle-down
economic theory that claims that big tax breaks to the very
wealthy will trickle down to lift the middle class. We have
been there. We tried it--it was called eight years of the Bush
Administration. Those tax breaks for the very wealthy may have
lifted the yachts, but they did not lift any of the other
boats. And at the end of that period, we saw a net loss of
private-sector jobs.
The Republican Budget Harms U.S. Competitiveness Globally
Republicans call their plan a path to prosperity, and if
you have already arrived at that point, it is the path for you.
If you are already prosperous, this will give you an added
windfall. But tax breaks for the very wealthy come at the
expense of everyone else. It means everyone else has to
shoulder the burden of deficit reduction. It also threatens our
nation's ability to succeed in the global economy. Remember,
the Budget Control Act of 2011 and the President's budget
already reflect the approximately $1 trillion in cuts for non-
security discretionary spending proposed by the bipartisan
Fiscal Commission. But the Republican plan slashes essential,
strategic investments by another $1 trillion over the next ten
years. America became an economic powerhouse in part because of
targeted strategic national investments made by earlier
generations--including investments in science and technology,
the interstate highway system, and the G.I. Bill and other
educational opportunities. By gutting these kinds of
investments, this plan is a recipe for national decline.
The Republican Budget Ends the Medicare Guarantee and Shreds the Social
Safety Net
Every member of the Budget Committee knows that rising
health care costs represent a huge challenge for the federal
budget. But every member of the Budget Committee should also
know what every expert has told us--that those rising costs are
not unique to Medicare or Medicaid. Those costs are endemic to
the entire health care system. In fact, over the last 40 years,
the per beneficiary spending in Medicare has grown at a
slightly slower rate than in the private insurance system. And
over the last decade, the per-beneficiary costs in Medicaid
grew much more slowly than the rest of the health care system.
Indeed, in the private market for individual coverage, premiums
more than doubled between the years 2000 and 2008, as insurance
industry profits quadrupled.
Those facts make one thing clear--if we are going to slow
the rising costs in Medicare and Medicaid without rationing
care, we must slow the rising costs of health care throughout
the health care system. That is exactly what the Affordable
Care Act signed by President Obama two years ago will do when
fully implemented.
The Affordable Care Act will begin to bring down the per
capita costs of health care throughout the system--including
Medicare. Yet this Republican budget will kill many of those
systemwide reforms, without any plan to replace them. House
Republicans said they could come up with a replacement policy.
In fact, Republicans supported a resolution last year (H. Res.
9) asking committees to replace the Affordable Care Act with a
plan to ``lower health care premiums through increased
competition and choices'' and ``provide people with pre-
existing conditions access to affordable health coverage.'' We
are still waiting for that legislation.
And once again, the Republican budget does not reform
Medicare--it deforms it. It proposes to end the Medicare
guarantee, shifting rising costs onto seniors and disabled
individuals. If your voucher amount is not sufficient to pay
for the benefits you need, tough luck. This Republican plan
simply rations health care and choice of doctor by income. And
despite the claims that market competition will curb the rising
costs, the plan creates an artificial cap on the value of the
voucher support. Republicans say they are using the Medicare
Part D prescription drug benefit as a model, but that program
has no artificial cap. Members of Congress, who are part of the
Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, have no cap on the
premium support they receive from the federal government.
Clearly, Republicans do not trust the market to drive down
costs--which is not surprising, as the health insurance market
failed to achieve that goal for seniors. That is why the
Congress created Medicare in the first place, to leverage the
combined negotiating power of millions of seniors.
To make matters worse, the Republican budget takes away
important new Medicare benefits already being provided to
seniors and disabled individuals through the Affordable Care
Act. The Act gradually closes the ``donut hole'' coverage gap
in the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit. More than 5.1
million seniors have already saved an average of $635 on their
prescription drug costs. Between now and 2020, the average
senior in the ``donut hole'' will save more than $10,000 on
their drug costs, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The Act
also eliminates cost-sharing for key preventive services such
as mammograms and colonoscopies and provides a free Annual
Wellness Visit. These types of benefits are crucial to
transforming our health system into one that focuses on keeping
people healthy. Under the Republican budget, these new benefits
disappear.
This Republican budget also rips apart the safety net for
seniors in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, as
well as low-income children and individuals with disabilities
who rely on Medicaid. There is nothing courageous about
targeting the most vulnerable in our society. Yet that is one
of the biggest areas of Republican cuts. ``Block-granting''
Medicaid is simply code for deep, arbitrary cuts in support to
the most vulnerable seniors, individuals with disabilities, and
low-income children. Medicaid is already underfunded, yet this
budget cuts it by over $800 billion, about a third of the
Medicaid budget by 2022. Claiming to ``repair'' Medicaid by
cutting it by a third is like saving a drowning person by
throwing them an anchor.
The Republican budget does not reach balance in ten years.
It does not reach balance in 20 years. And their claim that it
reaches balance at all is based on made-up numbers. It is based
on a CBO report that states: ``Those calculations do not
represent a cost estimate for legislation or an analysis of the
effects of any given policies.'' All CBO could do was accept
the figures and run the formulas specified by ``Chairman Ryan
and his staff'--disconnected from any real-world policies.
The Bottom Line: Values
This Republican budget is the wrong choice for America
because it does not reflect our values and priorities. During
an all day mark-up Democrats offered a series of amendments
that do reflect America's priorities: investments to promote
job creation, maintaining Medicare and the social safety net,
and responsible deficit reduction through policy choices that
ask everyone to pay their fair share. None of the amendments
would have increased the deficit, and in fact, several would
have reduced the deficit. All of the amendments offset any
proposed spending by reducing unproductive tax breaks,
including subsidies for big oil companies, egregious tax breaks
such as tax deductions for corporate jets, tax loopholes that
encourage the outsourcing of manufacturing and result in fewer
American jobs, and additional tax cuts for millionaires.
Republicans rejected every Democratic amendment to reduce
the deficit or change spending levels.
Democrats intend to offer our own budget next week that
will stand in stark contrast to this budget's principles. Our
budget will reduce the deficit and remain true to our values.
We are focused on putting Americans back to work in the short
term while also implementing a longterm plan to get our fiscal
house in order. We can modernize and strengthen programs like
Medicare without breaking our promises to seniors and shredding
the social safety net. And we can make smart spending
reductions without slashing investments in our nation's future
that will pay dividends for generations.
To govern is to choose, but the Republican budget presents
a false choice that further divides our country. They provide a
gilded path to prosperity for the already wealthy, while
leaving working Americans and future generations behind.
Instead of more of the same, we must work together on a
balanced path forward that protects the promise and opportunity
of the American Dream for all.
Chris Van Hollen.
Allyson Schwartz.
Earl Blumenauer.
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Gwen Moore.
Kathy Castor.
Heath Shuler.
Karen Bass.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Tim Ryan.
Mike Honda.
Suzanne Bonamici.
Betty McCollum.
Lloyd Doggett.
John Yarmuth.
Marcy Kaptur.
112th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 112
Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal
year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2014 through 2022.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),
SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.
(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal
year 2013 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2014 through 2022.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
resolution is as follows:
Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2013.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Directive to the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives to replace the sequester established by the
Budget Control Act of 2011.
TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040,
AND 2050
Sec. 301. Policy statement on long-term budgeting.
TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS
Sec. 401. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 402. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate
of the Medicare program.
Sec. 403. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 404. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 405. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates and allocations for legislation.
Sec. 504. Limitation on long-term spending.
Sec. 505. Budgetary treatment of certain transactions.
Sec. 506. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.
Sec. 507. Congressional Budget Office estimates.
Sec. 508. Budget rule relating to transfers from the general fund of the
treasury to the highway trust fund that increase public
indebtedness.
Sec. 509. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/global
war on terrorism.
Sec. 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
TITLE VI--POLICY
Sec. 601. Policy Statement on Medicare.
Sec. 602. Policy Statement on Social Security.
Sec. 603. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation
of unobligated balances.
Sec. 604. Recommendations for the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse
in Federal programs.
TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Sense of the House regarding the importance of child support
enforcement.
TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS
SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.
The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2013 through 2022:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal
revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,058,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,248,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,459,718,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,627,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,770,342,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,891,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,021,132,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,173,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,332,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,498,448,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels
of Federal revenues should be changed are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2013: -$234,735,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$302,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$356,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$388,565,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$423,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$460,304,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$497,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$534,378,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$574,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$617,033,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this resolution, the appropriate levels
of total new budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,793,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,681,566,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,756,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,888,570,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,998,681,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,117,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,290,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,455,514,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,570,712,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,780,807,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total
budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $2,891,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $2,769,702,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $2,784,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,892,523,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,977,372,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,080,794,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,248,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,398,470,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,531,790,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,748,801,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the
enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the
deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: -$832,985,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: -$520,930,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: -$324,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$264,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$207,030,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$188,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$227,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$224,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$199,189,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$250,353,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels of
the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $17,072,810,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $17,769,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $18,277,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,752,806,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,216,661,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $19,676,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $20,168,534,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $20,657,588,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $21,121,620,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $21,627,396,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels
of debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2013: $12,261,337,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014: $12,860,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015: $13,260,430,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,597,083,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,874,203,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $14,125,515,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $14,417,373,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $14,717,285,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021; $15,005,091,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $15,363,610,000,000.
SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.
The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2013 through 2022 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$562,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $621,469,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$574,807,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $589,720,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$588,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $586,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$602,958,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $599,658,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$618,519,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $607,874,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$635,241,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $617,648,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$653,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $639,165,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$671,528,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $656,950,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$690,261,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $675,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$709,450,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $699,316,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,128,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,999,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,113,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,758,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,082,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,041,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,446,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$42,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,777,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,780,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,294,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$45,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,737,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$46,649,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,872,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,001,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,154,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,535,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,633,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,591,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,006,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,526,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,412,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,127,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,377,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$32,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,173,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,680,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -
$3,025,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,670,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,220,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$952,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,375,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$990,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,128,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$960,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,903,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$975,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,110,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,221,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,882,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,554,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,144,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,058,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,832,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,848,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,756,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,245,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,981,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,132,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,707,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,338,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,178,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$36,046,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,666,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$21,691,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,611,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$18,145,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,113,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,395,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,107,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,142,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,761,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$18,962,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,291,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,849,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,152,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,045,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,543,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,154,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,187,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -
$7,095,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$3,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$1,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,070,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$711,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$11,591,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,675,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$12,166,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$5,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$11,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$6,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$10,525,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,778,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$15,134,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$9,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$14,115,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$10,206,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$11,311,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,533,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$57,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $49,729,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$80,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,541,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$74,602,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,294,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$76,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,831,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$77,561,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,358,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$80,640,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,412,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$81,636,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,348,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$85,165,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$80,486,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,090,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$93,104,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,180,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$11,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,732,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,886,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,389,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $10,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,435,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,410,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,673,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,805,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$7,726,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,997,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$57,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,335,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$63,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,931,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$71,626,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $71,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$79,630,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$84,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,121,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$87,738,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$89,329,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$90,305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$91,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,408,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$363,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,614,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$358,322,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $362,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$365,058,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $369,455,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$376,993,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $376,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$393,219,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $394,754,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$404,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $406,143,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$419,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $417,557,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$446,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $433,169,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$449,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $446,710,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$471,657,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $468,212,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$510,144,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $510,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$532,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $532,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$554,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $554,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$601,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $601,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$615,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$634,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $634,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$692,173,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $691,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$737,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $736,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$784,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $784,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$866,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $866,448,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$517,076,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $516,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$475,714,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $474,603,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$472,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $471,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$453,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $455,843,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$450,453,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $448,404,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$453,608,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,336,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$469,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $467,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$481,660,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $480,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$494,347,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $493,341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$511,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,356,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$53,216,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,296,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,892,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,002,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,135,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,210,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,953,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,140,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$47,590,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $47,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$52,429,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,429,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$57,425,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$62,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,604,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$68,079,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,079,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$134,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $135,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$137,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,230,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$139,862,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $139,774,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$148,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $148,044,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$147,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $146,846,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$146,341,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $145,634,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$156,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $155,291,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$160,511,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $159,760,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$165,065,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,272,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$175,431,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $174,607,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$54,277,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,623,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$51,201,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$52,499,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,276,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$55,868,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,929,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$55,704,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$57,407,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,053,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$59,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,828,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$61,091,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $62,003,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$63,137,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,045,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$68,922,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,817,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,155,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,051,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
23,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,067,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$22,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,961,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,170,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,699,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$24,304,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$24,751,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$25,358,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,896,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$25,881,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,449,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$344,415,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $344,415,000,000
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$356,352,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $356,352,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$391,014,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $391,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$447,356,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,356,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$506,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $506,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$565,014,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $565,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$618,628,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $618,628,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$664,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $664,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$696,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $696,908,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$730,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $730,179,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -
$22,607,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $859,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$87,771,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$50,682,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$90,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$80,035,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$94,030,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$93,943,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$96,411,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$101,325,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$101,394,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$106,211,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$106,767,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$111,171,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$113,223,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$117,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$120,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$123,784,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$121,281,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$125,413,000,000.
(20) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, -
$84,736,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$84,736,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, -
$78,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,697,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, -
$84,531,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$84,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, -
$86,226,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$86,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, -
$94,507,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$94,507,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, -
$98,066,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$98,066,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, -
$104,845,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$104,845,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, -
$103,878,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$103,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, -
$108,168,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$108,168,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, -
$110,655,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$110,655,000,000.
(21) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism:
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority,
$96,725,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $51,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,010,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $48,034,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $45,422,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $44,284,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,912,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,727,000,000.
TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Submissions of Spending Reduction.--Not later than April
27, 2012, the House committees named in subsection (b) shall
submit recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives. After receiving those
recommendations, such committee shall report to the House a
reconciliation bill carrying out all such recommendations
without substantive revision.
(b) Instructions.--
(1) Committee on agriculture.--The Committee on
Agriculture shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$8,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and
2013; by $19,700,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2017; and by $33,200,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
(2) Committee on energy and commerce.--The Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall submit changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by $3,750,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2012 and 2013; by $28,430,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by
$96,760,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012
through 2022.
(3) Committee on financial services.--The Committee
on Financial Services shall submit changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the
deficit by $3,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal
years 2012 and 2013; by $16,700,000,000 for the period
of fiscal years 2012 through 2017; and by
$29,800,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012
through 2022.
(4) Committee on the judiciary.--The Committee on the
Judiciary shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and
2013; by $11,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2017; and by $39,700,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
(5) Committee on oversight and government reform.--
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform shall
submit changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the deficit by $2,200,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2012 and 2013; by
$30,100,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012
through 2017; and by $78,900,000,000 for the period of
fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
(6) Committee on ways and means.--The Committee on
Ways and Means shall submit changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$1,200,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2012 and
2013; by $23,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2012 through 2017; and by $53,000,000,000 for the
period of fiscal years 2012 through 2022.
SEC. 202. DIRECTIVE TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO REPLACE THE SEQUESTER
ESTABLISHED BY THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011.
(a) Submission.--In the House, the Committee on the Budget
shall report to the House a bill carrying out the directions
set forth in subsection (b).
(b) Directions.--The bill referred to in subsection (a) shall
include the following provisions:
(1) Replacing the sequester established by the budget
control act of 2011.--The language shall amend section
251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 to replace the sequester
established under that section consistent with this
concurrent resolution.
(2) Application of provisions.--The bill referred to
in subsection (a) shall include language making its
application contingent upon the enactment of the
reconciliation bill referred to in section 201.
TITLE III--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2030, 2040,
AND 2050
SEC. 301. POLICY STATEMENT ON LONG-TERM BUDGETING.
The following are the recommended budget levels for each of
fiscal years 2030, 2040, and 2050 as a percent of the gross
domestic product of the United States:
(1) Federal revenues.--The appropriate levels of
Federal revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 19 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 19 percent.
(2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of total
budget outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 20.25 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 18.75 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 16 percent.
(3) Deficits.--The appropriate amounts of deficits
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 1.25 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: -.25 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: -3 percent.
(4) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels
of debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2030: 53 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 38 percent.
Fiscal year 2050: 10 percent.
TITLE IV--RESERVE FUNDS
SEC. 401. RESERVE FUND FOR THE REPEAL OF THE 2010 HEALTH CARE LAWS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill
or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that repeals the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of
2010.
SEC. 402. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUSTAINABLE GROWTH RATE
OF THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill
or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that includes provisions amending or superseding the
system for updating payments under section 1848 of the Social
Security Act, if such measure would not increase the deficit in
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
SEC. 403. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REVENUE MEASURES.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for the budgetary effects of any bill
reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, or any amendment
thereto or conference report thereon, that decreases revenue,
but only if such measure would not increase the deficit over
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
SEC. 404. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR RURAL COUNTIES AND SCHOOLS.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels and limits in this resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that makes changes to the Payments
in Lieu of Taxes Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-565) or makes
changes to or provides for the reauthorization of the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-393) by the amounts provided by that
legislation for those purposes, if such legislation would not
increase the deficit or direct spending for fiscal year 2013,
the period of fiscal years 2013 through 2017, or the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
SEC. 405. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRANSPORTATION.
In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this resolution for any bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, if such measure
maintains the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, but only if
such measure would not increase the deficit over the period of
fiscal years 2013 through 2022.
TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or an amendment
thereto or conference report thereon, making a general
appropriation or continuing appropriation may not provide for
advance appropriations.
(b) Exceptions.--An advance appropriation may be provided for
programs, projects, activities, or accounts referred to in
subsection (c)(1) or identified in the report to accompany this
resolution or the joint explanatory statement of managers to
accompany this resolution under the heading ``Accounts
Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
(c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2014, the aggregate amount
of advance appropriation shall not exceed--
(1) $54,462,000,000 for the following programs in the
Department of Veterans Affairs--
(A) Medical Services;
(B) Medical Support and Compliance; and
(C) Medical Facilities accounts of the
Veterans Health Administration; and
(2) $28,852,000,000 in new budget authority for all
other programs.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making general
appropriations or any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2014.
SEC. 502. CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS.
Upon the enactment of any bill or joint resolution providing
for a change in budgetary concepts or definitions, the chair of
the Committee on the Budget may adjust any appropriate levels
and allocations in this resolution accordingly.
SEC. 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES AND ALLOCATIONS FOR LEGISLATION.
(a) Enforcement.--For purposes of enforcing this resolution,
the revenue levels shall be those set forth in the March 2012
Congressional Budget Office baseline. The total amount of
adjustments made under subsection (b) may not cause revenue
levels to be below the levels set forth in paragraph (1)(A) of
section 101 for fiscal year 2013 and for the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2022.
(b) Adjustments.--(1) The chair of the Committee on the
Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this
concurrent resolution for--
(A) the budgetary effects of measures extending the
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001;
(B) the budgetary effects of measures extending the
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003;
(C) the budgetary effects of measures that adjust the
Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amounts to prevent a
larger number of taxpayers as compared with tax year
2008 from being subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax
or of allowing the use of nonrefundable personal
credits against the Alternative Minimum Tax;
(D) 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;
(E) the budgetary effects of measures providing a 20
percent deduction in income to small businesses;
(F) the budgetary effects of measures implementing
trade agreements;
(G) the budgetary effects of provisions repealing the
tax increases set forth in the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education
Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010;
(H) the budgetary effects of provisions reforming the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the
Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation
Act of 2010; and
(I) the budgetary effects of measures reforming the
tax code and lowering tax rates.
(2) A measure does not qualify for adjustments under
paragraph (1)(H) if it--
(A) increases the deficit over the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2022; or
(B) increases revenues over the period of fiscal
years 2013 through 2022, other than by--
(i) repealing or modifying the individual
mandate (codified as section 5000A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986); or
(ii) modifying the subsidies to purchase
health insurance (codified as section 36B of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
(c) Other Adjustments.--If a committee (other than the
Committee on Appropriations) reports a bill or joint
resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report
thereon, providing for a decrease in direct spending (budget
authority and outlays flowing therefrom) for any fiscal year
and also provides for an authorization of appropriations for
the same purpose, upon the enactment of such measure, the chair
of the Committee on the Budget may decrease the allocation to
such committee and increase the allocation of discretionary
spending (budget authority and outlays flowing therefrom) to
the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2013 by an
amount equal to the new budget authority (and outlays flowing
therefrom) provided for in a bill or joint resolution making
appropriations for the same purpose.
(d) Determinations.--For the purpose of enforcing this
concurrent resolution on the budget in the House, the
allocations and aggregate levels of new budget authority,
outlays, direct spending, new entitlement authority, revenues,
deficits, and surpluses for fiscal year 2013 and the period of
fiscal years 2013 through fiscal year 2022 shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on
the Budget and such chair may adjust the applicable levels of
this resolution.
SEC. 504. LIMITATION ON LONG-TERM SPENDING.
(a) In General.--In the House, it shall not be in order to
consider a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee
(other than the Committee on Appropriations), or an amendment
thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of
such measure have the net effect of increasing direct spending
in excess of $5,000,000,000 for any period described in
subsection (b).
(b) Time Periods.--The applicable periods for purposes of
this section are any of the first four consecutive ten fiscal-
year periods beginning with fiscal year 2023.
SEC. 505. BUDGETARY TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 302(a)(1) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, section 13301 of the Budget
Enforcement Act of 1990, and section 4001 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1989, the joint explanatory statement
accompanying the conference report on any concurrent resolution
on the budget shall include in its allocation under section
302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to the Committee
on Appropriations amounts for the discretionary administrative
expenses of the Social Security Administration and the United
States Postal Service.
(b) Special Rule.--For purposes of applying sections 302(f)
and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, estimates of
the level of total new budget authority and total outlays
provided by a measure shall include any off-budget
discretionary amounts.
(c) Adjustments.--The chair of the Committee on the Budget
may adjust allocations and aggregates for legislation reported
by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that
reforms the Federal retirement system, but does not cause a net
increase in the deficit for fiscal year 2013 and the period of
fiscal years 2013 to 2022.
SEC. 506. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES.
(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure;
and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon
as practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates included in
this resolution.
(c) Exemptions.--Any legislation for which the chair of the
Committee on the Budget makes adjustments in the allocations or
aggregates of this concurrent resolution shall not be subject
to the points of order set forth in clause 10 of rule XXI of
the Rules of the House of Representatives or section 504.
SEC. 507. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATES.
(a) Fair Value Estimates.--
(1) Request for supplemental estimates.--Upon the
request of the chair or ranking member of the Committee
on the Budget, any estimate prepared for a measure
under the terms of title V of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such
estimate of the Congressional Budget Office shall, to
the extent practicable, also provide an estimate of the
current actual or estimated market values representing
the ``fair value'' of assets and liabilities affected
by such measure.
(2) Enforcement.--If the Congressional Budget Office
provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (a), the
chair of the Committee on the Budget may use such
estimate to determine compliance with the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 and other budgetary enforcement
controls.
(b) Budgetary Effects of the National Flood Insurance
Program.--The Congressional Budget Office shall estimate the
change in net income to the National Flood Insurance Program by
this Act if such income is included in a reconciliation bill
provided for in section 201, as if such income were deposited
in the general fund of the Treasury.
SEC. 508. BUDGET RULE RELATING TO TRANSFERS FROM THE GENERAL FUND OF
THE TREASURY TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND THAT
INCREASE PUBLIC INDEBTEDNESS.
For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, or
the Rules of the House of Representatives, a bill or joint
resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, or any Act that transfers funds from the general fund
of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund shall be counted as
new budget authority and outlays equal to the amount of the
transfer in the fiscal year the transfer occurs.
SEC. 509. SEPARATE ALLOCATION FOR OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS/
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM.
(a) Allocation.--In the House, there shall be a separate
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for overseas
contingency operations and the global war on terrorism. For
purposes of enforcing such separate allocation under section
302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first
fiscal year'' and the ``total of fiscal years'' shall be deemed
to refer to fiscal year 2013. Such separate allocation shall be
the exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations
and the global war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such
Act. Section 302(c) of such Act does not apply to such separate
allocation. The Committee on Appropriations may provide
suballocations of such separate allocation under section 302(b)
of such Act. Spending that counts toward the allocation
established by this section shall be designated pursuant to
section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(b) Adjustment.--In the House, for purposes of subsection (a)
for fiscal year 2013, no adjustment shall be made under section
314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 if any
adjustment would be made under section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
SEC. 510. EXERCISE OF RULEMAKING POWERS.
(a) In General.--The House adopts the provisions of this
title--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the
House of Representatives and as such they shall be
considered as part of the rules of the House of
Representatives, and these rules shall supersede other
rules only to the extent that they are inconsistent
with other such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right
of the House of Representatives to change those rules
at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent
as in the case of any other rule of the House of
Representatives.
(b) Limitation on Application.--The following provisions of
H. Res. 5 (112th Congress) shall no longer have force or
effect:
(1) Section 3(e) relating to advance appropriations.
(2) Section 3(f) relating to the treatment of off-
budget administrative expenses.
TITLE VI--POLICY
SEC. 601. POLICY STATEMENT ON MEDICARE.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 50 million Americans depend on Medicare
for their health security.
(2) The Medicare Trustees Report has repeatedly
recommended that Medicare's long-term financial
challenges be addressed soon. Each year without reform,
the financial condition of Medicare becomes more
precarious and the threat to those in and near
retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the
Congressional Budget Office--
(A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be
exhausted in 2022 and unable to pay scheduled
benefits; and
(B) Medicare spending is growing faster than
the economy and Medicare outlays are currently
rising at a rate of 6.3 percent per year, and
under the Congressional Budget Office's
alternative fiscal scenario, direct spending on
Medicare is projected to reach 7 percent of GDP
by 2035 and 14 percent of GDP by 2085.
(3) Failing to address this problem will leave
millions of American seniors without adequate health
security and younger generations burdened with enormous
debt to pay for spending levels that cannot be
sustained.
(b) Policy on Medicare Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution to protect those in and near retirement from any
disruptions to their Medicare benefits and offer future
beneficiaries the same health care options available to Members
of Congress.
(c) Assumptions.--This resolution assumes reform of the
Medicare program such that:
(1) Current Medicare benefits are preserved for those
in and near retirement, without changes.
(2) For future generations, when they reach
eligibility, Medicare is reformed to provide a premium
support payment and a selection of guaranteed health
coverage options from which recipients can choose a
plan that best suits their needs.
(3) Medicare will provide additional assistance for
lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater
health risks.
(4) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path
and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-
term.
SEC. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON SOCIAL SECURITY.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) More than 55 million retirees, individuals with
disabilities, and survivors depend on Social Security.
Since enactment, Social Security has served as a vital
leg on the ``three-legged stool'' of retirement
security, which includes employer provided pensions as
well as personal savings.
(2) The Social Security Trustees report has
repeatedly recommended that Social Security's long-term
financial challenges be addressed soon. Each year
without reform, the financial condition of Social
Security becomes more precarious and the threat to
seniors and those receiving Social Security disability
benefits becomes more pronounced:
(A) In 2016, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, the Federal Disability Insurance
Trust Fund will be exhausted and will be unable
to pay scheduled benefits.
(B) In 2036, according to the Social Security
Trustees Report the combined Federal Old-Age
and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Federal
Disability Insurance Trust Fund will be
exhausted, and will be unable to pay scheduled
benefits.
(C) With the exhaustion of the trust funds in
2036, benefits will be cut 23 percent across
the board, devastating those currently in or
near retirement and those who rely on Social
Security the most.
(3) The current recession has exacerbated the crisis
to Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office
continues to project permanent cash deficits.
(4) Lower-income Americans rely on Social Security
for a larger proportion of their retirement income.
Therefore, reforms should take into consideration the
need to protect lower-income Americans' retirement
security.
(5) Americans deserve action by their elected
officials on Social Security reform. It is critical
that the Congress and the administration work together
in a bipartisan fashion to address the looming
insolvency of Social Security. In this spirit, this
resolution creates a bipartisan opportunity to find
solutions by requiring policymakers to ensure that
Social Security remains a critical part fo the safety
net.
(b) Policy on Social Security.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should work on a bipartisan basis to
make Social Security permanently solvent. This resolution
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that--
(1)(A) if in any year the Board of Trustees of the
Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and
the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund in its
annual Trustees' Report determines that the 75-year
actuarial balance of the Social Security Trust Funds is
in deficit, and the annual balance of the Social
Security Trust Funds in the 75th year is in deficit,
the Board of Trustees should, not later than September
30 of the same calendar year, submit to the President
recommendations for statutory reforms necessary to
achieve a positive 75-year actuarial balance and a
positive annual balance in the 75th year; and
(B) such recommendations provided to the President
should be agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the
Board of Trustees;
(2)(A) not later than December 1 of the same calendar
year in which the Board of Trustees submits its
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress,
including recommendations necessary to achieve a
positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive
annual balance in the 75th year; and
(B) the Majority Leader of the Senate and the
Majority Leader of the House should introduce such
legislation upon receipt;
(3) within 60 days of the President submitting
legislation, the committees of jurisdiction to which
the legislation has been referred should report such
legislation, which should be considered by the full
House or Senate under expedited procedures; and
(4) legislation submitted by the President should--
(A) protect those in and near retirement;
(B) preserve the safety net for those who
rely on Social Security, including survivors
and those with disabilities;
(C) improve fairness for participants; and
(D) reduce the burden on, and provide
certainty for, future generations.
SEC. 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) According to the Office of Management and Budget,
Federal agencies will hold $698 billion in unobligated
balances at the close of fiscal year 2013.
(2) These funds represent direct and discretionary
spending made available by Congress that remain
available for expenditure beyond the fiscal year for
which they are provided.
(3) In some cases, agencies are granted funding and
it remains available for obligation indefinitely.
(4) The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control
Act of 1974 requires the Office of Management and
Budget to make funds available to agencies for
obligation and prohibits the Administration from
withholding or cancelling unobligated funds unless
approved by an act of Congress.
(5) Greater congressional oversight is required to
review and identify potential savings from unneeded
balances of funds.
(b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Cancellation of
Unobligated Balances.--Congressional committees shall through
their oversight activities identify and achieve savings through
the cancellation or rescission of unobligated balances that
neither abrogate contractual obligations of the Federal
Government nor reduce or disrupt Federal commitments under
programs such as Social Security, veterans' affairs, national
security, and Treasury authority to finance the national debt.
(c) Deficit Reduction.--Congress, with the assistance of the
Government Accountability Office, the Inspectors General, and
other appropriate agencies should make it a high priority to
review unobligated balances and identify savings for deficit
reduction.
SEC. 604. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF WASTE, FRAUD, AND
ABUSE IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Government Accountability Office is required
by law to identify examples of waste, duplication, and
overlap in Federal programs, and has so identified
dozens of such examples.
(2) In testimony before the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, the Comptroller General has
stated that addressing the identified waste,
duplication, and overlap in Federal programs ``could
potentially save tens of billions of dollars''.
(3) The Rules of the House of Representatives require
each standing committee to hold at least one hearing
every four months on waste, fraud, abuse, or
mismanagement in Government programs.
(4) The findings resulting from congressional
oversight of Federal Government programs should result
in programmatic changes in both authorizing statutes
and program funding levels.
(b) Policy on Deficit Reduction Through the Reduction of
Unnecessary and Wasteful Spending.--Each authorizing committee
annually shall include in its Views and Estimates letter
required under section 301(d) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 recommendations to the Committee on the Budget of
programs within the jurisdiction of such committee whose
funding should be reduced or eliminated. Such recommendations
shall be made publicly available.
TITLE VII--SENSE OF THE HOUSE PROVISIONS
SEC. 701. SENSE OF THE HOUSE REGARDING THE IMPORTANCE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT.
It is the sense of the House that--
(1) additional legislative action is needed to ensure
that States have the necessary resources to collect all
child support that is owed to families and to allow
them to pass 100 percent of support on to families
without financial penalty; and
(2) when 100 percent of child support payments are
passed to the child, rather than administrative
expenses, program integrity is improved and child
support participation increases.