House Report 113-403 - CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET-- FISCAL YEAR 2015

[House Report 113-403]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-403
_______________________________________________________________________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2015

----------

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

to accompany

H. Con. Res. 96

ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

April 4, 2014.--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 2015

113th Congress
2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Report
113-403
_______________________________________________________________________

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

ON THE BUDGET--

FISCAL YEAR 2015

__________

R E P O R T

of the

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

to accompany

H. Con. Res. 96

ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

April 4, 2014.--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
TOM PRICE, Georgia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland,
SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
JOHN CAMPBELL, California JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
KEN CALVERT, California BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TOM COLE, Oklahoma TIM RYAN, Ohio
TOM McCLINTOCK, California GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma KATHY CASTOR, Florida
DIANE BLACK, Tennessee JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin BARBARA LEE, California
BILL FLORES, Texas HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TODD ROKITA, Indiana MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
ROB WOODALL, Georgia MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JARED HUFFMAN, California
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi TONY CARDENAS, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan
TOM RICE, South Carolina
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin

Professional Staff

Austin Smythe, Staff Director
Thomas S. Kahn, Minority Staff Director

C O N T E N T S

Page
Introduction..................................................... 3
Summary Tables--Spending and Revenues:
Table 1. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Total Spending
and Revenue................................................ 10
Table 2. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending................................................... 13
Table 3. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Mandatory
Spending................................................... 15
CBO and OMB Differences in Baseline Budget Estimates............. 19
Table 4. CBO February 2014 Baseline vs. OMB BEA Baseline With
Joint Committee Enforcement................................ 21
Table 5. Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution....... 21
Table 6. Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution vs. the
President's Budget......................................... 22
Economic Assumptions of the Budget Resolution.................... 25
Table 7. Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and
Private Forecasters........................................ 30
Table 8. Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
Resolution................................................. 30
Table 9. Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2013-2019............................................ 31
Function-by-Function Presentation................................ 39
050 National Defense......................................... 39
150 International Relations.................................. 43
250 General Science, Space, and Technology................... 46
270 Energy................................................... 48
300 Natural Resources and Environment........................ 52
350 Agriculture.............................................. 57
370 Commerce and Housing Credit.............................. 58
400 Transportation........................................... 64
450 Community and Regional Development....................... 67
500 Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services..... 69
550 Health................................................... 74
570 Medicare................................................. 78
600 Income Security.......................................... 82
650 Social Security.......................................... 86
700 Veterans Benefits and Services........................... 89
750 Administration of Justice................................ 90
800 General Government....................................... 92
900 Net Interest............................................. 94
920 Allowances............................................... 95
930 Government-Wide Savings.................................. 96
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts........................ 98
970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism.. 100
Revenue.......................................................... 103
Direct Spending Trends and Reforms............................... 107
Table 10. Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 110
Table 11. Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 111
The Long-Term Budget Outlook..................................... 115
Section-by-Section Description................................... 117
Title I. Spending and Revenue Levels......................... 117
Title II. Recommended Long-Term Levels....................... 118
Title III. Reserve Funds..................................... 119
Title IV. Estimates of Direct Spending....................... 122
Title V. Budget Enforcement.................................. 122
Title VI. Policy Statements.................................. 126
The Congressional Budget Process................................. 129
Table 12. Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee
on Appropriations.......................................... 131
Table 13. Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget
amounts)................................................... 131
Statutory Controls Over the Budget............................... 135
Enforcing Budgetary Levels....................................... 141
Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations................... 145
Votes of the Committee........................................... 147
Amendments Considered by the Committee on the Budget............. 175
Other Matters to be Discussed Under the Rules of the House....... 185
Minority Views................................................... 187
The Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2015..... 191

T A B L E S

Page
Table1.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Total Spending and
Revenue.................................................... 10
Table2.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Discretionary
Spending................................................... 13
Table3.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution Mandatory Spending. 15
Table4.CBO February 2014 Baseline vs. OMB BEA Baseline With
Joint Committee Enforcement................................ 21
Table5.Summary of Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution......... 21
Table6.Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Resolution vs. the President's
Budget..................................................... 22
Table7.Economic Projections: Administration, CBO, and Private
Forecasters................................................ 30
Table8.Economic Assumptions of the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget
Resolution................................................. 30
Table9.Tax Expenditure Estimates by Budget Function, Fiscal
Years 2013-2019............................................ 31
Table10.Historical Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 110
Table11.Projected Means-Tested and Non Means-Tested Direct
Spending................................................... 111
Table12.Allocation of Spending Authority to House Committee
on Appropriations.......................................... 131
Table13.Resolution by Authorizing Committee (on-budget
amounts)................................................... 131

113th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 113-403

======================================================================

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET--
FISCAL YEAR 2015

_______

ESTABLISHING THE BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2015 AND SETTING FORTH APPROPRIATE BUDGETARY LEVELS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2016 THROUGH 2024

_______

April 4, 2014.--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. 96]
INTRODUCTION

----------

Nearly five years after the financial crisis, many families
still haven't recovered. The typical household's income, when
adjusted for inflation, is lower now than it was in 2007.\1\
Over 46 million people live in poverty today,\2\ and over 90
million are out of the workforce altogether.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, Jessica C. Smith,
``Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States:
2012,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, Sept. 2013.
\2\``Poverty: Highlights,'' U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S.
Census Bureau, Accessed 24 Mar. 2014.
\3\``The Employment Situation--February 2014,'' U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every year since the recession hit, Washington has all too
often turned to the old standbys: more taxes, more spending,
and more regulation. The federal government rushed through a
series of costly remedies: the stimulus package, the Dodd--
Frank law, Obamacare. Washington keeps stepping on the gas, and
the engine keeps on flooding.
President Obama and his party promised if Washington took a
firmer hold of the economy, working families would be better
off. But in the first few years of his administration, the
economy grew at less than half the average of all other
recoveries since World War II.\4\ Economic growth has moved in
fits and starts since then and, in recent months, has slowed
considerably.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\``What Accounts for the Slow Growth of the Economy after the
Recession,'' Congressional Budget Office, Nov. 2012.
\5\``National Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product,
Fourth Quarter and Annual 2013 (Second Estimate),'' U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 28 Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, the national debt has skyrocketed and continues
to climb--well after the recession. In May 2013, the
Congressional Budget Office projected the federal government
would add $6.3 trillion to the national debt from 2014 to 2023.
But in February 2014--not even a year later--CBO revised its
forecast to $7.3 trillion--a $1 trillion increase. It
attributed most of the hike to a drop in revenue, the
inevitable result of a lackluster economy.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,'' Congressional
Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The budget and the economy are closely linked. Just as a
weak economy can drag the budget into the red, a responsible
budget can help propel the economy forward. So if Washington is
serious about helping working families, then it needs to get
serious about the national debt.

What's Holding the Economy Back?

And Washington needs to act fast--because the economy is
losing steam. Last year, CBO predicted the economy would grow,
on average, by 2.9 percent each year over the next decade.\7\
This year, it predicts the economy will grow by only 2.5
percent--a deceptively small change with big, long-term
consequences.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2013 to 2023,'' Congressional
Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
\8\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,'' Congressional
Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One major problem is that people are leaving the labor
market. Today, only 63 percent of the population has a job or
is looking for one--the lowest level since 1978.\9\ And CBO
predicts it will continue to decline. That's partly because the
baby-boom generation is retiring, and the population as a whole
is getting older. But it's also because fewer people are
joining the workforce.\10\ And the administration's policies
have made things worse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\``Databases, Table, and Calculators by Subject,'' Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Accessed 25 Mar. 2014.
\10\``The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,''
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Obamacare. CBO says the law will discourage work.
People will receive smaller health-insurance subsidies as they
make more money. So for many families, it just will not pay to
work. As a result, people will put in fewer hours, and the
effect will be huge--as if 2.5 million people had stopped
working full time by 2024.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration has tried to spin this as good news and
argued that work was just getting in the way. But the problem
isn't that too many people are working. The problem is not
enough people can find work. And if more people leave the
workforce, the economy will shrink. There will be less
opportunity, not more.
And the national debt will only get bigger. In the past few
years, Congress has achieved some modest spending restraint,
primarily by reducing discretionary spending. But Washington
hasn't done nearly enough to make a serious dent in the debt.
Under current law, the deficit will start growing in just two
years. By 2022, the U.S. will be running trillion-dollar
deficits again--even though the federal government will be
taking in a historically large share of revenue. That's because
spending will be growing twice as fast as revenue. So over the
next ten years, the national debt will grow by $10 trillion--
for a grand total of $27 trillion.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet the President wants to double down. In his latest
budget request, he wants to increase spending by $791 billion
through 2024. He wants to undo the recent bipartisan budget
agreement and increase spending by $56 billion in 2015 alone.
He's abandoned the one significant reform he's embraced--what
his own administration has called a ``more accurate'' measure
of inflation. And he wants to raise taxes on families and job
creators by $1.8 trillion--though that's on top of the $1.7
trillion he's already imposed. In short, the President wants
families to pay more so Washington can spend more.
And even with those extra tax hikes, the deficit will still
be back above $1 trillion by 2022. The President's budget never
balances--ever. Instead, it allows our debt to spiral out of
control.
If the last five years are any indication, that simply
won't work. And if we don't change course soon, both the budget
and the economy will continue to decline. What the country
really needs is an alternative. The administration has bottled
up the forces of innovation and free enterprise; we need to
invigorate them. We need a plan that will provide for the
nation's needs, that will allow families and job creators to
rebuild the economy, and that will finally balance the budget.

The Path to Prosperity:
A Responsible, Balanced Budget

That's exactly what this budget, the Path to Prosperity,
will do. It calls for a number of reforms that will improve the
lives of all Americans.
By balancing the budget, the Path to Prosperity will
promote economic growth. Over the next ten years, it will cut
$5.1 trillion in spending, and CBO has said that such a plan
would help the economy.\13\ By paying down the debt, the
federal government will help keep interest rates low, which
will spur greater investment and productivity. And by giving
job creators some certainty and workers some relief, the Path
to Prosperity will give free enterprise some much-needed help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\``Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,''
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Path to Prosperity balances the budget by tackling the
drivers of our debt: autopilot spending and interest payments.
It strengthens critical programs like Medicare by giving
seniors more control over their health-care. CBO has said that
such a reform would not only help the federal government save
money but help seniors save money as well.\14\ It is the
ultimate win-win.
But the Path to Prosperity is not just a budget--it is a
blueprint for the country's future. It calls for fundamental
reforms in key areas like the tax code, energy, welfare, and
health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\``A Premium Support System for Medicare: Analysis of
Illustrative Options,'' Congressional Budget Office, Sept. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, taxpayers spend $168 billion\15\ and 6.1 billion
hours per year trying to file their tax returns.\16\ And what's
worse, the tax code stifles economic growth. Our corporate tax
rate is the highest in the industrialized world,\17\ and the
tax code is full of loopholes and deductions that serve only
the well-connected. Independent economists agree that a plan to
lower rates and broaden the base would spur economic growth.
There are a number of good tax-reform proposals. Although the
Path to Prosperity does not embrace any particular proposal, it
calls for a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and more
competitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\National Taxpayer Advocate, 2012 Annual Report to Congress,
Internal Revenue Service, 9 Jan. 2013.
\16\National Taxpayer Advocate, 2013 Annual Report to Congress,
Internal Revenue Service, 31 Dec. 2013.
\17\Kyle Pomerleau and Andrew Lundeen, ``The U.S. Has the Highest
Corporate Income Tax Rate in the OECD,'' Tax Foundation, 27 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It also calls for greater energy development. It's not
surprising that the state with the lowest unemployment rate--
2.6 percent--is North Dakota,\18\ where an energy boom has
lifted the state economy. Today, a reinvigorated oil and gas
industry is creating many new jobs--and they are good-paying
jobs. The average wage in the oil and gas sector is over
$92,000 a year.\19\ The Path to Prosperity builds on this
success by opening more federal lands to energy development, so
more families can share in this opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\``Local Area Unemployment Statistics,'' Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Accessed 25 Mar. 2014.
\19\``May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment
and Wage Estimates,'' Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor, 6 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Path to Prosperity also recognizes that we owe families
in need much better than the status quo. Rather than provide a
roadmap out of poverty, Washington has created a complex web of
programs that are often difficult to navigate. Some programs
provide critical aid. Others discourage families from getting
ahead. This budget takes some initial steps in the right
direction by rethinking our job-training programs, reforming
Medicaid, and encouraging work. It also creates the space for
greater reform. Both sides of the political spectrum agree that
poverty is a problem and should work together to expand
opportunity for all Americans.
The Path to Prosperity also will strengthen our health-care
system by repealing Obamacare. The health-care law has been a
costly mistake, so this plan calls for a full replacement. It
clears the way for patient-centered reforms that will help
increase access, improve quality, and lower costs.
The status quo means weak economic growth and invites a
fiscal crisis. The Path to Prosperity is the alternative the
country needs. It expands opportunity by growing the economy.
It strengthens the safety net by retooling federal aid. It
secures seniors' retirement by reforming entitlements. It
restores fair play to the marketplace by ending cronyism. It
keeps our country safe by rebuilding our military. It ends
Washington's culture of reckless spending. And it will help to
build an America that works.

1. Protect the Nation

The first job of the federal government is to protect the
country from threats at home and abroad. Whether defeating the
terrorists who attacked this country on September 11, 2001,
deterring the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or
battling insurgents who would harbor terrorist networks, the
men and women of the United States' military have performed
superbly. This budget rejects the President's cuts to national
security. It provides the best equipment, training, and
compensation for their continued success. It also keeps faith
with the veterans who have served and protected the nation.
Defense in brief
Provide funding consistent with America's military
goals and strategies.
Fully fund our nation's commitment to veterans.

2. Expand Opportunity

Though not sufficient by themselves, federal policies can
help foster a stronger economy. This budget seeks to equip
Americans with the skills they need in a 21st-century economy
and to create jobs through long-overdue tax reform. Both
reforms work off the same principle: The American people know
their needs better than bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
Higher education and job-training in brief
Encourage policies that promote innovation.
Adopt a sustainable maximum-award level for Pell.
Tailor aid for higher education to the truly
needy.
Eliminate ineffective and duplicative education
programs.
Consolidate job-training programs, as in the
SKILLS Act, into a career-scholarship fund.
Tax reform in brief
Simplify the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses.
Reduce the amount of time and resources necessary
to comply with tax laws.
Substantially lower tax rates for individuals.
Consolidate the current seven tax brackets.
Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Reduce the corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
Adopt a more competitive system of international
taxation.

3. Strengthen the Safety Net

This budget applies the lessons of welfare reform to other
federal-aid programs. It gives states more flexibility to
tailor programs to their people's needs. It gives those closest
to the people better tools so they can root out waste, fraud,
and abuse. Finally, it empowers recipients to get off the aid
rolls and back on the payroll. By enlisting states in the fight
against poverty, this budget builds a partnership between the
federal government and our communities.
Although this budget does not lay out a full welfare-reform
plan, it takes steps toward reforming these programs to
encourage work, to increase economic growth and jobs, and to
preserve the safety net.
Welfare reform in brief
Allow states to customize SNAP to the needs of
their citizens.
Empower reformers at the state level to strengthen
and secure Medicaid.
Address barriers to upward mobility.
Expand welfare's work requirements.

4. Secure Seniors' Retirement

This budget protects and strengthens Medicare for current
and future generations. It also requires the President and
Congress to work together to develop a solution for Social
Security. This budget recognizes that the federal government
must keep its word to current and future seniors. And to do
that, it must reform these programs.
Medicare in brief
Preserve Medicare for those in or near retirement.
Strengthen Medicare for younger generations.
End Obamacare's raid on the Medicare Trust Fund.
Repeal all of Obamacare, including the Independent
Payment Advisory Board.
Social Security in brief
Require the President to submit a plan to shore up
the Social Security Trust Fund.
Require Congress to submit a plan of its own.
Federal-workforce retirement in brief
Reduce the size of the federal workforce.
Reform civil-service pensions.
Reform the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

5. Restore Fairness

The administration's uncontrolled, wasteful spending in
combination with an overzealous regulatory agenda has weakened
an anemic economy and hurt job creation, especially for small
businesses. To restore fairness and vitality to our economy,
this budget ends cronyism; eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse;
and returns the federal government to its proper sphere of
activity.
Energy in brief
Strengthen American energy security.
Restore competition to the energy sector.
Scale back corporate subsidies in the energy
industry.
Unlock America's vast energy resources while
protecting the environment.
Stop the government from buying up unnecessary
land.
Housing and finance in brief
Wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Provide a true account of trillions in federal
loans and guarantees.
Revisit flawed financial regulations.
Eliminate corporate welfare.
Health care in brief
Repeal Obamacare.
Move toward patient-centered reform.
Cutting spending in brief
Cap spending.
Eliminate waste.

6. Reform the Budget Process

When it comes to fixing the broken budget process, the
choice facing Americans could not be clearer: The President and
his party's leaders have failed to meet their budgetary
responsibilities. The President has failed to submit his budget
by the statutory deadline in five of the past six years.
By contrast, the Republican majority in the House has met
its legal and moral obligation by passing a budget that tackles
America's most pressing fiscal challenges. Earlier this
Congress, the House Budget Committee authored and advanced
several statutory reforms to bring more accountability to the
federal budget process. This budget works in the spirit of
those proposed reforms.
Budget reform in brief
Extend the Budget Control Act's federal spending
caps through the end of the budget window.
Create a budget point of order against legislation
that increases net mandatory spending beyond the ten-year
window, a limitation that can help check Congressional appetite
to create costly open-ended entitlement programs.
Close the loophole that allows discretionary
limits to be circumvented through advance appropriations.
Require that the costs of legislation related to
housing be calculated on a fair-value basis and authorize the
use of fair-value-costs estimates for other credit programs.
Call on congressional committees to regularly
review programs for waste, fraud, and abuse.
Ultimately, the budget is more than a list of numbers. It's
an expression of our governing philosophy. This budget offers
the American people a brighter future. It would stop spending
money we don't have. It would help create jobs and expand
opportunity. And it would restore the promise of this
exceptional nation.

TABLE 1.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION TOTAL SPENDING AND REVENUE
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2019 2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
BA...................................................... 3,589,959 3,649,847 3,799,988 3,956,908 4,166,029 4,380,011 4,549,315 4,749,721 4,900,052 5,032,850 19,162,732 42,774,681
OT...................................................... 3,663,737 3,676,443 3,786,896 3,926,636 4,134,476 4,334,263 4,515,643 4,733,462 4,865,402 4,995,085 19,188,188 42,632,043
On-budget:
BA...................................................... 2,842,226 2,858,059 2,957,321 3,059,410 3,210,987 3,360,435 3,460,524 3,587,380 3,660,151 3,706,695 14,928,003 32,703,188
OT...................................................... 2,920,026 2,889,484 2,949,261 3,034,773 3,185,472 3,320,927 3,433,392 3,577,963 3,632,642 3,676,374 14,979,017 32,620,316
Off-budget:
BA...................................................... 747,734 791,788 842,668 897,499 955,042 1,019,576 1,088,791 1,162,341 1,239,901 1,326,155 4,234,730 10,071,493
OT...................................................... 743,711 786,959 837,636 891,863 949,004 1,013,336 1,082,251 1,155,499 1,232,759 1,318,711 4,209,172 10,011,727
Revenues:
Total................................................... 3,304,911 3,481,127 3,631,022 3,770,315 3,932,192 4,103,643 4,288,242 4,490,237 4,702,070 4,926,144 18,119,567 40,629,903
On-budget............................................... 2,533,841 2,676,038 2,789,423 2,890,308 3,014,685 3,148,637 3,294,650 3,456,346 3,626,518 3,807,452 13,904,295 31,237,899
Off-budget.............................................. 771,070 805,088 841,599 880,008 917,507 955,006 993,591 1,033,890 1,075,552 1,118,691 4,215,272 9,392,004
Recommended change in revenues:
Total................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
On-budget............................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Off-budget.............................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Surplus(+)/Deficit(-):
Total................................................... -379,826 -226,316 -179,875 -147,321 -198,284 -205,620 -191,401 -199,225 -104,332 5,059 -1,131,621 -1,827,140
Macroeconomic fiscal impact........................... -21,000 -31,000 -24,000 9,000 4,000 25,000 36,000 44,000 59,000 74,000 -63,000 175,000
On-budget............................................. -386,186 -213,446 -159,838 -144,466 -170,787 -172,290 -138,741 -121,617 -6,124 131,078 -1,074,722 -1,382,417
Off-budget............................................ 27,360 18,130 3,963 -11,855 -31,497 -58,329 -88,660 -121,608 -157,208 -200,019 6,100 -619,724
Debt held by the public (end of year)..................... 13,213,000 13,419,000 13,800,000 13,860,000 14,080,000 14,427,000 14,579,000 14,940,000 15,080,000 15,176,000 .................... ....................
Debt subject to limit (end of year)....................... 18,304,357 18,627,533 19,172,590 19,411,553 19,773,917 20,227,349 20,449,374 20,822,448 20,981,807 21,089,365 .................... ....................

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
BA...................................................... 528,927 573,792 597,895 611,146 624,416 638,697 653,001 669,967 687,393 706,218 2,936,176 6,291,452
OT...................................................... 566,503 573,064 584,252 593,795 611,902 626,175 640,499 661,181 672,922 685,796 2,929,515 6,216,089
International Affairs (150):
BA...................................................... 38,695 39,734 40,642 41,589 42,513 43,497 44,004 45,271 46,287 47,349 203,173 429,581
OT...................................................... 39,029 37,976 38,229 38,822 39,553 40,114 40,701 41,749 42,667 43,624 193,609 402,464
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
BA...................................................... 27,941 28,493 29,113 29,764 30,413 31,096 31,782 32,493 33,210 33,955 145,724 308,260
OT...................................................... 27,927 28,240 28,750 29,350 29,938 30,589 31,174 31,870 32,576 33,304 144,205 303,718
Energy (270):
BA...................................................... 4,228 3,820 2,048 1,762 1,788 1,851 -16 -1,018 -1,914 -6,113 13,646 6,436
OT...................................................... 5,751 3,416 1,400 1,192 1,278 1,384 -346 -1,283 -2,188 -6,699 13,037 3,905
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
BA...................................................... 34,289 34,491 35,077 33,047 36,859 38,169 36,428 38,979 39,927 40,592 173,763 367,858
OT...................................................... 39,311 37,747 36,204 33,316 36,779 37,877 36,379 38,749 39,733 39,752 183,357 375,848
Agriculture (350):
BA...................................................... 19,042 22,506 20,527 18,506 18,654 19,008 19,263 19,764 20,017 20,635 99,235 197,922
OT...................................................... 19,556 22,313 19,992 17,883 17,970 18,440 18,763 19,249 19,516 20,131 97,714 193,813
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
On-budget:
BA.................................................... -3,239 -4,518 -7,672 -7,385 -6,658 -3,937 -4,034 -4,794 -5,073 -5,118 -29,472 -52,428
OT.................................................... -14,762 -18,633 -23,217 -24,136 -28,258 -26,052 -20,982 -23,197 -24,597 -25,793 -109,006 -229,627
Off-budget:
BA.................................................... -1,077 -1,528 -1,491 -1,489 -1,486 -1,485 -1,537 -1,588 -1,642 -1,695 -7,071 -15,018
OT.................................................... -1,077 -1,528 -1,491 -1,489 -1,487 -1,486 -1,538 -1,589 -1,643 -1,696 -7,072 -15,024
Transportation (400):
BA...................................................... 34,713 68,529 74,454 75,978 77,501 78,373 79,369 80,529 81,829 83,353 331,175 734,628
OT...................................................... 80,659 69,907 75,199 77,558 78,163 79,056 80,231 81,409 82,872 84,024 381,486 789,078
Community & Regional Development (450):
BA...................................................... 14,556 15,303 15,269 15,414 15,387 15,283 15,421 15,658 15,954 16,302 75,929 154,547
OT...................................................... 23,608 21,425 19,292 17,840 16,841 16,008 14,679 13,408 13,490 13,910 99,006 170,501
Education,Training,Employment,andSocialServices (500):
BA...................................................... 73,908 82,372 86,699 89,536 85,278 86,555 87,749 89,167 90,661 92,094 417,794 864,022
OT...................................................... 91,759 84,521 87,137 89,808 86,074 87,130 88,403 89,839 91,360 92,926 439,299 888,958
Health (550):
BA...................................................... 419,799 367,238 377,752 376,732 390,437 415,814 419,124 433,512 449,181 472,300 1,931,958 4,121,889
OT...................................................... 416,573 370,205 375,839 377,346 390,404 405,309 418,298 432,149 447,991 471,312 1,930,367 4,105,426
Medicare (570):
BA...................................................... 519,196 558,895 570,144 590,695 651,579 692,307 737,455 815,257 836,296 859,011 2,890,509 6,830,835
OT...................................................... 519,407 558,964 570,341 591,117 651,878 692,644 738,042 817,195 837,883 866,262 2,891,707 6,843,733
Income Security (600):
BA...................................................... 505,729 487,645 489,766 492,129 493,996 512,717 520,016 529,438 530,839 525,701 2,469,265 5,087,976
OT...................................................... 505,032 490,122 487,105 484,280 490,014 508,689 515,475 529,111 525,624 515,225 2,456,553 5,050,677

Social Security (650):
On-budget:
BA.................................................... 31,442 34,245 37,133 40,138 43,383 46,747 50,255 53,941 57,800 58,441 186,341 453,525
OT.................................................... 31,517 34,283 37,133 40,138 43,383 46,747 50,255 53,941 57,800 58,441 186,454 453,638
Off-budget:
BA.................................................... 864,514 909,753 963,029 1,021,768 1,085,632 1,154,095 1,225,833 1,300,728 1,378,255 1,462,797 4,844,696 11,366,404
OT.................................................... 860,491 904,924 957,997 1,016,132 1,079,595 1,147,856 1,219,294 1,293,887 1,371,114 1,455,354 4,819,139 11,306,644
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
BA...................................................... 153,027 164,961 163,858 162,388 174,305 179,269 183,571 195,680 192,458 189,292 818,539 1,758,809
OT...................................................... 152,978 164,807 163,269 161,646 173,499 178,380 182,676 194,719 191,491 188,262 816,199 1,751,727
Administration of Justice (750):
BA...................................................... 54,011 56,932 56,770 58,405 60,239 62,146 64,263 66,967 69,031 71,166 286,358 619,931
OT...................................................... 54,250 56,298 58,319 59,095 60,501 61,649 63,734 66,411 68,455 70,568 288,463 619,280
General Government (800):
BA...................................................... 23,710 23,064 21,587 23,269 24,040 24,759 25,556 26,353 27,097 27,912 115,670 247,347
OT...................................................... 23,618 22,826 21,674 22,973 23,582 24,331 25,139 25,939 26,691 27,491 114,673 244,264
Net Interest (900):
On-budget:
BA.................................................... 365,987 416,238 482,228 553,820 611,852 659,310 693,159 723,805 751,215 770,124 2,430,125 6,027,737
OT.................................................... 365,987 416,238 482,228 553,820 611,852 659,310 693,159 723,805 751,215 770,124 2,430,125 6,027,737
Off-budget:
BA.................................................... -98,709 -98,858 -100,630 -103,830 -109,424 -112,610 -114,314 -114,823 -113,941 -111,363 -511,452 -1,078,504
OT.................................................... -98,709 -98,858 -100,630 -103,830 -109,424 -112,610 -114,314 -114,823 -113,941 -111,363 -511,452 -1,078,504
Allowances (920):
BA...................................................... -36,364 -47,825 -51,416 -54,566 -56,672 -61,825 -64,552 -66,871 -68,992 -65,972 -246,843 -575,055
OT...................................................... -22,676 -36,706 -45,014 -49,571 -53,542 -58,102 -61,040 -63,946 -66,322 -64,338 -207,509 -521,257
Government-Wide Savings (930):
BA...................................................... 25,904 -14,151 -30,525 -38,302 -46,446 -55,559 -63,060 -75,189 -87,334 -117,125 -103,520 -501,788
OT...................................................... 20,052 -1,701 -17,482 -27,789 -35,547 -44,608 -53,317 -64,007 -75,209 -96,353 -62,467 -395,962
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
On-budget:
BA.................................................... -78,632 -83,652 -83,974 -84,602 -91,824 -93,787 -98,176 -101,529 -105,731 -113,422 -422,684 -935,329
OT.................................................... -78,632 -83,652 -83,974 -84,602 -91,824 -93,787 -98,176 -101,529 -105,731 -113,422 -422,684 -935,329

Off-budget:
BA.................................................... -16,994 -17,579 -18,240 -18,950 -19,680 -20,424 -21,191 -21,976 -22,771 -23,584 -91,443 -201,389
OT.................................................... -16,994 -17,579 -18,240 -18,950 -19,680 -20,424 -21,191 -21,976 -22,771 -23,584 -91,443 -201,389
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
(970):
BA...................................................... 85,357 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 0 0 0 205,141 265,033
OT...................................................... 52,580 37,823 32,585 30,893 31,032 29,647 29,647 11,200 4,402 1,827 184,912 261,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Only on-budget amounts for fiscal years 2015-2024 are entered into the budget resolution legislative text. Off-budget amounts are shown for display purposes only.

TABLE 2.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2019 2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
BA...................................................... 1,098,985 1,045,929 1,063,201 1,080,766 1,098,630 1,116,798 1,135,274 1,124,119 1,143,229 1,162,664 5,387,511 11,069,593
OT...................................................... 1,185,938 1,128,700 1,114,609 1,118,684 1,136,428 1,151,173 1,166,284 1,170,334 1,177,594 1,187,700 5,684,358 11,537,443
Base Defense (050):
BA...................................................... 521,272 566,000 590,000 603,000 616,000 630,000 644,000 660,744 677,923 695,549 2,896,272 6,204,488
OT...................................................... 558,846 565,135 576,177 585,469 603,360 617,404 631,450 651,917 663,415 675,120 2,888,986 6,128,293
Base Non Defense:
BA...................................................... 492,356 449,983 443,255 447,820 452,684 456,852 461,328 463,375 465,306 467,115 2,286,098 4,600,072
OT...................................................... 574,512 525,742 505,847 502,323 502,036 504,122 505,187 507,217 509,777 510,753 2,610,459 5,147,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
BA...................................................... 521,272 566,000 590,000 603,000 616,000 630,000 644,000 660,744 677,923 695,549 2,896,272 6,204,488
OT...................................................... 558,846 565,135 576,177 585,469 603,360 617,404 631,450 651,917 663,415 675,120 2,888,986 6,128,293
International Affairs (150):
BA...................................................... 39,097 39,859 40,708 41,608 42,496 43,438 44,389 45,401 46,405 47,459 203,768 430,860
OT...................................................... 40,164 39,329 39,968 40,670 41,459 42,010 42,596 43,443 44,405 45,409 201,590 419,453
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
BA...................................................... 27,841 28,393 29,013 29,664 30,313 30,996 31,682 32,393 33,110 33,855 145,224 307,260
OT...................................................... 27,829 28,140 28,650 29,250 29,838 30,489 31,074 31,770 32,476 33,204 143,707 302,720

Energy (270):
BA...................................................... 2,720 2,774 2,832 2,893 2,960 3,025 3,093 3,157 3,228 3,303 14,179 29,985
OT...................................................... 4,484 3,075 2,958 2,988 3,025 3,079 3,146 3,210 3,224 3,295 16,530 32,484
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
BA...................................................... 32,244 33,126 34,106 35,163 36,234 37,343 38,487 39,682 40,858 42,084 170,873 369,327
OT...................................................... 37,259 36,106 34,949 35,347 36,085 37,162 38,276 39,433 40,538 41,143 179,746 376,299
Agriculture (350):
BA...................................................... 6,090 6,245 6,421 6,610 6,797 6,997 7,206 7,413 7,629 7,851 32,163 69,259
OT...................................................... 6,000 6,159 6,338 6,520 6,707 6,905 7,110 7,315 7,527 7,744 31,724 68,325
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
On-Budget:
BA.................................................... -13,189 -13,160 -12,187 -11,242 -10,581 -8,324 -8,818 -8,926 -8,911 -8,815 -60,359 -104,153
OT.................................................... -12,725 -12,923 -12,180 -11,290 -10,664 -8,433 -8,927 -9,039 -9,026 -8,938 -59,782 -104,145
Off-Budget:
BA.................................................... 263 273 283 294 306 318 330 344 356 370 1,419 3,137
OT.................................................... 263 273 283 294 305 317 329 343 355 369 1,418 3,131
Transportation (400):
BA...................................................... 30,908 31,721 32,617 33,581 34,536 35,543 36,572 37,631 38,700 38,259 163,363 350,068
OT...................................................... 79,408 68,510 73,727 76,073 76,696 77,559 78,688 79,797 81,180 80,692 374,414 772,330
Community & Regional Development (450):
BA...................................................... 13,258 13,476 13,749 14,058 14,378 14,723 15,070 15,434 15,798 16,177 68,919 146,121
OT...................................................... 21,916 19,603 17,220 15,408 14,290 13,480 12,655 12,530 12,846 13,480 88,437 153,428
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
BA...................................................... 92,129 93,507 95,055 96,659 98,233 100,096 102,007 103,921 105,865 107,871 475,584 995,346
OT...................................................... 95,642 98,397 94,146 95,535 96,959 98,584 100,401 102,310 104,219 106,184 480,679 992,378
Health (550):
BA...................................................... 55,726 58,629 59,969 61,377 62,837 64,324 65,832 67,394 68,958 70,597 298,538 635,643
OT...................................................... 59,144 59,233 59,445 59,970 61,048 62,419 63,790 65,299 66,838 68,415 298,840 625,601
Medicare (570):
BA...................................................... 6,653 7,042 7,463 7,920 8,407 8,918 9,454 10,011 10,588 11,208 37,485 87,664
OT...................................................... 6,560 6,977 7,393 7,843 8,324 8,831 9,365 9,915 10,490 11,103 37,097 86,801
Income Security (600):
BA...................................................... 62,315 62,754 63,440 64,312 65,252 66,860 68,362 69,887 71,421 72,907 318,073 667,510
OT...................................................... 64,586 64,173 64,073 64,417 64,999 66,321 67,651 69,098 70,580 72,039 322,248 667,937
Social Security (650):
On-Budget:
BA.................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OT.................................................... 75 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 113
Off-Budget:
BA.................................................... 5,749 5,918 6,113 6,318 6,526 6,749 6,974 7,207 7,442 7,685 30,624 66,681
OT.................................................... 5,626 5,889 6,081 6,282 6,489 6,710 6,935 7,166 7,401 7,642 30,367 66,221
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
BA...................................................... 65,477 66,887 68,979 71,194 73,438 75,802 78,231 80,718 83,239 85,849 345,975 749,814
OT...................................................... 65,506 66,819 68,465 70,481 72,701 74,981 77,410 79,842 82,369 84,921 343,972 743,495
Administration of Justice (750):
BA...................................................... 52,129 53,684 55,467 57,354 59,283 61,296 63,360 65,470 67,614 69,834 277,918 605,492
OT...................................................... 52,841 54,113 55,562 57,303 59,002 60,797 62,858 64,953 67,084 69,287 278,821 603,800
General Government (800):
BA...................................................... 17,288 16,659 15,271 16,859 17,502 18,150 18,828 19,508 20,206 20,934 83,579 181,205
OT...................................................... 16,806 16,288 15,239 16,480 16,962 17,640 18,311 18,995 19,680 20,400 81,775 176,801
Allowances (920):
BA...................................................... -30,278 -42,314 -46,179 -50,217 -52,514 -57,340 -60,801 -63,077 -65,162 -65,972 -221,502 -533,854
OT...................................................... -16,956 -31,417 -39,648 -45,176 -49,368 -53,616 -57,293 -60,152 -62,497 -64,001 -182,565 -480,124
Government-Wide Savings (930):
BA...................................................... 25,936 -15,491 -29,865 -36,586 -43,720 -52,062 -58,930 -70,194 -82,038 -94,341 -99,726 -457,292
OT...................................................... 20,084 -3,041 -16,822 -26,073 -32,821 -41,111 -49,187 -59,012 -69,913 -81,635 -58,673 -359,532
OverseasContingencyOperations/GlobalWaronTerrorism(970):
BA...................................................... 85,357 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 29,946 0 0 0 205,141 265,033
OT...................................................... 52,580 37,823 32,585 30,893 31,032 29,647 29,647 11,200 4,402 1,827 184,912 261,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 3.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION MANDATORY SPENDING
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2019 2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
BA........................................................ 2,490,974 2,603,918 2,736,788 2,876,142 3,067,399 3,263,213 3,414,041 3,625,603 3,756,823 3,870,186 13,775,221 31,705,088
OT........................................................ 2,477,799 2,547,743 2,672,288 2,807,952 2,998,048 3,183,090 3,349,359 3,563,128 3,687,807 3,807,385 13,503,830 31,094,600
On-budget:
BA........................................................ 1,749,253 1,818,321 1,900,516 1,985,256 2,119,189 2,250,705 2,332,554 2,470,813 2,524,720 2,552,087 9,572,535 21,703,413
OT........................................................ 1,739,978 1,766,946 1,841,016 1,922,666 2,055,838 2,176,782 2,274,372 2,415,138 2,462,804 2,496,686 9,326,444 21,152,225
Off-budget:
BA........................................................ 741,722 785,597 836,272 890,887 948,210 1,012,509 1,081,487 1,154,790 1,232,103 1,318,100 4,202,687 10,001,675
OT........................................................ 737,822 780,797 831,272 885,287 942,210 1,006,309 1,074,987 1,147,990 1,225,003 1,310,700 4,177,387 9,942,375
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BY FUNCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense (050):
BA........................................................ 7,655 7,792 7,895 8,146 8,416 8,697 9,001 9,223 9,470 10,669 39,904 86,964
OT........................................................ 7,657 7,929 8,075 8,326 8,542 8,771 9,049 9,264 9,507 10,676 40,529 87,796
International Affairs (150):
BA........................................................ -402 -125 -66 -19 17 59 -385 -130 -118 -110 -595 -1,279
OT........................................................ -1,135 -1,353 -1,739 -1,848 -1,906 -1,896 -1,895 -1,694 -1,738 -1,785 -7,981 -16,989
General Science, Space and Technology (250):
BA........................................................ 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 500 1,000
OT........................................................ 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 498 998
Energy (270):
BA........................................................ 1,508 1,046 -784 -1,131 -1,172 -1,174 -3,109 -4,175 -5,142 -9,416 -533 -23,549
OT........................................................ 1,267 341 -1,558 -1,796 -1,747 -1,695 -3,492 -4,493 -5,412 -9,994 -3,493 -28,579
Natural Resources & Environment (300):
BA........................................................ 2,045 1,365 971 -2,116 625 826 -2,059 -703 -931 -1,492 2,890 -1,469
OT........................................................ 2,052 1,641 1,255 -2,031 694 715 -1,897 -684 -805 -1,391 3,611 -451
Agriculture (350):
BA........................................................ 12,952 16,261 14,106 11,896 11,857 12,011 12,057 12,351 12,388 12,784 67,072 128,663
OT........................................................ 13,556 16,154 13,654 11,363 11,263 11,535 11,653 11,934 11,989 12,387 65,990 125,488
Commerce & Housing Credit (370):
On-budget:
BA...................................................... 9,950 8,642 4,515 3,857 3,923 4,387 4,784 4,132 3,838 3,697 30,887 51,725
OT...................................................... -2,037 -5,710 -11,037 -12,846 -17,594 -17,619 -12,055 -14,158 -15,571 -16,855 -49,224 -125,482
Off-budget
BA...................................................... -1,340 -1,801 -1,774 -1,783 -1,792 -1,803 -1,867 -1,932 -1,998 -2,065 -8,490 -18,155
OT...................................................... -1,340 -1,801 -1,774 -1,783 -1,792 -1,803 -1,867 -1,932 -1,998 -2,065 -8,490 -18,155
Transportation (400):
BA........................................................ 3,805 36,808 41,837 42,397 42,965 42,830 42,797 42,898 43,129 45,094 167,812 384,560
OT........................................................ 1,251 1,397 1,472 1,485 1,467 1,497 1,543 1,612 1,692 3,332 7,072 16,748
Community & Regional Development (450):
BA........................................................ 1,298 1,827 1,520 1,356 1,009 560 351 224 156 125 7,010 8,426
OT........................................................ 1,692 1,822 2,072 2,432 2,551 2,528 2,024 878 644 430 10,569 17,073
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
BA........................................................ -18,221 -11,135 -8,356 -7,123 -12,955 -13,541 -14,258 -14,754 -15,204 -15,777 -57,790 -131,324
OT........................................................ -3,883 -13,876 -7,009 -5,727 -10,885 -11,454 -11,998 -12,471 -12,859 -13,258 -41,380 -103,420
Health (550):
BA........................................................ 364,073 308,609 317,783 315,355 327,600 351,490 353,292 366,118 380,223 401,703 1,633,420 3,486,246
OT........................................................ 357,429 310,972 316,394 317,376 329,356 342,890 354,508 366,850 381,153 402,897 1,631,527 3,479,825
Medicare (570):
BA........................................................ 512,543 551,853 562,681 582,775 643,172 683,389 728,001 805,246 825,708 847,803 2,853,024 6,743,171
OT........................................................ 512,847 551,987 562,948 583,274 643,554 683,813 728,677 807,280 827,393 855,159 2,854,610 6,756,932
Income Security (600):
BA........................................................ 443,414 424,891 426,326 427,817 428,744 445,857 451,654 459,551 459,418 452,794 2,151,192 4,420,466
OT........................................................ 440,446 425,949 423,032 419,863 425,015 442,368 447,824 460,013 455,044 443,186 2,134,305 4,382,740
Social Security (650):
On-budget:
BA...................................................... 31,442 34,245 37,133 40,138 43,383 46,747 50,255 53,941 57,800 58,441 186,341 453,525
OT...................................................... 31,442 34,245 37,133 40,138 43,383 46,747 50,255 53,941 57,800 58,441 186,341 453,525
Off-budget:
BA...................................................... 858,765 903,835 956,916 1,015,450 1,079,106 1,147,346 1,218,859 1,293,521 1,370,813 1,455,112 4,814,072 11,299,723
OT...................................................... 854,865 899,035 951,916 1,009,850 1,073,106 1,141,146 1,212,359 1,286,721 1,363,713 1,447,712 4,788,772 11,240,423
Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
BA........................................................ 87,550 98,074 94,879 91,194 100,867 103,467 105,340 114,962 109,219 103,443 472,564 1,008,995
OT........................................................ 87,472 97,988 94,804 91,165 100,798 103,399 105,266 114,877 109,122 103,341 472,227 1,008,232
Administration of Justice (750):
BA........................................................ 1,882 3,248 1,303 1,051 956 850 903 1,497 1,417 1,332 8,440 14,439
OT........................................................ 1,409 2,185 2,757 1,792 1,499 852 876 1,458 1,371 1,281 9,642 15,480
General Government (800):
BA........................................................ 6,422 6,405 6,316 6,410 6,538 6,609 6,728 6,845 6,891 6,978 32,091 66,142
OT........................................................ 6,812 6,538 6,435 6,493 6,620 6,691 6,828 6,944 7,011 7,091 32,898 67,463
Net Interest (900):
On-budget:
BA...................................................... 365,987 416,238 482,228 553,820 611,852 659,310 693,159 723,805 751,215 770,124 2,430,125 6,027,737
OT...................................................... 365,987 416,238 482,228 553,820 611,852 659,310 693,159 723,805 751,215 770,124 2,430,125 6,027,737
Off-budget:
BA...................................................... -98,709 -98,858 -100,630 -103,830 -109,424 -112,610 -114,314 -114,823 -113,941 -111,363 -511,452 -1,078,504
OT...................................................... -98,709 -98,858 -100,630 -103,830 -109,424 -112,610 -114,314 -114,823 -113,941 -111,363 -511,452 -1,078,504

Allowances (920):
BA........................................................ -6,086 -5,511 -5,237 -4,349 -4,158 -4,485 -3,751 -3,794 -3,830 0 -25,341 -41,201
OT........................................................ -5,720 -5,289 -5,366 -4,395 -4,174 -4,486 -3,747 -3,794 -3,825 -337 -24,944 -41,133
Government-Wide Savings (930):
BA........................................................ -32 1,340 -660 -1,716 -2,726 -3,497 -4,130 -4,995 -5,296 -22,784 -3,794 -44,496
OT........................................................ -32 1,340 -660 -1,716 -2,726 -3,497 -4,130 -4,995 -5,296 -14,718 -3,794 -36,430
Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
On-budget:
BA...................................................... -78,632 -83,652 -83,974 -84,602 -91,824 -93,787 -98,176 -101,529 -105,731 -113,422 -422,684 -935,329
OT...................................................... -78,632 -83,652 -83,974 -84,602 -91,824 -93,787 -98,176 -101,529 -105,731 -113,422 -422,684 -935,329
Off-budget:
BA...................................................... -16,994 -17,579 -18,240 -18,950 -19,680 -20,424 -21,191 -21,976 -22,771 -23,584 -91,443 -201,389
OT...................................................... -16,994 -17,579 -18,240 -18,950 -19,680 -20,424 -21,191 -21,976 -22,771 -23,584 -91,443 -201,389
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBO AND OMB DIFFERENCES IN BASELINE BUDGET ESTIMATES

----------

When drafting the House budget resolution, the committee
used CBO's February budget and economic forecast as its
starting point. This estimate, also known as the baseline, is
built to reflect the ten-year budget impact of all current laws
that have been enacted before consideration of the budget
resolution. All new policy changes assumed within the budget
resolution are measured relative to CBO's baseline and,
therefore, show how the budget would impact fiscal policy
versus leaving current law unchanged.
The President's budget is also built from and measured
against a baseline that assumes current law as its starting
point. However, the President's and CBO's estimate of the
current-law baseline differ substantially, mainly because the
President assumes future economic growth will be much stronger.
This difference causes the President's baseline to show nearly
$1.4 trillion of higher revenue than CBO does. There are also
technical differences between the President and CBO on how fast
spending grows in various programs. These differences amount to
$258 billion in lower ten-year spending under CBO's forecast
versus the President's estimate.
It is very important to use the same baseline assumptions
when comparing two budgets so that no bias is introduced into
the analysis. OMB's projection of stronger economic growth
allows it to show deficits that are likely to be much lower
than if CBO's economic projections were used. Congress uses
CBO's estimates in developing and considering budget proposals,
including the President's budget. Normally, before the budget
resolution is considered, the CBO re-estimates the President's
budget and adjusts any baseline differences so that the House
budget and the President's budget may be compared on an equal
basis. However, the President submitted his budget a full month
beyond the statutory deadline, and CBO was unable to complete
its re-estimate before consideration of the budget resolution.
In this report, the Committee has used Office of Management
and Budget data to quantify the President's budget and CBO's
data to quantify the House budget resolution. This leads to an
``apples and oranges'' comparison of the two budgets. Table 4
on the following page shows differences in CBO's and the
President's current-law baseline. This difference provides an
indication of the differences between the two budgets based
solely on economic assumptions and estimating differences.
Since CBO was unable to complete its analysis due to the late
arrival of the President's budget in time for the Committee to
meet its statutory deadline, Tables 5 and 6 show comparisons of
the House budget resolution using CBO data and the President's
budget using OMB data. The reader is advised to consider the
baseline differences described in Table 4 when viewing Tables 5
and 6.

TABLE 4.--CBO FEBRUARY 2014 BASELINE VS. OMB BEA BASELINE WITH JOINT COMMITTEE ENFORCEMENT\1\
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending.................................................. -10,000 9,000 6,000 26,000 -3,000 -5,000 -10,000 -62,000 -93,000 -116,000 -258,000
Revenues.................................................. 54,000 24,000 -25,000 -82,000 -133,000 -174,000 -224,000 -253,000 -275,000 -298,000 -1,386,000
Debt Held by the Public (end of year)..................... -280,000 -357,000 -380,000 -318,000 -226,000 -92,000 91,000 255,000 401,000 555,000 n.a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\A negative sign reflects amounts in the CBO baseline that are below OMB's estimate; a positive sign reflects amounts in the CBO baseline that are above OMB's estimate.

TABLE 5.--SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION
[As a percentage of GDP]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit(+)/Surplus(-):
Committee recommendation............. +2.1% +1.2% +0.9% +0.7% +0.9% +0.9% +0.8% +0.8% +0.4% -0.0% +0.9%
CBO.................................. +2.6% +2.8% +2.9% +3.1% +3.4% +3.7% +3.8% +4.2% +4.1% +4.0% +3.5%
President's budget................... +3.1% +2.8% +2.3% +1.9% +2.3% +2.2% +2.1% +2.1% +1.8% +1.6% +2.2%
Debt held by the public:
Committee recommendation............. 73.0% 71.0% 69.0% 66.0% 64.0% 63.0% 61.0% 60.0% 58.0% 56.0% n.a.
CBO.................................. 73.2% 72.6% 72.3% 72.6% 73.3% 74.2% 75.3% 76.8% 78.0% 79.2% n.a.
President's budget................... 74.6% 74.3% 73.5% 72.4% 72.0% 71.6% 71.1% 70.6% 69.9% 69.0% n.a.
Outlays:
Committee recommendation............. 20.2% 19.5% 18.9% 18.7% 18.8% 18.9% 18.9% 19.0% 18.7% 18.4% 19.0%
CBO.................................. 20.9% 21.1% 21.0% 21.1% 21.4% 21.7% 21.9% 22.3% 22.3% 22.4% 21.6%
President's budget................... 21.4% 21.4% 21.1% 20.9% 21.3% 21.4% 21.5% 21.7% 21.6% 21.5% 21.4%
Revenues:
Committee recommendation............. 18.3% 18.4% 18.2% 18.0% 17.9% 17.9% 17.9% 18.0% 18.1% 18.2% 18.1%
CBO.................................. 18.2% 18.2% 18.1% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.1% 18.1% 18.2% 18.4% 18.1%
President's budget................... 18.3% 18.6% 18.9% 19.0% 19.0% 19.2% 19.4% 19.6% 19.8% 19.9% 19.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 6.--FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION VS. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2015-2019 2015-2024
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total spending:
BA.............................................. 3,589,959 3,649,847 3,799,988 3,956,908 4,166,029 4,380,011 4,549,315 4,749,721 4,900,052 5,032,850 19,162,732 42,774,681
OT.............................................. 3,663,737 3,676,443 3,786,896 3,926,636 4,134,476 4,334,263 4,515,643 4,733,462 4,865,402 4,995,085 19,188,188 42,632,043
On-budget:
BA.............................................. 2,842,226 2,858,059 2,957,321 3,059,410 3,210,987 3,360,435 3,460,524 3,587,380 3,660,151 3,706,695 14,928,003 32,703,188
OT.............................................. 2,920,026 2,889,484 2,949,261 3,034,773 3,185,472 3,320,927 3,433,392 3,577,963 3,632,642 3,676,374 14,979,017 32,620,316
Off-budget:
BA.............................................. 747,734 791,788 842,668 897,499 955,042 1,019,576 1,088,791 1,162,341 1,239,901 1,326,155 4,234,730 10,071,493
OT.............................................. 743,711 786,959 837,636 891,863 949,004 1,013,336 1,082,251 1,155,499 1,232,759 1,318,711 4,209,172 10,011,727
Revenues:
Total........................................... 3,304,911 3,481,127 3,631,022 3,770,315 3,932,192 4,103,643 4,288,242 4,490,237 4,702,070 4,926,144 18,119,567 40,629,903
On-budget....................................... 2,533,841 2,676,038 2,789,423 2,890,308 3,014,685 3,148,637 3,294,650 3,456,346 3,626,518 3,807,452 13,904,295 31,237,899
Off-budget...................................... 771,070 805,088 841,599 880,008 917,507 955,006 993,591 1,033,890 1,075,552 1,118,691 4,215,272 9,392,004
Surplus/Deficit(-):
Total........................................... -379,826 -226,316 -179,875 -147,321 -198,284 -205,620 -191,401 -199,225 -104,332 5,059 -1,131,621 -1,827,140
Macroeconomic fiscal impact..................... -21,000 -31,000 -24,000 9,000 4,000 25,000 36,000 44,000 59,000 74,000 -63,000 175,000
On-budget....................................... -386,186 -213,446 -159,838 -144,466 -170,787 -172,290 -138,741 -121,617 -6,124 131,078 -1,074,722 -1,382,417
Off-budget...................................... 27,360 18,130 3,963 -11,855 -31,497 -58,329 -88,660 -121,608 -157,208 -200,019 6,100 -619,724
Debt held by the public (end of year)............. 13,213,000 13,419,000 13,800,000 13,860,000 14,080,000 14,427,000 14,579,000 14,940,000 15,080,000 15,176,000 n.a. n.a.
Debt subject to limit (end of year)............... 18,304,357 18,627,533 19,172,590 19,411,553 19,773,917 20,227,349 20,449,374 20,822,448 20,981,807 21,089,365 n.a. n.a.

ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS
OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

----------

The Current Economic Situation

Real gross domestic product grew by 1.9 percent (measured
on a year-over-year basis) in 2013. That represented a slowdown
from the 2.8 percent growth posted in 2012. Looking at the
trend over the past four years, real GDP growth has averaged
just over 2 percent annually, well below the 3 percent
historical trend rate of growth in the U.S.
Nonfarm payroll employment increased by 175,000 in the
latest month (February 2014), roughly on par with the average
monthly increase over the past year. The unemployment rate
stands at 6.7 percent. That represents a significant decline
from a peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009-2010. However, a
significant chunk of this decline has been artificial because
it has been due to people leaving the labor force (and
therefore no longer being counted as ``unemployed'') and not
from a surge in employment. The slow decline in the
unemployment rate in recent years has occurred alongside a
steep decline in the economy's labor-force participation rate.
The participation rate stands at 63.0 percent, close to the
lowest level since 1978.
This low labor-force-participation rate means that over 90
million Americans are now ``on the sidelines'' and not in the
labor force, representing a 10 million increase since early
2009. The retirement of the baby-boom generation was expected
to lead to lower labor-force-participation rates. However,
since 2000, the labor-force-participation rate for those 55 and
older has increased and the participation rate for younger
works (those between 16 and 54) has declined.\20\ Of the 10.5
million people who are currently counted as unemployed, 3.8
million, or 37 percent, have been unemployed for over 6 months.
Prior to the recession, only about 18 percent of the unemployed
were out of work for that long. The long-term unemployment
problem has been rightfully flagged by economists as a major
issue. Long-term unemployment not only leads to skill erosion
at the personal level and a general detachment from job
opportunities, it also undermines the long-term productive
capacity of the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Furchtgott-Roth, Diane, ``Who Is Dropping Out of the Labor
Force, and Why?'' Real Clear Markets, 14 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflation remains low. The Federal Reserve's preferred
inflation gauge, the core price index for personal consumption
expenditures (core PCE), rose just over 1 percent last year,
well below the Federal Open Market Committee's 2 percent
objective for inflation over the longer run. Some of the recent
softness in headline inflation reflects factors that will
probably prove transitory, like falling prices for crude oil
and declines in non-oil import prices.
The Federal Reserve has begun to taper the level of its
monthly bond purchases recently and is expected to fully wrap
up its large-scale asset-purchase program by the end of this
year. However, the Fed is expected to keep the federal funds
rate near zero long after it finishes its bond-purchase
program. Most economists expect the Fed will be in a position
to finally raise the federal funds rate in the latter part of
2015, depending on economic developments.
The yield on the ten-year Treasury has been hovering around
2.75 percent of late. That is up from levels just under 2
percent last spring.
With unemployment still elevated, and quality job
opportunities relatively few in number, wage growth remains
subpar. The inflation-adjusted 12-month increase in hourly
earnings has been just over 1 percent recently. The weak labor
market and subpar wage growth is a prime reason why overall
household income is still depressed. Real median household
income declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2012 (latest
data available) and, at just over $51,000, is currently at its
lowest level since 1995.
Emerging markets contributed to some volatility in global
financial markets earlier this year, highlighted by steep drops
in the currencies of countries like Argentina, Turkey, Brazil,
and South Africa. U.S. markets have been somewhat immune to
this volatility. The S&P 500 experienced some weakness in
January, but has subsequently recovered and is currently about
20 percent above its year-earlier level.

The Economic Outlook

The administration's economic forecast is more optimistic
than both CBO and the Blue Chip consensus of private-sector
forecasters. The administration expects real GDP to grow by 3.1
percent this year, rising to 3.4 percent in 2015 and 3.3
percent in 2016. The CBO expects real GDP to grow by 2.7
percent in 2014, 3.3 percent in 2015, and 3.4 percent in 2016.
The Blue Chip consensus expects real GDP of 2.7 percent in
2014, 3.0 percent in 2015, and 2.9 percent in 2016. Over the
ten-year budget window, OMB expects real GDP growth to average
2.7 percent, higher than CBO's forecast of a 2.5 percent growth
average and Blue Chip's 2.6 percent growth average.
Similar to other forecasts, the administration expects the
unemployment rate to decline gradually in the coming years.
According to OMB, the unemployment rate will average 6.4
percent in 2015, declining to 6.0 percent in 2016, and 5.6
percent in 2017. The administration sees the longer-term
unemployment rate leveling off at about 5.4 percent. (By
comparison, the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent in 2007, the
year before the financial crisis.) That path is somewhat better
than the CBO forecast. CBO expects the unemployment rate to
average 6.5 percent in 2015, declining to 6.1 percent in 2016
and 5.9 percent in 2017, and then leveling off at 5.6/5.5
percent later in the decade. The Blue Chip consensus sees a
more rapid decline in the unemployment rate than either CBO or
OMB. According to Blue Chip, the unemployment rate will decline
to 5.9 percent in 2015 and reach 5.3 percent by 2018.
The administration expects inflation to grow from its
current low level of about 1.5 percent to above 2.0 percent in
the next few years. Later in the decade, OMB expects the
consumer price index (CPI) to grow at about 2.3 percent
annually. CBO and Blue Chip expect a similar path for price
inflation.
OMB expects that interest rates will rise to more normal
levels in the coming years. The ten-year Treasury note, which
is currently at about 2.7 percent, will rise to about 3.5
percent in 2015 and 4.0 percent in 2016. It is expected to hit
5.0 percent in 2021. CBO expects interest rates to rise to that
level sooner. CBO sees the ten-year Treasury hitting 5.0
percent in 2018 and then flatlining at that level in the
subsequent years. The Blue Chip consensus sees a more gradual
increase in interest rates, with the ten-year Treasury note
reaching 4.8 percent in 2021 and flatlining at that level in
subsequent years.

Economic Forecasts and the Macroeconomic Feedback Effect of Pro-Growth
Budget Policies

Economic growth is one of the major determinants of revenue
and spending levels--and therefore the size of budget
deficits--over a given period. According to CBO, if real GDP
growth is just 0.1 percentage point lower than expected over
its ten-year budget window, revenue would be $272 billion
lower, spending would be nearly $40 billion higher, and the
cumulative deficit would rise by $311 billion. We have seen the
budget impact of sluggish economic growth in recent years.
Although the U.S. economy technically emerged from recession
nearly five years ago, the subsequent recovery has been subpar.
Over the past four years, real GDP growth has averaged just
over 2 percent annually. According to CBO, U.S. economic output
has been growing at less than half of the typical rate
exhibited during other recoveries since WWII.
This trend has surprised most economic forecasters. Back in
2010, CBO expected real GDP to grow by a relatively brisk 3.0
percent annual average over the budget window. Last year, that
average edged down to 2.9 percent, but in its latest economic
forecast, average real GDP growth fell to just 2.5 percent. The
important change is that this year CBO has significantly
lowered its expectation of long-term growth in potential real
GDP, due mainly to negative developments in the labor market.
CBO expects slower growth in the potential labor force later
this decade, which is linked to the aging of the population and
the retirement of the baby-boom generation. With a smaller
labor force, there will also be less business investment and
slower growth in the country's capital stock. Government
policies will also play a role in this trend. For instance, the
Affordable Care Act (ACA) will incentivize people to work fewer
hours. The overall picture that CBO's latest economic forecast
paints is that sluggish economic growth has evolved from mainly
a cyclical issue to a longer-term structural problem.
The clear downward trend in the economic forecast in recent
years has raised the hurdle significantly for those trying to
correct the fiscal imbalance over the next decade. CBO's
downgrade in its economic forecast from last year to this year
has lowered expected revenues by $1.4 trillion over the next
decade and has increased projected deficits by a cumulative
$1.0 trillion over this period. This is important because CBO's
annual economic assumptions have typically been adopted for use
in the budget resolution.
In contrast, the administration's budget is developed
according to its own economic forecast. OMB's latest economic
forecast is more optimistic than that of CBO. OMB expects real
GDP growth to average 2.7 percent annually over the next 10
years, higher than CBO's estimate of 2.5 percent. This
difference is in part attributable to the fact that the
administration's economic forecast assumes the implementation
of the President's policies, which the administration believes
will lead to greater economic growth than the base case.
The budget resolution contains policies that would have a
positive impact on economic growth and therefore on the budget.
CBO has written extensively on the risks of deficits and debt
to the economy and that the reduction in projected deficits and
the debt would benefit the economy. Other policies that are
likely to boost economic growth include both fundamental tax
reform and increasing domestic energy production.
In a report published in February of 2013, CBO concluded
that reducing budget deficits, thereby bending the curve on
debt levels, would be a net positive for economic growth.\21\
According to that analysis, a large deficit-reduction package
of $4 trillion, which this budget resolution actually exceeds,
would increase real economic output by 1.7 percent in 2023.
Their analysis concludes that deficit reduction creates long-
term economic benefits because it increases the pool of
national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising
economic growth and job creation. The greater economic output
that stems from a large deficit-reduction package would have a
sizeable impact on the federal budget. For instance, higher
output would lead to greater revenues through the increase in
taxable incomes. Lower interest rates and a reduction in the
stock of debt would lead to lower government spending on net
interest expenses. CBO finds that this dynamic would reduce
budget deficits by a net $186 billion over ten years, including
$82 billion in the tenth year alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\``Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths,''
Congressional Budget Office, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since that analysis, CBO has updated its economic forecast
and its baseline budget projections. CBO has conducted an
economic analysis of the effects of the deficit reduction
called for under this budget resolution relative to their new
budget and economic outlook. The budget resolution incorporates
these macroeconomic feedback effects into the budget figures,
recognizing the fact that turning the economy around is a key
element of shoring up the budget.
Even after incorporating this positive macroeconomic
feedback into CBO's base-case forecast, GDP levels in the
budget resolution are still below the levels assumed in the
administration's economic forecast.

Background on CBO's Estimates of the Positive Macroeconomic Feedback
Effects of Deficit Reduction

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated several times
over nearly 20 years that congressional action to reduce
deficits will ultimately result in lower interest rates and
faster economic growth by freeing up savings for use in
productive investment. In addition, CBO has estimated that the
positive economic effects of deficit reduction will feed back
into the budget and further reduce deficits and debt over the
medium and longer term.
In early 1995, CBO's current-law baseline forecasted rising
deficits and debt through the end of the decade, and there was
growing interest in efforts to reduce the deficit. In 1995 and
1996, CBO published several estimates of the positive economic
and budgetary effects of illustrative policy changes necessary
to achieve a balanced budget by 2002. CBO estimated that a
seven-year illustrative path of policy changes necessary to
balance the budget would lower interest rates, increase
economic growth, and, as a result, further reduce deficits--and
the amount of savings from policy changes needed to balance the
budget.\22,23,24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1996-2000,''
Congressional Budget Office, Jan. 1995, pp. xix-xx.
\23\``An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal
Year 1996,'' Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 1995, pp. 51-58.
\24\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1997-2006,''
Congressional Budget Office, May 1996, pp. 18-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its January 1997 baseline report, CBO estimated that if
a credible plan to balance the budget by 2002 was enacted, the
level of gross domestic product would increase and interest
rates would decline by 70 basis points by 2000. CBO estimated
that a five-year deficit-reduction plan comprised of $423
billion in savings and debt service from illustrative policy
changes and a $77 billion fiscal dividend would result in a
balanced budget by 2002. The size of the fiscal dividend in
2002 was estimated to be $34 billion, or 0.3 percent of
GDP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\``Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 1998-2007,''
Congressional Budget Office, January 1997, pp. 59-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, President Clinton reached an agreement with a
Republican-led Congress to balance the budget, which was
incorporated into the conference report on the fiscal year 1998
budget resolution and enacted into law by subsequent
reconciliation legislation. This bipartisan balanced-budget
agreement incorporated CBO's estimate of the economic feedback
from deficit reduction, what was then called the ``fiscal
dividend.''\26\ Based on CBO estimates of the combination of
the policies and the economic feedback, the budget resolution
projected a balanced budget by 2002. As it turned out, a
unified budget surplus of $69 billion was achieved in fiscal
year 1998, four years earlier than CBO projected.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\``Conference Report to Accompany H. Con. Res. 84, the Fiscal
Year 1998 Budget Resolution,'' House Report 105-116, p. 60.
\27\``The Economic and Budget Outlook, An Update,'' Congressional
Budget Office, September 1997, pages ix-x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an updated economic-feedback analysis of the fiscal path
in this budget resolution, CBO now estimates that the fiscal
year 2015 House Republican budget, which provides ten-year
savings of $5.135 trillion from policy changes and debt service
compared to current policy, would result in positive economic
feedback effects that would further lower the deficit by
approximately $175 billion. The dividend in 2024 would be $74
billion, or 0.3 percent of GDP.\28\ Adjusting for differences
in the magnitude of deficit reduction, the CBO-estimated
positive fiscal dividend from the fiscal year 2015 House
Republican budget is more modest in size than the estimate that
the agency made in 1997 and that was subsequently incorporated
into the bipartisan fiscal year 1998 budget resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\``Budgetary and Economic Outcomes Under Paths for Federal
Revenues and Noninterest Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, April
2014,'' Congressional Budget Office, April 1, 2014.

TABLE 7.--ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS: ADMINISTRATION, CBO, AND PRIVATE FORECASTERS
[Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
Administration......................................
Budget.............................................. 1.7 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.2 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 1.7 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0
Blue Chip (March 2014).............................. 1.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Consumer Price Index:
Administration Budget............................... 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
Blue Chip (March 2014).............................. 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
Administration Budget............................... 7.5 6.9 6.4 6.0 5.6 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 7.4 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5
Blue Chip (March 2014).............................. 7.4 6.4 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3
3-Month Treasury Bill:
Administration Budget............................... 0.1 0.1 0.3 1.2 2.3 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.8 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Blue Chip (March 2014).............................. 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.9 2.9 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6
10-Year Treasury Note:
Administration Budget............................... 2.3 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.1
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Blue Chip (March 2014).............................. 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.1 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management and Budget, and Blue Chip Economic Indicators.

TABLE 8.--ECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET RESOLUTION*
[Calendar years]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year to Year, Percent Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real GDP:
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 1.7 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0
Consumer Price Index:
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Average, Percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unemployment Rate:
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 7.4 6.8 6.5 6.1 5.9 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.5
3-Month Treasury Bill:
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.8 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
10-Year Treasury Note:
CBO (Feb. 2014)..................................... 2.4 3.1 3.7 4.3 4.8 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*CBO's base case economic forecast without incorporating the positive macroeconomic feedback effect from lower budget deficits.

TABLE 9.--ESTIMATES OF TOTAL INCOME TAX EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2013-2019
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total from corporations and individuals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2015-19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Defense:
1 Exclusion of benefits and 11,620 12,620 13,230 12,200 12,310 12,730 13,240 63,710
allowances to armed forces
personnel...................
International affairs:
2 Exclusion of income 4,410 4,310 4,350 4,470 4,730 4,990 5,200 23,740
earned abroad by U.S.
citizens....................
3 Exclusion of certain 1,100 1,160 1,220 1,280 1,340 1,410 1,480 6,730
allowances for Federal
employees abroad............
4 Inventory property sales 3,320 3,600 3,890 4,220 4,560 4,940 5,352 22,962
source rules exception......
5 Deferral of income from 63,440 72,740 75,540 76,380 76,260 73,970 71,060 373,210
controlled foreign
corporations (normal tax
method).....................
6 Deferred taxes for 6,660 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 0
financial firms on certain
income earned overseas......
General science, space, and
technology:
7 Expensing of research and 5,840 5,160 4,800 5,450 6,230 6,930 7,270 30,680
experimentation expenditures
(normal tax method).........
8 Credit for increasing 8,430 5,420 3,170 2,860 2,570 2,300 2,030 12,930
research activities.........
Energy:
9 Expensing of exploration 550 510 510 590 600 550 520 2,770
and development costs, fuels
10 Excess of percentage over 530 670 780 920 1,070 1,230 1,390 5,390
cost depletion, fuels.......
11 Alternative fuel 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
production credit...........
12 Exception from passive 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 100
loss limitation for working
interests in oil and gas
properties..................
13 Capital gains treatment 90 80 90 110 120 120 130 570
of royalties on coal........
14 Exclusion of interest on 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 150
energy facility bonds.......
15 Energy production 1,670 2,370 3,000 3,330 3,370 3,210 3,130 16,040
credit\1\...................
16 Energy investment 1,950 1,840 1,470 1,380 850 220 -20 3,900
credit\1\...................
17 Alcohol fuel credits\2\.. 40 10 10 0 0 0 0 10
18 Bio-Diesel and small agri- 20 20 0 0 0 0 0 0
biodiesel producer tax
credits\3\..................
19 Tax credits for clean- 270 440 670 680 650 400 150 2,550
fuel burning vehicles.......
20 Exclusion of utility 340 340 340 340 320 320 320 1,640
conservation subsidies......
21 Credit for holding clean 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 350
renewable energy bonds\4\...
22 Deferral of gain from 0 -60 -220 -220 -200 -170 -140 -950
dispositions of transmission
property to implement FERC
restructuring policy........
23 Credit for investment in 180 200 140 40 20 -10 -10 180
clean coal facilities.......
24 Temporary 50% expensing 600 -100 -700 -830 -870 -800 -660 -3,860
for equipment used in the
refining of liquid fuels....
25 Natural gas distribution 100 100 100 110 110 120 120 560
pipelines treated as 15-year
property....................
26 Amortize all geological 100 110 130 130 120 100 100 580
and geophysical expenditures
over 2 years................
27 Allowance of deduction 70 40 20 0 0 -20 -20 -20
for certain energy efficient
commercial building property
28 Credit for construction 150 120 60 20 0 0 0 80
of new energy efficient
homes.......................
29 Credit for energy 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
efficiency improvements to
existing homes..............
30 Credit for energy 150 130 120 100 0 0 0 220
efficient appliances........
31 Credit for residential 960 1,060 1,170 1,300 540 0 0 3,010
energy efficient property...
32 Qualified energy 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 150
conservation bonds\5\.......
33 Advanced energy property 210 110 90 0 0 -10 -10 70
credit......................
34 Advanced nuclear power 0 0 0 0 210 470 590 1,270
production credit...........
Natural resources and
environment:
35 Expensing of exploration 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 290
and development costs,
nonfuel minerals............
36 Excess of percentage over 580 590 590 600 610 620 640 3,060
cost depletion, nonfuel
minerals....................
37 Exclusion of interest on 450 490 560 630 690 730 790 3,400
bonds for water, sewage, and
hazardous waste facilities..
38 Capital gains treatment 90 80 90 110 120 120 130 570
of certain timber income....
39 Expensing of multiperiod 280 300 300 320 330 340 360 1,650
timber growing costs........
40 Tax incentives for 570 580 600 610 620 630 640 3,100
preservation of historic
structures..................
41 Industrial CO2 capture 80 80 80 130 250 120 0 580
and sequestration tax credit
42 Deduction for endangered 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 140
species recovery
expenditures................
Agriculture:
43 Expensing of certain 90 100 100 110 110 120 120 560
capital outlays.............
44 Expensing of certain 140 140 140 140 150 150 160 740
multiperiod production costs
45 Treatment of loans 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 200
forgiven for solvent farmers
46 Capital gains treatment 920 800 920 1,060 1,160 1,230 1,280 5,650
of certain income...........
47 Income averaging for 130 130 130 140 140 140 140 690
farmers.....................
48 Deferral of gain on sale 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 100
of farm refiners............
49 Expensing of 70 70 70 80 80 90 100 420
reforestation expenditures..
Commerce and housing:
Financial institutions and
insurance:
50 Exemption of credit union 2,000 2,070 1,970 2,370 2,700 2,770 3,000 12,810
income......................
51 Exclusion of interest on 18,930 21,270 23,040 24,690 26,370 28,180 30,090 132,370
life insurance savings......
52 Special alternative tax 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 80
on small property and
casualty insurance companies
53 Tax exemption of certain 600 660 690 730 760 790 830 3,800
insurance companies owned by
tax-exempt organizations....
54 Small life insurance 30 30 40 40 40 40 40 200
company deduction...........
55 Exclusion of interest 210 1,260 1,840 1,940 2,030 2,130 2,230 10,170
spread of financial
institutions................
Housing:
56 Exclusion of interest on 1,230 1,360 1,510 1,700 1,880 2,000 2,140 9,230
owner-occupied mortgage
subsidy bonds...............
57 Exclusion of interest on 1,000 1,090 1,230 1,390 1,520 1,640 1,750 7,530
rental housing bonds........
58 Deductibility of mortgage 69,020 70,370 73,910 79,830 89,150 100,600 112,840 456,330
interest on owner-occupied
homes.......................
59 Deductibility of State 29,290 31,740 33,880 36,570 39,600 42,730 45,770 198,550
and local property tax on
owner-occupied homes........
60 Deferral of income from 1,140 1,330 1,470 1,630 1,760 1,860 1,950 8,670
installment sales...........
61 Capital gains exclusion 34,270 52,250 56,510 61,110 66,090 71,480 77,300 332,490
on home sales...............
62 Exclusion of net imputed 72,440 76,220 79,810 83,470 87,900 92,570 97,488 441,238
rental income...............
63 Exception from passive 8,660 9,820 10,360 10,910 11,550 12,240 12,810 57,870
loss rules for $25,000 of
rental loss.................
64 Credit for low-income 7,410 8,310 8,280 8,330 8,730 9,080 9,420 43,840
housing investments.........
65 Accelerated depreciation 1,780 2,090 2,500 3,020 3,560 4,130 4,710 17,920
on rental housing (normal
tax method).................
66 Discharge of mortgage 3,360 870 0 0 0 0 0 0
indebtedness................
Commerce:
67 Discharge of business 0 -60 -80 -80 -60 -20 20 -220
indebtedness................
68 Exceptions from imputed 20 30 40 40 50 50 60 240
interest rules..............
69 Treatment of qualified 23,650 23,840 26,650 28,580 30,040 31,290 32,390 148,950
dividends...................
70 Capital gains (except 68,860 60,030 68,850 79,300 86,950 91,550 95,620 422,270
agriculture, timber, iron
ore, and coal)..............
71 Capital gains exclusion 140 340 480 640 850 1,000 1,010 3,980
of small corporation stock..
72 Step-up basis of capital 23,050 30,780 32,370 34,010 35,750 37,600 39,580 179,310
gains at death..............
73 Carryover basis of 2,870 2,290 2,560 2,810 3,060 3,260 3,400 15,090
capital gains on gifts......
74 Ordinary income treatment 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 300
of loss from small business
corporation stock sale......
75 Accelerated depreciation -7,650 -7,570 -7,540 -7,690 -7,970 -8,350 -8,990 -40,540
of buildings other than
rental housing (normal tax
method).....................
76 Accelerated depreciation 48,460 15,300 15,470 35,640 52,860 69,300 84,420 257,690
of machinery and equipment
(normal tax method).........
77 Expensing of certain 3,950 -1,180 -2,040 -570 380 1,080 1,570 420
small investments (normal
tax method).................
78 Graduated corporation 4,300 4,200 4,130 4,100 4,220 4,200 4,370 21,020
income tax rate (normal tax
method).....................
79 Exclusion of interest on 170 190 210 230 250 280 290 1,260
small issue bonds...........
80 Deduction for US 12,860 13,790 14,480 15,200 15,840 16,820 16,150 78,490
production activities.......
81 Special rules for certain 290 207 120 80 40 10 0 250
film and TV production......
Transportation:
82 Tonnage tax.............. 60 70 70 70 80 80 90 520
83 Deferral of tax on 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 100
shipping companies..........
84 Exclusion of reimbursed 2,580 2,670 2,780 2,900 3,010 3,110 3,220 15,020
employee parking expenses...
85 Exclusion for employer- 710 710 710 770 810 860 920 4,070
provided transit passes.....
86 Tax credit for certain 120 60 0 0 0 0 0 0
expenditures for maintaining
railroad tracks.............
87 Exclusion of interest on 240 230 220 210 200 190 170 990
bonds for Highway Projects
and rail-truck transfer
facilities..................
Community and regional
development:
88 Investment credit for 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 150
rehabilitation of structures
(other than historic).......
89 Exclusion of interest for 740 820 920 1,030 1,130 1,210 1,300 5,590
airport, dock, and similar
bonds.......................
90 Exemption of certain 110 120 120 120 130 130 130 630
mutuals' and cooperatives'
income......................
91 Empowerment zones, the DC 450 350 200 190 190 180 150 910
enterprise zone, and renewal
communities.................
92 New markets tax credit... 950 1,010 1,040 1,050 960 750 560 4,360
93 Expensing of -180 -180 -170 -160 -160 -160 -160 -810
environmental remediation
costs.......................
94 Credit to holders of Gulf 220 240 280 310 340 360 390 1,680
Tax Credit Bonds............
95 Recovery Zone Bonds\6\... 120 130 150 160 180 190 210 890
96 Tribal Economic 20 40 40 60 60 60 60 280
Development Bonds...........
Education, training,
employment, and social
services:
Education:
97 Exclusion of scholarship 2,890 2,980 3,090 3,200 3,310 3,420 3,550 16,570
and fellowship income
(normal tax method).........
98 HOPE tax credit.......... 0 0 0 0 0 720 7,230 7,950
99 Lifetime Learning tax 1,810 1,680 1,720 1,740 1,740 1,880 3,100 10,180
credit......................
100 American Opportunity Tax 12,540 15,530 15,240 15,310 15,370 13,760 0 59,680
Credit\7\...................
101 Education Individual 70 80 100 110 120 130 150 610
Retirement Accounts.........
102 Deductibility of student- 1,720 1,720 1,780 1,780 1,790 1,790 1,840 8,980
loan interest...............
103 Deduction for higher 600 560 0 0 0 0 0 0
education expenses..........
104 Qualified tuition 1,680 1,770 1,900 2,050 2,200 2,350 2,520 11,020
programs....................
105 Exclusion of interest on 510 560 620 700 760 820 880 3,780
student-loan bonds..........
106 Exclusion of interest on 2,240 2,480 2,760 3,120 3,430 3,660 3,930 16,900
bonds for private nonprofit
educational facilities......
107 Credit for holders of 200 180 160 130 120 110 100 620
zone academy bonds\8\.......
108 Exclusion of interest on 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 90
savings bonds redeemed to
finance educational expenses
109 Parental personal 5,200 5,320 5,400 5,490 5,570 5,660 5,760 27,880
exemption for students age
19 or over..................
110 Deductibility of 4,550 5,040 5,370 5,810 6,290 6,780 7,290 31,540
charitable contributions
(education).................
111 Exclusion of employer- 710 750 800 850 900 950 1,000 4,500
provided educational
assistance..................
112 Special deduction for 190 170 0 0 0 0 0 0
teacher expenses............
113 Discharge of student loan 90 90 90 90 100 100 100 480
indebtedness................
114 Qualified school 580 650 650 650 650 650 650 3,250
construction bonds\9\.......
Training, employment, and
social services:
115 Work opportunity tax 900 880 460 250 200 170 130 1,210
credit......................
116 Employer provided child 880 920 970 1,040 1,110 1,170 1,240 5,530
care exclusion..............
117 Employer-provided child 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 50
care credit.................
118 Assistance for adopted 530 530 560 590 620 660 700 3,130
foster children.............
119 Adoption credit and 450 540 580 600 640 730 660 3,210
exclusion\10\...............
120 Exclusion of employee 2,185 3,700 3,797 3,910 4,032 4,155 4,278 20,172
meals and lodging (other
than military)..............
121 Child credit\11\......... 23,480 23,350 23,500 23,620 23,480 23,450 23,480 117,530
122 Credit for child and 4,160 4,200 4,310 4,460 4,590 4,690 4,760 22,810
dependent care expenses.....
123 Credit for disabled 30 30 30 30 30 40 40 170
access expenditures.........
124 Deductibility of 39,260 43,600 46,630 50,600 54,940 59,390 64,250 275,810
charitable contributions,
other than education and
health......................
125 Exclusion of certain 380 380 390 380 370 370 360 1,870
foster care payments........
126 Exclusion of parsonage 737 720 758 798 840 885 931 4,212
allowances..................
127 Indian employment credit. 50 40 20 20 20 10 10 80
Health:
128 Exclusion of employer 185,330 196,010 207,200 217,140 229,000 241,070 256,290 1,150,700
contributions for medical
insurance premiums and
medical care\12\............
129 Self-employed medical 6,140 6,670 6,970 7,240 7,550 7,870 8,170 37,800
insurance premiums..........
130 Medical Savings Accounts / 3,110 3,900 4,890 6,110 7,630 9,440 11,720 39,790
Health Savings Accounts....
131 Deductibility of medical 8,010 8,090 8,560 8,910 8,840 9,370 10,510 46,190
expenses....................
132 Exclusion of interest on 3,430 3,790 4,210 4,740 5,220 5,570 5,970 25,710
hospital construction bonds.
133 Refundable Premium 0 0 -3,940 -4,060 -5,740 -6,290 -6,540 -26,570
Assistance Tax Credit\13\...
134 Credit for employee 630 870 1,050 1,040 760 470 330 3,650
health insurance expenses of
small business\14\..........
135 Deductibility of 4,470 4,980 5,350 5,820 6,340 6,880 7,460 31,850
charitable contributions
(health)....................
136 Tax credit for orphan 1,040 1,260 1,520 1,830 2,210 2,660 3,210 11,430
drug research...............
137 Special Blue Cross/Blue 190 230 360 430 480 440 370 2,080
Shield deduction............
138 Tax credit for health 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
insurance purchased by
certain displaced and
retired individuals\15\.....
139 Distributions from 320 360 400 440 460 480 500 2,280
retirement plans for
premiums for health and long-
term care insurance.........
Income security:
140 Exclusion of railroad 380 370 360 350 320 300 270 1,600
retirement system benefits..
141 Exclusion of workers' 10,090 10,310 10,500 10,640 10,790 10,950 11,100 53,980
compensation benefits.......
142 Exclusion of public 770 790 820 860 900 940 980 4,500
assistance benefits (normal
tax method).................
143 Exclusion of special 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 110
benefits for disabled coal
miners......................
144 Exclusion of military 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 550
disability pensions.........
Net exclusion of pension
contributions and earnings:
145 Defined benefit employer 37,860 40,090 42,340 44,750 47,270 49,160 51,440 234,960
plans.......................
146 Defined contribution 50,670 59,380 61,050 77,020 88,740 92,770 94,820 414,400
employer plans..............
147 Individual Retirement 19,310 17,450 17,480 18,540 19,630 20,650 21,720 98,020
Accounts....................
148 Low and moderate income 1,190 1,200 1,210 1,260 1,300 1,280 1,300 6,350
savers credit...............
149 Self-Employed plans...... 19,400 23,300 25,530 28,100 30,890 33,860 37,150 155,530
Exclusion of other employee
benefits:
150 Premiums on group term 1,910 1,940 1,980 2,030 2,080 2,130 2,180 10,400
life insurance..............
151 Premiums on accident and 310 310 310 320 320 330 330 1,610
disability insurance........
152 Income of trusts to 20 20 30 40 40 50 60 220
finance supplementary
unemployment benefits.......
153 Special ESOP rules....... 1,650 1,730 1,810 1,910 2,000 2,090 2,200 10,010
154 Additional deduction for 30 30 30 30 40 40 40 180
the blind...................
155 Additional deduction for 2,380 2,560 2,800 3,040 3,310 3,610 3,850 16,610
the elderly.................
156 Tax credit for the 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 50
elderly and disabled........
157 Deductibility of casualty 310 340 360 380 400 420 430 1,990
losses......................
158 Earned income tax 4,070 4,330 4,330 4,400 4,520 4,640 4,550 22,440
credit\16\..................
Social Security:
Exclusion of social security
benefits:
159 Social Security benefits 26,440 28,730 29,840 30,900 31,920 33,010 34,260 159,930
for retired workers.........
160 Social Security benefits 8,200 8,560 8,740 8,930 9,100 9,250 9,420 45,440
for disabled workers........
161 Social Security benefits 3,760 3,970 4,100 4,300 4,470 4,540 4,740 22,150
for spouses, dependents and
survivors...................
Veterans benefits and services:
162 Exclusion of veterans 4,620 5,080 5,490 5,980 6,500 7,080 7,700 32,750
death benefits and
disability compensation.....
163 Exclusion of veterans 410 430 450 470 480 490 510 2,400
pensions....................
164 Exclusion of GI bill 980 1,110 1,160 1,240 1,320 1,410 1,500 6,630
benefits....................
165 Exclusion of interest on 10 10 20 20 30 30 30 130
veterans housing bonds......
General purpose fiscal
assistance:
166 Exclusion of interest on 28,440 31,450 35,010 39,420 43,400 46,340 49,660 213,830
public purpose State and
local bonds.................
167 Build America Bonds\17\.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
168 Deductibility of 44,020 46,710 49,290 53,450 58,120 62,800 67,140 290,800
nonbusiness State and local
taxes other than on owner-
occupied homes..............
Interest:
169 Deferral of interest on 1,020 1,080 1,090 1,100 1,120 1,130 1,140 5,580
U.S. savings bonds..........
----------
7,243,734
==========
Addendum: Aid to State and
local governments:
Deductibility of:
Property taxes on owner- 29,290 31,740 33,880 36,570 39,600 42,730 45,770 198,550
occupied homes............
Nonbusiness State and local 44,020 46,710 49,290 53,450 58,120 62,800 67,140 290,800
taxes other than on owner-
occupied homes............
Exclusion of interest on
State and local bonds for:
Public purposes............ 28,440 31,450 35,010 39,420 43,400 46,340 49,660 213,830
Energy facilities.......... 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 150
Water, sewage, and 450 490 560 630 690 730 790 3,400
hazardous waste disposal
facilities................
Small-issues............... 170 190 210 230 250 280 290 1,260
Owner-occupied mortgage 1,230 1,360 1,510 1,700 1,880 2,000 2,140 9,230
subsidies.................
Rental housing............. 1,000 1,090 1,230 1,390 1,520 1,640 1,750 7,530
Airports, docks, and 740 820 920 1,030 1,130 1,210 1,300 5,590
similar facilities........
Student loans.............. 510 560 620 700 760 820 880 3,780
Private nonprofit 2,240 2,480 2,760 3,120 3,430 3,660 3,930 16,900
educational facilities....
Hospital construction...... 3,430 3,790 4,210 4,740 5,220 5,570 5,970 25,710
Veterans' housing.......... 10 10 20 20 30 30 30 130
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Firms can tax an energy grant in lieu of the energy production credit or the energy investment credit for
facilities placed in service in 2009 and 2010 or whose construction commenced in 2009 and 2010. The effect of
the grant on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $8,080; 2014 $4,710; 2015 $2,520; 2016
$1,580; 2017 $330; 2018 $0; 2019 $0.
\2\In addition, the alcohol fuel mixture credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of
dollars) as follows: 2013 $10; 2014 $0; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018 $0; 2019 $0. The alternative fuel
mixture credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of dollars) as follows: 2013 $350;
2014 $200; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018 $0; 2019 $0.
\3\In addition, the biodiesel producer tax credit results in a reduction in excise tax receipts (in millions of
dollars) as follows: 2013 $1600; 2014 $610; 2015 $0; 2016 $0; 2017 $0; 2018: $0; 2019 $0.
\4\In addition, the provision has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $40; 2014 $50; 2015 $50; 2016
$50; 2017 $50; 2018 $50; 2019 $50.
\5\In addition, the provision has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $50; 2014 $60; 2015 $60; 2016
$60; 2017 $60; 2018 $60; 2019 $60.
\6\In addition, recovery zone bonds have outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows: 2013 $160, 2014
$160, 2015 $160, 2016 $160; and 2017 $160; 2018 $160; 2019 $160.
\7\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the American opportunity tax credit on receipts. The effect
of the credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $4,040; 2014 $6,170; 2015 $6,280; 2016
$6,280; 2017 $6,090; 2018 $5,970; 2019 $2,680.
\8\In addition, the credit for holders of zone academy bonds has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars):
2013 $20; 2014 $30; 2015 $30; 2016 $30; 2017 $30; 2018 $30; and 2019 $30.
\9\In addition, the provision for school construction bonds has outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013
$940; 2014 $940; 2015 $940; 2016 $940; 2017 $940, 2018 $940, and 2019 $940.
\10\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the adoption tax credit on receipts. The effect of the
credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $0.
\11\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the child tax credit on receipts. The effect of the credit
on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $21,660; 2014 $21,680; 2015 $21,700; 2016 $21,600;
2017 $21,680; 2018 21,930; and 2019 $15,790.
\12\The figures in the table indicate the effect on income taxes of the employer contributions for health. In
addition, the effect on payroll tax receipts (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $117,920; 2014
$122,990; 2015 $127,980; 2016 $132,400; 2017 $138,330; 2018 $145,270; 2019 $153,870.
\13\In addition, the premium assistance credit provision has outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows:
2014 $34,020, 2015 $55,140; 2016 $70,610; 2017 $82,150; 2018 $86,460; 2019 $90,600.
\14\In addition, the small business credit provision has outlay effects (in millions of dollars) as follows:
2013 $80; 2014 $100; 2015 $110; 2016 $120; 2017 $110; 2018 $70; 2019 $50.
\15\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the health coverage tax credit on receipts. The effect of
the credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $120; 2014 $30; 2015 $0.
\16\The figures in the table indicate the effect of the earned income tax credit on receipts. The effect of the
credit on outlays (in millions of dollars) is as follows: 2013 $56,760; 2014 $58,430; 2015 $58,070; 2016
$58,360; 2017 $59,500; 2018 $60,900; and 2019 59,330.
\17\In addition, Build America Bonds have outlay effects of (in millions of dollars): 2013 $3,190; 2014 $3,190;
2015 $3,190; 2016 $3,190; 2017 $3,190; 2018 $3,190, and 2019 $3190

Note: Provisions with estimates denoted normal tax method have no revenue loss under the reference tax law
method. All estimates have been rounded to the nearest $10 million. Provisions with estimates that rounded to
zero in each year are not included in the table.

FUNCTION-BY-FUNCTION
PRESENTATION

----------

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, deterring the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, 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 military activities. The remainder funds
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 carried in Function 970
rather than in this function.

Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $528.9 billion in budget authority
and $566.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $521.3
billion in budget authority and $558.8 billion in outlays. This
is the amount provided for in the Bipartisan Budget Act.
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $7.7 billion in budget authority
and $7.7 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $6.3 trillion and $6.2 trillion,
respectively.
Over the last five years, the Department of Defense has
repeatedly revised downward its estimates of the budgetary
resources necessary to meet the nation's security needs:
In 2011, Secretary Gates proposed a $178 billion
``efficiency initiative.''
In 2011, the President announced a further $400
billion defense-budget reduction that ballooned to $487 billion
by the next budget submission in 2012.
In 2013, Secretary Hagel proposed another $120
billion reduction from the Budget Control Act's ``pre-
sequester'' caps.
And in 2014, the budget request is approximately
$184 billion lower than the Budget Control Act's ``pre-
sequester'' caps.
These repeated reductions in the requested defense budget
are taking place in the context of an international environment
that remains exceptionally challenging. In his testimony on the
intelligence community's annual worldwide threat assessment,
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that
he had ``not experienced a time when we've been beset by more
crises and threats around the globe.''\29\ Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey has testified that
``our current security challenges are more formidable and
complex than those we faced in downturns following war in
Korea, Vietnam, and the Cold War. There is no foreseeable
`peace dividend' on our horizon. The security environment is
increasingly competitive and dangerous.''\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\James R. Clapper, ``Current and Future Worldwide Threats to the
National Security of the United States,'' 11 Feb. 2014.
\30\General Martin Dempsey, Testimony to the Senate Armed Services
Committee, 12 Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to a shrinking defense budget, the defense
program--the collection of forces, acquisition programs,
construction projects, and the like--continues to be under-
resourced. Each year, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] has
reviewed the defense program and determined that the defense
budgets requested are insufficient to implement that program.
The most recent report found that the Defense Department's
fiscal year 2014 budget was on average $33 billion short of
providing for the full costs of the program as estimated by
CBO.\31\ While CBO has not yet analyzed this year's request,
there is little reason to believe its analysis will be
substantially different from its previous reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Congressional Budget Office, ``Long-Term Implications of the
2014 Future Years Defense Program,'' Nov. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today in U.S. defense policy, there are two big mismatches:
first, between the threats we face and the resources we've
committed to meeting them, and second, between our stated
policy and the budget that the President has requested. This
budget seeks to resolve these contradictions by restoring
defense budgets to the levels dictated by the national-security
interests of the nation.

Illustrative Policy Options

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Supporting Our Men and Women in Uniform. Military personnel
costs have grown 41 percent in real terms since 2001 and now
consume about one-third of the base budget for the Department
of Defense. Maintaining a high-quality, all-volunteer military
requires robust compensation. However, given the explosive
growth in compensation costs, the possibilities for reform must
be examined. The Military Compensation and Retirement
Modernization Commission is charged with developing
recommendations that (1) ensure the long-term viability of the
all-volunteer force; (2) enable a high quality of life for
military families; and (3) modernize and achieve fiscal
sustainability of the compensation and retirement systems.\32\
In future years, serious consideration must be given to the
Commission's recommendations if this defense program is going
to be realized within existing budgets. Nonetheless, this
budget does not assume any savings from accounts providing for
the compensation (including health care) of military personnel.
The budget fully reflects the amendments made to the Bipartisan
Budget Act to exempt all service members who first joined the
military before January 1, 2014 from the temporary reduction in
cost-of-living adjustments for working-age retirees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\See Title VI, Subtitle H of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, P.L. 112-239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Force Structure. The President has proposed significant
reductions in the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps,
with the Army slated to be smaller than at any time since
before World War II. While the ground component should not
continue to be sized for prolonged counterinsurgency
operations, the level of reductions contemplated by the
President's request entails significant risk in an environment
that, as has been noted, is extremely challenging and
uncertain. This budget contemplates funding in excess of the
President's request, which could be used, in part, to forestall
this risky drawdown.
Any reductions in military end strength should be
accompanied by reductions in the civilian and contractor
workforce, which has ballooned in recent years and is now
approximately the same size as the active-duty military, a
ratio that is out of balance. Reductions by the Secretary of
Defense should focus on performance while retaining vital
functions that directly support the uniformed force.
This year's defense-budget request calls into doubt the
ability of the Navy to maintain 11 carrier strike groups. The
Future Years Defense Program does not include maintenance of 11
carrier strike groups, but the Navy has announced that if the
President's defense request is funded by Congress, then it
would reprogram the funding needed to maintain this desired
level of naval force. The flexibility and capabilities provided
by carrier strike groups are integral to the rebalance of our
security posture toward Asia and to our security commitments in
the Persian Gulf. This budget contemplates funding in excess of
the President's request, which could be used, in part, to
maintain the 11 carrier strike groups called for under
longstanding defense plans.
The Modernization Challenge. A decade of war and years of
delayed and failed acquisition programs have resulted in an
impending need to simultaneously procure replacements for a
range of weapons systems in each of the services. For example,
the services have programs in place to begin replacing during
this budget window: (1) the air-superiority and strike-aircraft
fleets of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps; (2) a
substantial share of the Navy's surface combatants; and (3) the
bomber and submarine legs of the nation's nuclear-deterrent
force. These programs represent only some of the more prominent
defense capabilities that will make claims on the defense-
acquisition budget within the budget window. For example, the
President's budget proposes to cancel the latest attempt by the
Army to modernize its ground-combat vehicle fleet. While the
Ground Combat Vehicle program may be cancelled, the need to
recapitalize the Army's vehicle fleet will remain. Budgets
within the next ten years will have to accommodate that need.
Compounding the fiscal challenge of this procurement ``bow
wave'' is the reality that defense acquisition has consistently
exceeded planned budgets. While the Government Accountability
Office's latest review of the defense acquisition portfolio
found that 64 percent of the major programs had gained buying
power in the previous year, whether this limited progress will
be sustained is uncertain.\33\ The Armed Services Committee has
launched a long-term effort to reform the Department of
Defense. This Durable Defense Reform initiative will among
other things look for ways to improve the affordability of
defense acquisition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Government Accountability Office, ``Defense Acquisitions:
Assessments of Selected Weapons Programs,'' Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Defense Efficiency. The Department of Defense,
like all government agencies, has a responsibility to the
taxpayer to responsibly manage the resources available to it.
The inability of the Defense Department to receive a clean
audit calls into question whether DOD is living up to this
responsibility. Although the Department hopes to have its
budgetary information auditable by the end of fiscal year 2014,
full auditability is not expected until the end of fiscal year
2017. Continued progress here and with the Department's other
efforts to reduce waste and bureaucracy will be needed in order
to make the defense program affordable.
FUNCTION 150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Function Summary

The international-affairs budget is critical in advancing
U.S. strategic priorities and interests, especially those
relating to economic opportunities, national security, and
American values. This function includes the U.S. government's
spending for the following: international development, food
security, 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
are the Departments of Agriculture, State, and the Treasury;
the U.S. Agency for International Development; and the
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Over the past decade, funding for the international-affairs
budget has increased by almost 80 percent, adjusting for
inflation. Unfortunately, the growth in spending is not
reflected in a comparable growth in results. Duplicative
programs, programs unrelated to vital U.S. national interests,
and inefficiencies are prevalent in the budget and should be
addressed. This budget reflects a thorough re-evaluation of
accounts in Function 150 and prioritizes programs that are both
integral to the core mission and that effectively and
efficiently achieve desired results.
Funding for the State Department and USAID's interim
civilian activities for efforts relating to the global war on
terrorism is reflected in Function 970 rather than in this
account.

Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $38.7 billion in budget authority
and $39.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $39.1
billion in budget authority and $40.2 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2015 is -$402 million in budget authority
and -$1.1 billion in outlays. (The negative figures reflect
receipts from foreign-military sales and foreign-military-
financing transactions). The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $429.6 billion and $402.5 billion,
respectively.

Illustrative Policy Options

Below are options committees of jurisdiction may wish to
consider when making final policy and funding decisions.

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Eliminate Contributions to Clean Technology Fund and
Strategic Climate Fund. The Clean Technology and Strategic
Climate Funds were created by the Obama administration in 2010.
They provide foreign assistance to support energy-efficient
technologies intended to reduce energy use and mitigate climate
change. Given the record-high levels of deficits, the explosive
growth in U.S. government debt, and the heavy reliance on
foreign financing, the federal government is borrowing funds
abroad to provide financial assistance in this area, which is
not a core U.S. foreign-policy function. In addition, the
government should not attempt to pick winners and losers in
terms of which technologies and companies to favor and advance
abroad. Therefore, the budget assumes elimination of both
programs.
Reduce Education Exchange Programs. Function 150 includes
two education exchange accounts intended to encourage mutual
understanding between Americans and citizens around the world
through scholarship and leadership programs: Educational and
Cultural Exchange Programs and the Open World Leadership
Center. Although this mission is laudable, exchange programs
are a non-essential component of the foreign-affairs budget and
should be reduced accordingly. When reduction decisions are
made about these accounts, programs that receive matching
foreign-government contributions, such as the Fulbright
program, and are in line with U.S. strategic interests, should
remain a priority.
Reduce Contributions to International Organizations and
Programs. The United States makes voluntary contributions to
several multilateral organizations and programs. These
contributions are duplicative of funding provided in the
Contributions to International Organizations [CIO] account,
which provides funding for the obligatory payments to
international organizations with which the United States has
signed treaties. Although this budget fully funds the CIO
account, it does not support voluntary contributions from the
International Organizations and Programs account.
Eliminate Funding for Peripheral Foreign-Affairs
Institutions. The United States 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
activities that are 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.
Task MCC as Lead Agency on Foreign-Development Assistance.
The United States has two primary foreign-development
assistance programs: USAID's Development Assistance program and
the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Funding foreign aid and
helping other nations rise toward prosperity keep the United
States safe and strengthens the economy by establishing new
trading partners and markets. However, development assistance
is worthwhile only if it produces results for the aid
recipients.
America's experience with having two development-assistance
programs has shown that MCC's model has been more effective in
achieving results. MCC's emphasis on outcomes rather than
inputs needs to be the foundation of all U.S. development-
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 projects 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.
Further, MCC's model is resulting in the ``MCC Effect,'' where
countries are independently making reforms in favor of good
governance, economic freedom, and other MCC requirements, in
order to qualify for a compact. In 2010, USAID announced a
reform agenda, USAID Forward, and claims to be in the process
of adopting more accountable policy standards, country
ownership, and timetables. Although some changes have been made
to the agency's practices, success continues to remain elusive.
MCC's model is more effective and efficient in delivering
foreign aid. And it 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. 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 and Stabilization Operations 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
are recommended.
International Religious Freedom. The United States should
promote freedom of religion or belief around the world, given
the importance of religious freedom to human rights, economic
development, stability, and democracy. The independent U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom [USCIRF] has
provided important oversight and recommendations in this
regard, including redirecting and conditioning aid. It calls
for budget justifications to take into account the findings and
recommendations of USCIRF. Additionally, the Office of
International Religious Freedom continues to serve as an
important voice on these issues in the State Department and
should be supported.
Diplomatic Security. This budget is dedicated to protecting
American officials and facilities overseas and fully funds the
President's request for both the State Department's Diplomatic
Consular Programs and Embassy Security, Construction, and
Maintenance accounts. Combined, the fiscal year 2015 funding
level for these two accounts is an 8 percent increase compared
to fiscal year 2013 enacted levels.
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. The function also contains general science
funding, including the budgets for the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy's Office of Science.

Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $27.9 billion in budget authority
as well as outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that total,
discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $27.8 billion
in budget authority and $27.8 billion in outlays. Mandatory
spending in 2015 is $100 million in budget authority and $98
million in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority
and outlays are $308.2 billion and $303.7 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
while shifting the focus back to basic research. The budget
provides continued support for NASA and recognizes the vital
strategic importance of the United States remaining the pre-
eminent space-faring nation. This budget aligns funding in
accordance with the NASA core principles to support robust
space capability, to allow for exploration beyond low Earth
orbit, and to support our scientific and educational base.

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. In fiscal year
2014, an enacted level of $64.5 billion dollars was dedicated
to research government-wide. Nearly half of that was dedicated
to applied research. The unique role of the federal government
is in supporting basic research, and funding should be
distributed accordingly. For example, spending for the
Department of Energy's Office of Science includes some areas,
such as biological and environmental research, that could
potentially crowd out private investment. The resolution's
levels support preserving the Office of Science's original role
as a venue for groundbreaking scientific discoveries and a
driver of innovation and economic growth, while responsibly
paring back applied and commercial research and development.
Reduce Expenses for the DHS's Directorate of Science and
Technology. The committee recommends reductions in management
and administrative expenses for the Department of Homeland
Security's Directorate of Science and Technology, while
shifting funding resources to frontline missions and
capabilities.
FUNCTION 270: ENERGY

Function Summary

This category includes the civilian energy and
environmental programs of the Department of Energy. Function
270 also includes the Rural Utilities Service of the Department
of Agriculture, the Tennessee Valley Authority, 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.
The administration continues to penalize economically
competitive sources of energy and reward their uncompetitive
alternatives. In its 2013 report, the Congressional Budget
Office found total federal support for the development and
production of fuels and energy technologies--including both tax
expenditures and federal spending--totaled $20 billion, of
which ``half was directed toward energy efficiency and
renewable energy, 22 percent for nuclear energy, and 15 percent
for fossil energy.''\34,35\ The White House provided over six
times the subsidies for these ``green energy'' programs, which
the Energy Information Administration says also produced the
smallest amounts of energy.\36\ And the administration refuses
to answer for the lack of job creation and growth resulting
from almost $16 billion spent on ``stimulus'' grants--almost a
quarter of them to European and Asian renewable-energy
companies.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\Terry Dinan, ``CBO Testifies on Federal Financial Support for
Fuels and Energy Technologies,'' Congressional Budget Office, 13 Mar.
2013.
\35\Congressional Budget Office, ``How Much Does the Federal
Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy
Technologies,'' 6 Mar. 2012.
\36\Energy Information Administration, ``Direct Federal Financial
Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010,'' July 2011.
\37\House Energy and Commerce Committee, ``American Taxpayer
Investment, Foreign Corporation Benefit,'' 17 Jan. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the administration's loan-guarantee projects have
failed: Abound Solar, which received $400 million in loan
guarantees, was cited by the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment for hazardous waste left from its failed
solar panels.\38\ Another grant recipient, A123, was given
permission to hand out as much as $3.7 million in bonuses to
top executives as a part of its bankruptcy proceedings.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Sandoval, Michael, ``Bankrupt Abound Solar to Bury Unused Solar
Panels in Cement,'' Heritage Foundation, 26 Feb. 2013.
\39\Paul Chesser, ``A123's Executives Get Their Richly Undeserved
Bonuses,'' National Legal and Policy Center, 13 Nov. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President has installed a heavy-handed compliance
culture dependent on regulations, favorable tax treatment, and
spending on administration-favored constituencies. This
administration has proposed more ``economically significant''
regulations in four years than previous administrations have in
the past 15 years combined. Since 2009, the White House has
generated over $494 billion in regulatory activity--and $112
billion in 2013 alone.\40\ With more than $87.6 billion in
regulatory costs pending already in 2014,\41\ the regulatory
cost burden of this administration is sure to increase to well
over half a trillion dollars by the end of the year.
Regulations already 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.\42\ The additional burden added by the current
administration is further stifling opportunity for job creation
and growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\Batkins, Sam, ``A Regulatory Flurry: The Year in Regulation,
2013,'' American Action Forum, 8 Jan. 2014.
\41\Id.
\42\Nicole V. Crain and W. Mark Crain, ``The Impact of Regulatory
Costs on Small Firms,'' Small Business Research Survey, Sept. 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All energy sources should be developed without undue
government interference. However, the administration continues
to pick winners and losers in the market, and it is crowding
out disfavored energy sources in the private sector. Its
officials have promoted changes to explicitly raise energy
costs. In 2008, Steven Chu, who later served as the secretary
of energy for the administration, said, ``Somehow we have to
figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in
Europe.''\43\ Then-candidate Barack Obama agreed, arguing in
January of 2008: ``Under my plan of a cap and trade system,
electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Neil King Jr. and Stephen Power, ``Times Tough for Energy
Overhaul,'' Wall Street Journal, 12 Dec. 2008.
\44\Ed Morrissey, ``Obama: I'll Make Energy Prices `Skyrocket',''
HotAir.com, Available at http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-
ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/; Accessed: 25 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to make green energy more viable, the
administration is trying to make fossil fuels more expensive.
This was the idea behind the controversial ``cap and trade''
bill that President Obama tried and failed to pass through
Congress in 2009, which would have established an elaborate
bureaucratic structure for taxing and rationing conventional
energy sources. But instead of accepting this verdict on its
preferred policy, the administration continued to pursue its
climate initiatives by supporting the Environmental Protection
Agency's unilateral plan to impose emissions restrictions on
American businesses and consumers. In his 2013 State of the
Union address, the President warned Congress if it did not pass
a cap-and-trade bill, he would regulate emissions via executive
fiat--a promise he expanded on in a major climate speech last
summer at Georgetown University. The EPA is poised to make good
on the President's threat by abusing the powers granted in
current law.
The results of misguided administration policies are clear
to see. According to the DOE's Energy Information
Administration, gasoline prices averaged $2.40 a gallon in
2009, the year the President took office. By 2013, gasoline
prices averaged $3.58, the second most expensive annual average
according to its data. (They hit their highest average in
2012.) In 2012, that worked out to $2,912 in average household
gasoline expenditures. (DOE has not provided average household
gasoline expenditures for 2013 yet.) The administration has
created additional barriers for needed capital investment and
job creation by bypassing Congress and implementing regulations
on its own. The result is an administration that is bypassing
Congress, threatening high-wage jobs, increasing energy costs,
and hurting families' pocketbooks.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $2.7 billion in budget authority
and $4.5 billion in outlays in discretionary spending in fiscal
year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $1.5 billion in budget
authority and $1.3 billion in outlays. The totals reflect both
new spending and the incoming repayment of loans, receipts from
the sale of electricity produced by federal entities, and
charges for the disposal of nuclear waste. These proceeds
partially offset spending in this function. The ten-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $30 billion and $32.5
billion, respectively, for discretionary spending. The ten-year
totals for budget authority and outlays are -$23.5 billion and
-$28.6 billion, respectively, for mandatory spending. The
negative balances reflect the proceeds described above fully
offsetting and overcoming future expenditures.
The current administration nearly doubled funding for the
Department of Energy during the President's first term,
excluding funding from the 2009 stimulus bill. The resolution
reduces funding for non-core energy research, loan guarantees
that subsidize corporations, and excess and unnecessary
spending in the DOE's civilian accounts. At the same time,
private-sector innovation in the oil and gas industry, which
doesn't cost the government a dime, increased oil production on
non-federal lands by 31 percent, and gas production on non-
federal lands by 25 percent from fiscal year 2009 to 2012.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\Humphries, Mark, ``U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production in
Federal and Non-Federal Areas,'' Congressional Research Service, 7 Mar.
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illustrative Policy Options

The committees of jurisdiction will determine the policies
to align spending with the 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. 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 $32 billion in new
loans and loan guarantees for private-sector loans for
renewable-energy projects that would not otherwise have been
market-viable.
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-guaranty beneficiaries have included manufacturers
creating jobs overseas, such as Fisker, which was provided over
$500 million and ended up assembling cars in Finland.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Ronnie Greene, ``Car Company Gets
U.S. Loan, Builds Cars in Finland,'' ABC News, 20 Oct. 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 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. The White House's independent report noted that these
DOE loans may increase taxpayers' financial liability. It
stated, ``If the eventual actual loss exceeds the Credit
Subsidy Cost, that incremental loss is absorbed by the
taxpayers.''\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Allison, Herb, ``Report of the Independent Consultant's Review
with Respect to the Department of Energy Loan and Loan Guarantee
Portfolio,'' 31 Jan. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeal Stimulus-Driven Borrowing Authority Specifically for
Green Transmission. The $3.25 billion borrowing authority in
the Western Area Power Administration's Transmission
Infrastructure Program provides loans to develop new
transmission systems aimed solely at integrating renewable
energy. 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.
FUNCTION 300: NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT

Function Summary

The budget resolution recognizes the importance of Function
300 activities--which include water-resources, conservation,
environmental, land-management, and recreational programs--but
bigger government has not led to better government, and the
increase in spending in this function has only invited
mismanagement and duplication.
The fiscal year 2015 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 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. It also
supports the resources and environmental activities in this
function. Specifically, it provides funding for strong
stewardship of wildlife resources, fisheries, oceanography, and
insular areas. Additionally, the resolution provides funding
for responsible management of the National Park System, public
lands nationwide, monuments, and other public objects of
interest. Finally, the budget encourages a cost-effective
approach to environmental regulation and increases funding for
wildfire suppression to ensure funds are available for healthy
forest management and to minimize ecological harm from fires
that do occur.
One of the President's very first initiatives was to cancel
oil and gas leases on onshore federal lands and to delay the
offshore-leasing plan. The administration's opposition to
domestic drilling continued with a 2012-2017 Offshore Lease
Plan Proposal that imposed the same de facto moratorium that
had been lifted in 2008. Oil production on federally controlled
lands and in federally controlled waters declined from 2009 to
2012 by 6 percent, while natural-gas production on federal
property declined 21 percent over the same period.
Additionally, the President refuses to approve the Keystone XL
Pipeline project, which has been in limbo for over five years.
According to the State Department, construction of the Keystone
XL pipeline would create more than 42,000 jobs, while other
studies have estimated the project would create in excess of
100,000 jobs. The project would also contribute billions in
property taxes to communities along the route during the life
of the pipeline.
The economic benefits of expanding oil and gas development
on federal lands are well documented: According to recent
studies, 500,000 new jobs a year in high-wage, high-skill
employment sectors and GDP spill-over effects for $14.4
trillion in cumulative increased economic activity would be
generated over the next 37 years.\48\ But the federal
government is standing in the way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\Dr. Joseph R. Mason, ``Beyond the Congressional Budget Office:
The Additional Economic Effects of Immediately Opening Federal Lands to
Oil and Gas Leasing,'' Institute for Energy Research, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While total U.S oil production is at its highest level in
two decades, production on federal property has declined in
recent years. This is particularly problematic, because the
federal government owns nearly one-third of the land in the
country--an area roughly four times the size of Texas.
Substantial volumes of oil and gas are known to lie under these
government lands. According to the Congressional Research
Service, the U.S.'s combined recoverable natural-gas, oil, and
coal endowment is the largest on earth--not Russia's, Saudi
Arabia's, or China's.\49\ Our country has 223 billion barrels
of recoverable oil\50\ and enough natural gas to meet the
country's demand for over 90 years.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Carl Behrens and Gene Whitney, ``U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources:
Terminology, Reporting and Summary,'' Congressional Research Service,
30 Nov. 2010.
\50\``Technically Recoverable Shale Oil and Shale Gas Resources: An
Assessment of 137 Shale Formations in 41 Countries Outside the United
States,'' U.S. Department of Energy, June 2013.
\51\Id. and ``Natural Gas Consumption by End Use,'' U.S. Energy
Information Administration, Accessed 13 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Resources and Environment budget function funds
major departments and agencies such as the Department of the
Interior, which includes the National Park Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service; conservation-oriented and land-management
agencies within the Department of Agriculture, including the
Forest Service; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in the Department of Commerce; the Army Corps of
Engineers; and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
discussion below elaborates on the budget resolution's
recommended policies in these areas.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $34.3 billion in budget authority
and $39.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary
budget authority in 2015 totals $32.2 billion, with $37.3
billion in related outlays; mandatory spending is $2 billion in
budget authority and $2.1 billion in outlays. Over ten years,
budget authority totals $367.9 billion, and outlays are $375.8
billion.

Illustrative Policy Options

The resolution focuses on paring back unnecessary spending
being used 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 specific 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 (LWCF) has
typically ranged between $250 million and $450 million. The
President's budget requested $900 million for fiscal year 2015
and proposed removing the account from the annual
congressional-review and -appropriations process. The
President's proposed change would occur in two phases. In 2015,
the LWCF would receive a $350 million discretionary
appropriation and $550 million in mandatory spending. Beginning
in 2016, the entire $900 million would become mandatory
spending in perpetuity. The federal government is already
struggling with a maintenance backlog on the millions of acres
it controls--a backlog totaling between $17 and $22 billion--
but the administration is seeking to acquire even more land.
This budget keeps funding for land acquisition under
congressional oversight and 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, primarily by reducing the
funding federal agencies spend on overseas climate-change
activities. It also 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 and bipartisan deficit-
reduction commissions. GAO identified 14 fragmented programs at
Energy, Transportation, 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.
Improve Forest Service Management Practices and Fully Fund
Wildfire Suppression. Wildland Fire Management funding serves
multiple purposes, the most prominent of which are wildfire
prevention and wildfire suppression. The Department of the
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service share wildfire-management
responsibilities and receive funding to do so as part of the
regular appropriations process. Under current law, these
agencies are authorized to shift funds from prevention accounts
into suppression accounts if suppression needs are underfunded.
These transfers occur frequently, because wildfire suppression
is underfunded almost every year. The President's fiscal year
2015 budget adopts a potentially more accurate forecasting
model to better predict wildfire-funding needs. However,
instead of requesting the full amount indicated by their new
model as sufficient funding for wildfire suppression, the
President's budget requests $1.2 billion less than the
projected need and asks Congress to provide the other $1.2
billion outside of the discretionary budget caps enacted by
Congress and the President.
This budget fully funds the President's wildfire-
suppression request, including the additional $1.2 billion,
within the discretionary budget caps for fiscal year 2015. The
budget also calls for improving forest-management practices by
directing the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service
to use the funds provided to remove excess growth and improve
forest health, which will make forests less susceptible to
catastrophic wildfires. The budget assumes adoption of
commonsense reforms under the bipartisan Restoring Health
Forests for Healthy Communities Act, which streamlines the
regulatory process and restores active management to federal
timberlands while protecting the environment. If fully
implemented, the budget would preclude the current practice and
need to frequently transfer funds to the wildfire-suppression
accounts from other Wildland Fire Management accounts, like the
hazardous-fuels-reduction accounts. This will provide important
protections for the accounts that help prevent wildfires.
Finally, to ensure that the suppression accounts are fully
funded in future years, the budget calls on the Office of
Management and Budget to include the U.S. Forest Service's
Outyear Forecast model projections--the ones used in the
President's fiscal year 2015 request--in all future budget
submissions to Congress. The President would be required to
either request an amount at least equal to the amount called
for by the model or, if the President requests less than called
for by the model, provide a side-by-side table of the model's
estimate of needed funding and why he believes those additional
funds are not necessary.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Expand Onshore and Offshore Energy Production. Despite the
existence of abundant domestic resources, the federal
government has adopted policies that hinder American production
of oil and natural gas on federal lands and in federal waters.
Breaking free of future dependence on energy supplies from
countries whose interests differ from ours, requires producing
more energy at home.
Unlocking domestic energy supplies in a safe,
environmentally responsible manner will increase revenues from
bonus bids, rental payments, royalties, and fees. The budget
allows for further access in areas such as Alaska, the Outer
Continental Shelf, including the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Intermountain West.
Finally, the budget encourages the development of American-
made renewable- and alternative-energy sources, including
nuclear, wind, solar, and more, affirming the position that
environmental stewardship and economic growth are not mutually
exclusive goals.
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.
Reflect Current Value for the Use of Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir. Since 1913, the city of San Francisco has paid an
annual $30,000 fee or less to the federal government for its
use of the O'Shaughnessy Dam and the accompanying Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir within Yosemite National Park. San Francisco
generates approximately $40 million in annual hydropower
revenues from the Hetch Hetchy system, yet it has only paid at
most $30,000 annually--or eight cents an acre foot of water for
almost 100 years--not indexed to inflation. This proposal would
remove the century-old fee structure to the city without
affecting wholesale customers and irrigation districts.
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. The recently passed Farm Bill made a
number of reforms to agricultural assistance programs, most
notably eliminating Direct Payments and reforming the nation's
crop-insurance system.
Though farm income in 2014 is projected to be below recent
record-high levels, the Agriculture Department's Economic
Research Service projects that the farm sector's financial
position will remain strong.\52\ With federal deficits
continuing, debt hitting new highs, and food prices going up,
it remains important to reform agricultural-support programs,
while maintaining a strong safety net for farmers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\``Farm Financial Position Expected to Remain Strong Despite a
Forecast Drop in 2014 Income,'' Amber Waves, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 4 Mar. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Committee--Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $19.0 billion in budget authority
and $19.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary
spending in fiscal year 2015 is $6.1 billion in budget
authority and $6.0 billion in outlays; mandatory spending, the
majority of the function's total, is $13.0 billion in budget
authority, with outlays of $13.6 billion. The ten-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $197.9 billion and $193.8
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. The
recently passed Farm Bill reformed commodity programs, most
notably by eliminating Direct Payments. However, this area
remains ripe for reform. The budget takes into consideration
the savings that the Farm Bill achieved and then proposes that
additional savings be found. Under this option, mandatory
agricultural outlays, other than food and nutrition programs,
will be reduced by $23 billion relative to the currently
anticipated levels from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year
2024. These savings could be achieved by continuing to reform
assistance programs for agriculture. Farmers will benefit
greatly from other provisions in this budget, including
regulatory relief, fundamental tax reform, and stronger
economic growth as the burden of federal deficits is lifted
from the economy.
FUNCTION 370: COMMERCE AND HOUSING CREDIT

Function Summary

The Commerce and Housing Credit function includes mortgage
credit; the Postal Service (mostly off-budget); deposit
insurance; and most of the activities of the Departments of
Commerce and Housing and Urban Development. The mortgage-credit
component of this function includes housing assistance through
the Federal Housing Administration, the Federal National
Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, the Government National Mortgage Association, 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, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal
Communications Commission, and the majority of the Small
Business Administration.
The federal government's commerce and housing activities
should focus their efforts to bolster free enterprise, economic
growth, and upward mobility. 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 Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, as well as
putting a stop to taxpayer subsidies and bailouts for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

In this function, the budget resolution provides for -$4.3
billion in budget authority and -$15.8 billion in outlays in
fiscal year 2015. Of that total, 2015 discretionary spending is
-$12.9 billion in budget authority and -$12.5 billion in
outlays. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $8.6 billion in budget
authority and -$3.4 billion in outlays. The function totals
over ten years are -$67.4 billion in budget authority and
-$244.7 billion in outlays.
On-budget totals for fiscal year 2015 are -$3.2 billion in
budget authority and -$14.8 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary budget authority is -$13.2 billion, with
outlays of -$12.7 billion. Mandatory on-budget spending for
fiscal year 2015 is $10.0 billion in budget authority and -$2.0
billion in outlays. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are
-$52.4 billion in budget authority and -$229.6 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, 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).
Off-budget totals for fiscal year 2015 are -$1.1 billion in
budget authority and -$1.1 billion in outlays. Of these
amounts, discretionary totals are $263 million in budget
authority and $263 million in outlays. Over ten 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 2015 is -$1.3 billion in budget
authority and -$1.3 billion in outlays. Over ten years, the
mandatory off-budget totals are -$18.2 billion in budget
authority and -$18.2 billion in outlays. The negative totals
for budget authority and outlays in the off-budget portion of
this function represent savings from recommended policy
proposals described below for the U.S. Postal Service.

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-finance, 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. Subsidies to businesses 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 $7 billion over ten 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.
For example, as of March 2013, the SEC had 3,950 full-time
employees, and an average salary across the agency of over
$155,000. SEC's budget has risen by more than 45 percent since
fiscal year 2007. If the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request were granted, SEC's budget would grow by another 26
percent in just one fiscal year.
In its 2014 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 and its
aftermath, 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 bail-out of Bear Stearns and the
collapse of Lehman Brothers and fed 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; the SEC
failed to examine the Reserve Primary Fund, a large
money market fund that broke-the-buck in September
2008; 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; and the SEC was missing in
action as Bernard Madoff and Allen Stanford perpetrated
the two largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history. These
failures have taken place despite significant increases
in funding at the SEC, which has seen its budget
increase almost 66 percent since 2004.

This resolution questions the premise that more funding for
the SEC means better, smarter regulation. Adding reams of
regulations to the books and scores of regulators to the
payrolls will not provide greater transparency, consumer
protection, and enforcement for increasingly complex markets.
Instead, the SEC should streamline and make more efficient its
operations and resources; defray taxpayer expenses by
designating self-regulatory organizations (subject to SEC
oversight) to perform needed examinations of investment
advisors; and enhance 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 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. Having outlived their original
purpose, both programs should be terminated.
Terminate Corporation for Travel Promotion. In 2010,
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 any industry. Moreover, the
travel industry can and should pay for the advertising that it
benefits from.
Restrict FDIC Authority Provided by Dodd-Frank to Bail Out
Bank Creditors. Dodd-Frank 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.
Although the proponents of Dodd-Frank went to great lengths
to denounce bailouts, this law only sustains them. The Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation now has the authority to access
taxpayer dollars in order to bail out the creditors of large,
``systemically significant'' financial institutions. 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 for 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. Dodd-Frank was
written to provide off-budget financing for the new bureau,
which is housed within the Federal Reserve but enjoys complete
autonomy. 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,'' outside the annual oversight of Congress through
the appropriations process.
Privatize the Business of Government-Controlled Mortgage
Giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2008, the federal
government placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into
conservatorship to prevent them from going bankrupt. Treasury
has already provided $187 billion in bailouts to Fannie and
Freddie, and as long as the entities remain in conservatorship,
taxpayers remain exposed to Fannie and Freddie's over $5
trillion of outstanding commitments. 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, leaving
the entities off budget. Despite recent dividend payments by
Fannie and Freddie, both enterprises continue to assume
outsized risks that place the taxpayer in jeopardy in the event
of future downturns in the housing market.
Since Treasury stepped in to provide additional bailout
funds, Fannie and Freddie's dominance in the mortgage market
has grown. In 2013, the GSEs accounted for 60 percent of first-
lien mortgage originations, with FHA and VA backing an
additional 19 percent. In 2005 and 2006, the GSE's share of
first-lien originations was closer to 30 percent. Additionally,
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae now dominate the market
for the issuance of new single-family, mortgage-backed
securities with a combined 99 percent market share.
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, this resolution envisions
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,
which could include measures described in H.R. 2767, the
Protecting American Taxpayers and Homeowners Act of 2013.
Reform the Credit Reform Act to Incorporate Fair-Value
Accounting Principles. As the exposure of the taxpayer to
Fannie and Freddie continues, taxpayers are also exposed to
bailing out another housing giant: the Federal Housing
Administration. The capital ratio of FHA's Mutual Mortgage
Insurance fund has remained below the congressionally mandated
2 percent level since the financial crisis. While the capital
ratio improved from fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2013, it
was still negative at the conclusion of the last fiscal year.
Additionally, FHA drew $1.7 billion from Treasury in 2013
because it did not have sufficient funds to cover expected
future losses.
Given the precarious financial position of the FHA, the
government should adopt measures to control the assumption of
risk by FHA as other government-backed entities (e.g., Fannie
and Freddie) are wound down. Right now, the budget accounts for
the risks carried by FHA differently than how it accounts for
those of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These differences simply
encourage just such a shift in risk.
The cost of FHA-insured loans are scored by calculating the
net present value of the cash flows associated with loans and
discounting those flows using risk-free marketable Treasury
security rate. In contrast, CBO uses fair-value accounting for
Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-guaranteed loans. Fair-value
accounting 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 requires CBO to provide supplemental
estimates using fair-value scoring for federally backed
mortgages and mortgage-backed securities, regardless of which
federal agency is acting as the insurer or guarantor.
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.
The housing-finance system of the future, however, should 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 is in
desperate need of structural reforms. In fiscal year 2013, USPS
had an operating loss of $1 billion and defaulted on another
$5.6 billion payment to prefund the retirement health care of
their employees. As of fiscal year 2013, the USPS had a total
of approximately $112 billion in unfunded long-term debt,
including promised health-benefit compensation for Postal
retirees, workers' compensation, and debt owed to the Treasury.
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 25 percent since 2006. The budget also
recognizes the need to reform compensation of postal employees
who currently pay a smaller share of the costs of their health
and life-insurance premiums than other federal employees. Taken
together, these reforms are estimated to save about $19 billion
over ten years and would help restore USPS solvency.
FUNCTION 400: TRANSPORTATION

Function Summary

This budget function includes ground, air, water, and other
transportation funding. The major agencies and programs here
include the Department of Transportation (which includes the
Federal Aviation Administration; 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; and the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $34.7 billion in budget authority
and $80.7 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary
budget authority in 2015 is $30.9 billion, with outlays of
$79.4 billion; and mandatory spending is $3.8 billion in budget
authority and $1.3 billion in outlays. The large discrepancies
between budget authority and outlays here result 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 ten years, budget authority totals
$734.6 billion, with outlays of $789.1 billion.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)
surface-transportation authorization act provided stable
funding for major construction projects in 2013 and 2014.
However, the law did not include reforms to keep the program
solvent beyond the authorization period.
Maintaining the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and the
policy of the trust fund being user-fee supported is a
priority. With the Highway Trust Fund facing insolvency in late
2014 or early 2015, efforts need to be made to find a long-term
solution to the trust fund's financial challenges. The budget
recognizes the need for continued reforms in this area to
adequately maintain, improve, and--where appropriate--expand
infrastructure. Though the federal-aid highway program was
intended to be fully financed by gas-tax revenues, the fund has
recently operated at spending levels well in excess of gas-tax
receipts. The Highway Trust Fund's financing shortfall has been
building for years. Over the next decade, CBO anticipates this
gap to continue to increase under current spending levels and
policy, causing the Highway Trust Fund to run average annual
cash deficits of $16 to $17 billion.
As a result of these chronic shortfalls, the trust fund has
required several large general-fund contributions totaling more
than $52 billion since 2008, in addition to a general-fund
transfer of $27.5 billion for transportation in the 2009
stimulus. MAP-21 included $18.8 billion in general-fund
transfers that were for the first time offset by spending
reductions in other programs and a $2.4 billion transfer from
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Despite these large recent infusions, CBO estimates that
the Highway Trust Fund still faces insolvency in 2015 once MAP-
21 expires. Over the next decade, CBO projects a growing gap
causing the Highway Trust Fund to run cumulative cash deficits
of nearly $173 billion within the budget window.
A loophole in budget rules allows Congress to bail out the
Highway Trust Fund without the transfer of taxpayer resources
being recorded as a net increase in spending or deficits. The
budget resolution once again includes a reform to close this
loophole and ensure that any future transfer is fully offset.
Instead of continuing to rely on general-fund transfers for
solvency going forward, the Congress needs to address the
systemic factors that have been driving the trust fund's
bankruptcy. Congress also needs to continue to reform the
critical surface-transportation infrastructure and safety
programs to put them on sound financial footing.
The budget supports maintaining essential funding for
surface transportation, aviation, and safety--offset by
reductions in other transportation activities of lower priority
to the federal government. As is true elsewhere, specific
policy decisions will be determined by the committees of
jurisdiction. The options below suggest one set of policies
that can help meet the budget's levels.

Illustrative Policy Options

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Eliminate Funding for Amtrak Operating Subsidies. The
budget supports eliminating operating subsidies that have been
insulating Amtrak from making the structural reforms necessary
to start producing returns. The 1997 Amtrak authorization law
required Amtrak to operate free of subsidies by 2002. The
budget supports continued reforms for Amtrak as well as
reductions in headquarters and administrative costs for
agencies.
Reductions in Transportation Security Agency Funding.
Enhanced operational efficiencies can be obtained without
compromising security priorities. Recently, wasteful
procurement practices led to over $185 million in screening
equipment sitting unused in expensive storage facilities.
Moreover, TSA has denied applications from airports to opt out
of federal screener operations without adequate justification.
Applications for private screening that meet security
requirements and could improve cost-efficiency goals should be
approved expeditiously.
Prioritize Rail Safety. The budget supports the vital role
of the Federal Railroad Administration in ensuring freight and
passenger-rail safety, while reducing spending in non-essential
transportation programs.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Ensure Solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. The budget
recognizes that the Highway Trust Fund is projected by CBO to
run negative balances in fiscal year 2015 under current levels
of spending. By existing law and cash-management practices, the
Department of Transportation would need to slow down or reduce
spending upon the exhaustion of trust-fund balances. Congress
needs to reform this critically important trust fund to put it
on a sound financial footing without further bailouts that
increase the deficit.
The budget recommends sensible reforms to avert the
bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund by aligning spending from
the Trust Fund with incoming revenues collected. The budget
also includes a provision to ensure any future general-fund
transfers will be fully offset, while at the same time
providing flexibility for a surface-transportation
reauthorization that does not increase the deficit. The budget
includes a reserve fund to provide for the adjustment of budget
levels for consideration of surface-transportation legislation,
as long as that legislation is deficit neutral.
Further, the budget recognizes the need to explore
innovative financing mechanisms to support surface-
transportation infrastructure and safety programs--for example,
with further public-private sector partnerships demonstrated in
the TIFIA program. The budget also recommends giving states
more flexibility to fund the highway projects they feel are
most critical. One possible reform could include a pilot
program for states to fund their transportation priorities with
state revenues, opt out of the federal gas tax, and forgo
federal allocations.
Phase Out Subsidies for Essential Air Service. Essential
Air Service [EAS] is a classic example of a temporary
government program that has become immortal. EAS funding--
originally intended to provide transitional assistance to small
communities to adjust to the airline deregulation in the late
1970s--has not only continued but has grown rapidly in recent
years.
FUNCTION 450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Function Summary

This function includes programs that provide federal
funding for economic and community development in both urban
and rural areas, including Community Development Block Grants;
the non-power activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority; the
regional commissions, including the Appalachian Regional
Commission; the Economic Development Administration; 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 part of the funding for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
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 $14.6 billion in budget authority
and $23.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary
budget authority in 2015 is $13.3 billion, with $21.9 billion
in associated outlays. Mandatory spending in 2015 is $1.3
billion in budget authority and $1.7 billion in outlays. The
ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $154.5
billion and $170.5 billion, respectively.

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. Historically, about 80 to
90 percent of funding for the CDF is spent on the Community
Development Block Grant program. CDBG is an annual formula
grant directed to state and local governments to address a
broad array of initiatives. In 2014, $3.1 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.
Focus DHS Urban Area Security Initiative Grants to Tier 1
Cities. Urban Area Security Initiative grants to over 30 cities
have not produced measurable results for the most critical
cities. This proposal would limit the grants to Tier 1, or the
top ten cities, on a risk-based formula basis.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Reforms. The budget
supports implementation of FEMA reforms passed by Congress to
improve service delivery and cost-efficiencies in state and
local programs, while at the same time proposing further steps
to eliminate overlap and inefficiencies 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. From 1953
to 1992, presidents made 1,153 total disaster declarations--
including Major Disasters Declarations, Emergency Declarations,
and Fire Management Assistance Declarations--for an average of
29 declarations per year.\53\ The last three administrations
alone have made more than 2,400 declarations to date, including
a single-year high of 242 made by the current administration in
2011. 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.
This 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

Reduce Energy Subsidies for Commercial Interests. The
budget recommends spending reductions for rural green-energy
loan guarantees. These loan guarantees come with federal
mandates that channel private investments into financing the
administration's preferred interests at taxpayers' expense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Federal Emergency Management Agency, ``Disaster Declarations by
Year,'' Mar. 2014.
FUNCTION 500: EDUCATION, TRAINING,
EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Function Summary

A well-educated workforce is one of the key drivers of
strong economic growth. In the face of global and technological
advances that have made the modern economy more complex and
dynamic, it is imperative that all Americans have the
opportunity to access a high-quality education. But even though
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 them 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. The Government Accountability Office
[GAO] has identified many areas that are ripe for reform. In
the area of education, their reports have identified 82
separate programs designed to improve teacher quality across
ten 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 $73.9 billion in budget authority
and $91.8 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. In that year,
discretionary spending is $92.1 billion in budget authority and
$95.6 billion in outlays; mandatory spending in 2015 is -$18.2
billion in budget authority and -$3.9 billion in outlays. Over
ten years, spending in this function totals $864 billion in
budget authority and $889 billion in outlays.
The negative mandatory numbers are due to the direct-
lending program, in which the Department of Education acts
effectively as a bank making student loans. However, for
reasons addressed later in this section, these projected future
savings are misleading because they fail to account for the
market risk of the loans.

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. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reports that 10.5 million Americans are unemployed.
Yet they also report 4 million job openings. This gap is due in
part to the failure of the nation's workforce-development
programs to successfully match workers' skills with employers'
needs. Federal job-training programs are balkanized, difficult
to access, and lacking in accountability. In January 2011, the
GAO issued a report that identified 47 federal employment and
training programs that overlap with at least one other program,
providing similar services to similar populations. Together,
those GAO-identified programs spent $18 billion in fiscal year
2009, including stimulus dollars. Since GAO issued that report,
the Education and the Workforce Committee has conducted
extensive work in this arena and added to the list, identifying
more than 50 duplicative and overlapping programs.
This bureaucratic nightmare fails workers and employers
alike and wastes taxpayer dollars. Senator Coburn has presented
a report highlighting the high amount of waste, fraud, and
abuse that occurs in these programs. Even President Obama noted
in his 2012 State of the Union address that the maze of
confusing training programs must be cut through. He echoed the
request in his 2014 State of the Union address, charging Vice
President Biden with conducting a review of the job-training
system, despite the work already done by GAO and the Education
and the Workforce Committee. To that end, 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
reported legislation to that end, which passed the House in
March 2013.
This budget improves accountability by calling for the
consolidation of duplicative federal job-training programs into
more targeted career-scholarship programs. This budget will
also improve these programs' accountability by tracking the
type of training provided, the cost per trainee, employment
after training, and whether the trainee secures a job in his or
her preferred field. 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 2015 budget. The College Cost
Reduction and Access Act of 2007, the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008, the ``stimulus'' bill, and the Student
Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2010 all made Pell Grants
more generous than the federal budget could afford. These laws
expanded eligibility for Pell Grants and increased Pell Grant
funding. These expansions, along with a dramatic rise in the
number of eligible students due to the recession, have caused
program costs to explode since 2008, from $16.1 billion in 2008
to an estimated $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2015. Pell was
traditionally funded as a discretionary program. Instead of
confronting the cost drivers of the program, a Democratic
Congress began to increasingly rely on mandatory funding to
solve its discretionary shortfalls. Based on current CBO
estimates, the program will again face a shortfall in fiscal
year 2016.
Instead of making necessary, long-term reforms, previous
Congresses 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's past
budgets have failed to make the tough choices about the future
of Pell Grants. For instance, his fiscal year 2015 budget only
provides funding for an increased level of award through the
2016-2017 award year. These decisions put the program at
greater risk of ultimately being unable to fulfill its promises
to students.
Reforms are necessary to enable the program to continue
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 attributed 14 percent of program growth
between 2008 and 2011 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, such as the expansions of the level at which a student
qualifies for an automatic zero Expected Family Contribution
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.
Consider reforms to Return of Title IV Funds
regulations. Simple changes to this policy, such as increasing
the amount of time a student must attend class in order to
withdraw without debt owed for back assistance, will increase
the likelihood of students completing their courses and lower
incentives for fraud.
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 maintaining the maximum award for the 2013-2014
award year of $5,730 in each year of the budget window. This
award would be fully funded through discretionary spending.
Encourage Policies That Promote Innovation. Federal higher-
education policy 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, which was last
reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The budget also
recommends that the committees of jurisdiction terminate and
reduce programs that are failing to improve student achievement
and 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. 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 provide
funding to students and others who work in certain areas of
public service. Participation in these programs is not based on
need. The United States has a long history of robust volunteer
work and other efforts that provide services to communities and
individuals. Americans' generosity in contributing their time
and money to these efforts is extraordinary and should be
encouraged. However, 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
a percentage 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.
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. 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. In February, the House Committee on the
Budget reported H.R. 1872, the Budget and Accounting
Transparency Act of 2014, 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 some of the future spending by repealing the
expansion of the Income-Based Repayment program. SAFRA made the
income-based repayment plan more generous for new borrowers of
Direct Loans. This program, created by the CCRAA and
accelerated by the administration, is still relatively new.
Moreover, there are concerns that the expansions could
disproportionately benefit graduate and professional students.
Congress should ensure the program is meeting its intended
goals before it is expanded.
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 will
grow at a rate of 9 percent per year through 2018--far faster
than the growth of the overall economy. The Congressional
Budget Office projects federal spending on this program to be
$298 billion in fiscal year 2014. This is expected to nearly
double within the next ten years, reaching $574 billion by
fiscal year 2024.
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' 2012 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook on
Medicaid, total state spending will rise from about $157
billion in fiscal year 2011 to $317 billion in fiscal year
2021.
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 them for 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 $792
billion over the 2015-2024 period. This is due to the millions
of new beneficiaries that the law drives into the program. In
fact, CBO estimates that in 2024, 13 million new enrollees will
be added to the Medicaid program as a result of the Affordable
Care Act.
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 Affordable Care Act's exchange subsidies;
State Children's Health Insurance Program; health research and
training, including the National Institutes of Health 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 $419.8 billion in budget authority
and $416.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015.
Discretionary spending for the year is $55.7 billion in budget
authority and $59.1 billion in outlays; mandatory spending is
$364.1 billion in budget authority and $357.4 billion in
outlays. The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays
are $4.12 trillion and $4.11 trillion, respectively.

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 critical, and one set of potential approaches is
described below.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Provide State Flexibility on Medicaid. One way to secure
the Medicaid benefit is by converting the federal share of
Medicaid spending into an allotment that each state could
tailor to meet its 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 to tailor a Medicaid program
that fit the needs of its unique population.
The budget resolution proposes to transform 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.
There are numerous examples across the country where states
have used the existing, but limited, flexibility of Medicaid's
waiver program to introduce innovative reforms that produced
cost savings, quality improvements, and beneficiary
satisfaction. The state of Indiana implemented such reforms
through the Healthy Indiana Plan, a patient-centered system
that provided health coverage to uninsured residents who didn't
qualify for Medicaid. Enrollees in this program had access to
benefits such as physician services, prescription drugs, both
patient and outpatient hospital care, and disease management.
The Medicaid reforms proposed in the fiscal year 2015
budget provide all states with the necessary flexibility to
pursue reforms similar to the Indiana plan.
Based on this kind of reform, this budget assumes $732
billion in savings over ten 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 in Medicaid, the new health-care
law would increase the eligible population for the program by
one-third. For fiscal years 2015 through 2024, CBO projects the
new law will increase federal spending by $792 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 $792.4
billion over ten years.
Repeal the Exchange Subsidies Created by the New Health-
Care Law. According to CBO estimates, the health law proposes
to spend $1.2 trillion over the next ten 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 or make health decisions that violate their
religious beliefs. This budget provides for the repeal of 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 health-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 $1.2
trillion over ten years. To be clear, this budget repeals all
federal spending related to the health law's exchange subsidies
and related spending. CBO's $1.2 trillion 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. This budget assumes full repeal of
all of the new health-care law's tax increases as part of
comprehensive tax reform.
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 2012, gross federal
spending for Medicare rose from 0.7 percent of GDP to 3.7
percent. In CBO's latest Long-Term Budget Outlook, mandatory
spending on Medicare is projected to reach 5 percent of GDP by
2040 and 9.4 percent of GDP by 2088. Medicare's trustees
project that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be
bankrupt by 2026.
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 Program, Part B Supplementary Medical
Insurance 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, though many low-income enrollees
receive larger subsidies; general funds cover most of the
remaining cost.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $519.2 billion in budget authority
and $519.4 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015.
Discretionary spending is $6.7 billion in budget authority and
$6.6 in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015
is $512.5 billion in budget authority and $512.8 in outlays.
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $6.8
trillion and $6.8 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 is intended to be an insurance program that
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. Medicare is an open-
ended, blank-check entitlement that operates under a rigid and
bureaucratic fee-for-service payment system. This current
structure 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. Unfortunately, the government has
been slow to innovate and 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 who
enter the program before 2024, 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 2024, seniors (those who first become eligible
by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2024) 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. For those who were 55
or older in 2013, they would remain in the traditional Medicare
system.
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.
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. In September 2013, the Congressional Budget Office
analyzed illustrative options of a premium support system. They
found that a program in which the premium-support payment was
based on the average bid of participating plans would result in
savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal
government.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\Congressional Budget Office, ``A Premium Support System for
Medicare: Analysis of Illustrative Options,'' 18 Sept. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, 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 to 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 before 2024, all seniors would have the
choice to opt in to the new Medicare program once it began in
2024. This budget envisions giving seniors the freedom to
choose a plan best suited for them, guaranteeing health
security throughout their retirement years. Also starting in
2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise
gradually to correspond with Social Security's retirement age
and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a
single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance
policies.
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''--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 ten 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. The reimbursement-reform process should also
protect seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans from
premium increases, benefit reductions and loss of coverage
options that would result from certain assumptions made by the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid with respect to the SGR.
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 repeals the health-care law's new rationing board,
the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
Medical-Liability-Insurance Reform. This budget also
advances commonsense 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.
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,
with the same provisions the President's proposed in his fiscal
year 2014 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
federal-employee-retirement and disability benefits (including
military retirees); general retirement and disability insurance
(excluding Social Security)--mainly through the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation--and benefits to railroad 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, the government's principal welfare program;
Supplemental Security Income; spending for the refundable
portion of the Earned Income Credit; and the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. 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 $505.7 billion in budget authority
and $505.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015.
Discretionary spending is $62.3 billion in budget authority and
$64.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory
spending in 2015 is $443.4 billion in budget authority and
$440.4 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for mandatory
budget authority and outlays are $4.4 trillion and $4.4
trillion, respectively.
The Committee's recommendation is a disciplined budget that
will require committees of jurisdiction and agencies to set
priorities and achieve efficiencies. In addition to
implementing needed reforms in these programs, it will avoid
the sudden and arbitrary benefit cuts that would result in the
event of a fiscal crisis.

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

Reform Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Outreach
Funding. This budget assumes that outreach funding for the SNAP
program is reduced, and the reduction is shifted toward
programs that facilitate upward mobility, such as properly
reformed job-training programs.
Make Responsible Reforms to Housing-Assistance Programs.
This resolution supports taking actions that would make
housing-assistance programs more sustainable and work to direct
federal dollars to serve those most in need. Spending on the
Tenant-Based Section 8 program increased by 80 percent from
2005 to 2013. However, HUD's most recent Worst Case Housing
Needs Report to Congress suggests the number of families who
are severely rent burdened or live in substandard conditions
continues to grow.\55\ Reforms are needed both to ensure the
affordability of these programs to the taxpayer and to ensure
that assistance is available to those most in need. One reform
could include the gradual expansion of the Moving to Work
program to high-performing public housing authorities. Moving
to Work gives public housing authorities more flexibility in
how they spend funds so that they can serve families more
efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\``Worst Case Housing Needs 2011: Report to Congress,'' U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Feb. 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANDATORY SPENDING

Block-Grant the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
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 $83 billion in 2013. Although the increase between 2008 and
2013 is partially due to the recession, SNAP spending is
forecast to be permanently higher than previous estimates even
after the recession is long past. A variety of factors are
driving this growth, but one major reason is that though 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 2019--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 $125 billion over
ten years.
Eliminate Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility. Broad-based
categorical eligibility allows households to become eligible
for SNAP by receiving a minimal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families 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 provides low-income families with help to
pay heating bills. However, states can provide as little as $20
in LIHEAP benefits in order to increase SNAP benefits (see
``Categorical Eligibility'' above). The recently passed Farm
Bill reformed this practice, but it did not end the abuse
entirely--and this proposal would.
Eliminate the Failed Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]
Housing Subsidies. This resolution supports ending the loan-
subsidy initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program
[HAMP], created by the Obama administration as a part of TARP
for distressed homeowners. In addition to serving far fewer
households than planned, HAMP has experienced alarmingly high
re-default rates. The Special Inspector General for the
Troubled Asset Relief Program's most recent quarterly report
states that $1.1 billion of TARP monies have been spent through
HAMP on modifications that ultimately re-defaulted.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\``Quarterly Report to Congress,'' Office of the Special
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 29 Jan. 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate Certain Waivers from Work Requirements for Abled-
Bodied Adults without Dependents. H.R. 3102, the Nutrition
Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013 included the
elimination of certain waivers from SNAP work requirements for
Abled-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWDs). As was
demonstrated by the welfare reforms of the 1990s, work
requirements are central to ensuring that public assistance
helps individuals transition to independence.
Institute Welfare Work Requirements. The Obama
administration, in contravention of current law, has claimed
authority to waive the work requirements of the Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families program. This budget calls for
rescinding any authority the Obama administration thinks it has
to provide for waivers of the work requirement of the TANF
program. It assumes that President Clinton and the Republican
majority at the time were correct in requiring robust work
requirements for the TANF program, which contributed to the
largest sustained reduction in child poverty since the onset of
the ``Great Society.'' It also calls for the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to test work-first pilot
projects under the authority granted by Sec. 4022 of the
Agriculture Act of 2014.
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 reform
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. 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. This option would save an estimated $125
billion over ten years.
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 who receives benefits. This reform would create
a sliding scale for children on SSI. Advocates for the disabled
have expressed support in the past for creating a sliding scale
for children on SSI. For example, Jonathan Stein--the lead
advocate attorney in the landmark 1990 Supreme Court Case
expanding SSI eligibility for children and witness for the
Democrats at an October 27, 2011 Ways and Means Subcommittee
hearing on SSI--in 1995 said the following about this proposal:
``[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.''\57\ Additionally, Congress should review mental-
health categories in the children's SSI program, which have
been the fastest-growing categories of eligibility. These
reforms could save up to $5 billion over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\U.S. House, Committee on Ways and Means. Contract with America:
Welfare Reform, Part 2, Hearing, February 2, 1995 (Serial No. 104-44).
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the Ability to Receive Both Unemployment
Insurance and Disability Insurance. This option would eliminate
the ability of individuals to receive both Unemployment
Insurance benefits and Disability Insurance benefits. A
condition of receiving UI benefits is that the individual is
available and seeking work. In direct contradiction, Disability
Insurance is available to benefit only those who are unable to
work. The President included a similar proposal in his fiscal
year 2015 budget. This could save up to $5.4 billion over ten
years.
FUNCTION 650: SOCIAL SECURITY

Function Summary

This category consists of the Social Security Program, or
Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. It is the largest
budget function in terms of outlays and provides funds for the
government's largest entitlement programs. Under provisions of
the Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Enforcement Act,
the 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, though 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 calling
on policymakers to come to the table and enact commonsense
reforms to keep the program solvent for current beneficiaries
and make it stronger for future generations.
More immediately, the Disability Insurance program is
expected to go bankrupt in 2016. This will require a nearly 25
percent cut to the benefits of current recipients. The Obama
administration has called on diverting funds from the
retirement system (Old Age and Survivors Insurance or OASI) for
Social Security to the Disability Insurance system.\58\ This
will accelerate the insolvency of the OASI trust fund,
necessitating earlier cuts to Social Security benefits for
current and future retirees. This budget does not support the
raid on the OASI trust fund--rather, it continues to call for a
bipartisan solution to Social Security's finances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\In March 5 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Sylvia
Burwell said that the administration supported ``Congress for taking
the efforts that it [has] historically taken with regard to
reallocation of the trust.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Disability Insurance program has seen huge growth over
the past decades. According to a 2012 report by the
Congressional Budget Office, the share of working-age adults
receiving Disability Insurance benefits rose from 1.3 percent
to 4.5 percent. CBO also predicts that the share of working-age
adults will continue to rise, reaching 5.0 percent in 2022.
This increase in the number of adults on Disability Insurance
has also sharply increased spending. As a percentage of GDP,
the DI program was .27 percent in 1970; CBO is projecting that
in 2024 the DI program will be .72 percent of GDP.

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
$31.4 billion in budget authority and $31.5 billion in outlays
in fiscal year 2015. Over ten years, the on-budget totals are
$453.5 billion in budget authority and $453.6 billion in
outlays.
In the off-budget category, the budget calls for $864.5
billion in budget authority for fiscal year 2015 and $860.5
billion in outlays for fiscal year 2015. Over ten years, the
off-budget totals are $11.4 trillion in budget authority and
$10.3 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 2010, 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.
Social Security is currently 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. In testimony before the
House Budget Committee, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf stated
that:

Well, again, Congressman, on a unified budget basis,
taking account of just the tax revenues, the dedicated
tax revenues, and the benefits, [Social Security] is
contributing [to] the deficit now. If one instead looks
at just the balance in the Social Security Trust Fund,
that balance is, the annual balance is positive now,
but will be negative within about a half dozen
years.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\U.S. House, Committee on the Budget. The Congressional Budget
Office's Budget and Economic Outlook, Hearing, 13 Feb. 2013 (Serial No.
113-1). Washington: Government Printing Office, 2013.

Social Security's fragile condition poses a serious problem
that threatens to break the broader compact in which workers
support current retirees, 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 support 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 fails to the meet 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 took several 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. To be clear, nothing in this budget calls for the
privatization of Social Security.

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 provision would then
require congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas
as well. Although, in the House, the Committee on Ways and
Means would make the final determination, this provision 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's 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

Function 700 includes funding for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, which provides benefits to veterans who meet
various eligibility rules. Benefit programs include veterans'
medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education
and rehabilitation benefits, and housing programs. Function 700
also includes other government agencies and programs that serve
veterans, such as the Department of Labor's Veterans'
Employment and Training Service, the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the American Battle Monuments
Commission.
The past two decades have seen extraordinary growth in
funding for benefits and services for the nation's 22 million
veterans. Over the past decade, veterans discretionary spending
(mostly health care) has increased 80 percent, while mandatory
costs have increased 119 percent, mostly attributable to
increasing disability compensation and the expansion of
benefits.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $153.0 billion in budget authority
and $153.0 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015.
Discretionary spending is $65.5 billion in budget authority and
$65.5 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. This in an
increase of 3 percent from last year's discretionary level.
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $87.6 billion in budget authority
and $87.5 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $1.8 trillion and $1.8 trillion,
respectively.
This resolution also accommodates up to $58.662 billion for
fiscal year 2016 in advance appropriations for medical care,
consistent with the Veterans Health Care Budget and Reform
Transparency Act of 2009.
This budget does not assume any savings in Function 700 and
fully funds the nation's commitment to the services and
benefits earned by veterans through their selfless military
service. This budget matches the President's discretionary
request for fiscal year 2015, in addition to matching the
President's fiscal year 2016 request for advance appropriations
for veteran medical care. It also fully funds the mandatory
benefits provided for under current law according to CBO's
estimates. As of the writing of this concurrent resolution, CBO
has yet to revise its current-law baseline, and the resolution
provides the authority for the chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust the mandatory funding levels in this budget to
reflect CBO's updated baseline. Veterans are, and will remain,
the highest priority within this budget.
However, the committee is concerned with the VA's progress
in eliminating the disability-claims backlog and ending veteran
homelessness. While funding for the Veterans Benefits
Administration and homelessness initiatives has significantly
increased in recent years to achieve these goals by 2015,
success remains elusive. The committee will continue to closely
monitor VA's progress to ensure resources provided by Congress
are sufficient and efficiently used to achieve these top
priorities as soon as possible.
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. It includes most of the Department of Justice and
several components of the Department of Homeland Security.
Activities funded within this function include the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration;
border security; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives; the United States Attorneys; legal divisions within
the Department of Justice; the Legal Services Corporation; the
Federal Judiciary; and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $54 billion in budget authority
and $54.3 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Discretionary
spending is $52.1 billion in budget authority and $52.8 billion
in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Mandatory spending in 2015 is
$1.9 billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays.
The ten-year totals for budget authority and outlays are $619.9
billion and $619.3 billion, respectively.
According to the Government Accountability Office [GAO],
from fiscal year 2005 to 2011, over $30 billion was 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.\60\ The GAO
has determined that many of these grants were awarded without
consideration of overlap or duplication with other DOJ grant
programs, leading to significant waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\Government Accountability Office, ``2012 Annual Report:
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve
Savings, and Enhance Revenue,'' Feb. 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the risk of terrorism as well as a tidal wave of debt,
federal taxpayer money for the Departments of Justice and
Homeland Security should be focused on administering justice,
arresting and prosecuting terrorists, investigating crimes, and
seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior. Local
law enforcement is the responsibility of the states and
communities, and they should determine the best course of
action in deterring crime. This budget focuses on funding core
government responsibilities and reducing duplication, excess,
and unnecessary spending.

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 and GAO
have identified overlap and duplication within many of these
grant programs, and it is clear that they 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.
Eliminate Unnecessary Headquarters Funding for DHS, DOJ,
and Judiciary. Underperforming IT projects, representational
fees for receptions, and new construction funds should be
reduced in agency headquarters' management and operations
programs. The budget recommends additional scrutiny of cost
overruns of DHS's St. Elizabeth's project, the largest federal
building project in D.C. since the Pentagon.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Extend Customs User Fees. Continuing the policy of the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, the budget assumes that the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection continues to collect
customs user fees through 2024. With the passage of the BBA,
authority to collect these fees expires in 2023.
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); the Office of Personnel Management; 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 stimulus act increased the General
Services Administration's budget by $5.8 billion, for example.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $23.7 billion in budget authority
and $23.6 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2015. Of that
total, discretionary spending in fiscal year 2015 totals $17.3
billion in budget authority and $16.8 billion in outlays.
Mandatory spending in 2015 is $6.4 billion in budget authority
and $6.8 billion in outlays. The ten-year totals for budget
authority and outlays are $247.3 billion and $244.3 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
where savings should be achieved. Although the committees of
jurisdiction will determine the actual policies in pursuit of
these goals, the options below offer several potential
approaches.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Adopt ``YouCut'' Proposals. The budget 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. The
budget reflects the changes to the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund due to the passage of the Gabriella Miller Kids
First Research Act.

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Decrease Costs of the Government Printing Office by
Increasing the Use of Electronic Copies. The GPO prints
thousands upon thousands of pages of government documents each
year. However, the online presence of this material has become
ubiquitous. This resolution supports policy that guides the GPO
to print materials on a more selective basis, allowing users to
rely more heavily on increased electronic access to materials.
Terminate the Election Assistance Commission. 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. The National
Association of Secretaries of State, the association of state
officials responsible for administering elections, has passed
resolutions stating that the EAC has served its purpose, and
funding is no longer necessary. The EAC should be eliminated
and any valuable, residual functions transferred to the Federal
Election Commission.
Accompany Pro-Growth Tax Reform With Responsible Reductions
to the Internal Revenue Service. The IRS has over 85,500
employees and spends more than $12 billion annually. The
Internal Revenue Code now contains approximately 4 million
words, and each year taxpayers and businesses spend over 6
billion hours complying with filing requirements.\61\ The
President's budget makes the tax code more complex and proposes
to increase the IRS budget by approximately $1.2 billion. This
resolution calls for simplifying the burdensome tax code
through tax reform, naturally reducing the agency's size by
promoting policies that lead to less reliance on the IRS. As
outlined in a 2012 GAO report, simplifying our increasingly
complex tax code may reduce accidental errors in tax filing and
improve voluntarily compliance.\62\ A simplified tax code would
have the dual benefits of reducing both the time taxpayers
devote to complying with an overly complex code and the
taxpayer dollars needed to administer and enforce it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\``2013 Annual Report to Congress,'' National Taxpayer Advocate,
31 Dec. 2013.
\62\``Opportunities to Improve the Taxpayer Experience and
Voluntary Compliance,'' GAO, 26 April 2012.
FUNCTION 900: NET INTEREST

Function Summary

An adverse effect of chronic budget deficits is the high
interest cost it produces. Interest payments result in 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.
According to CBO, if we do nothing, net interest payments
are projected to nearly quadruple from $233 billion in 2014 to
$880 billion by 2024. At this alarming growth rate, net
interest spending is projected to exceed the entire amount
spent on national defense by 2020. Reducing interest costs will
require sustained spending restraint. This budget resolution
provides such restraint, and it reduces net interest by $893
billion over ten years compared with the CBO baseline.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

The resolution calls for $267.3 billion in mandatory budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2015. The ten-year totals
for budget authority and outlays are $4.9 trillion.
On-budget mandatory budget authority and outlays are $366.0
billion in fiscal year 2015 and $6.0 trillion over ten years.
The on-budget figures are larger than the function totals
because the former are offset by off-budget interest payments
from the general fund to the Social Security Trust Fund, which
are reflected as off-budget collections (negative numbers).
These off-budget mandatory collections (negative budget
authority and outlays) amount to $98.7 billion in fiscal year
2015, and -$1.1 trillion over ten years.
FUNCTION 920: ALLOWANCES

Function Summary

Function 920 is a category called ``allowances'' that
represents a place-holder for any budgetary impacts that the
Congressional Budget Office 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, the President and Congress enacted the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) that provided for
significant spending reductions enforced by statutory spending
caps and an automatic enforcement procedure. The BCA did not
specify a distribution of spending reductions in specific
budget functions other than for defense (Function 050) and
Medicare (Function 570), even though the law does require
reductions in non-defense and non-Medicare areas of the budget.
At the time that the February 2014 baseline was released, CBO
did not provide forward-looking, function-level information on
what non-defense and non-Medicare reductions are under the
terms of the BCA. CBO has, instead, assigned the non-defense
and non-Medicare reductions required by the BCA to Function
920.
This budget resolution makes no changes in this function,
leaving it instead at the CBO baseline levels.
The CBO baseline for Function 920 includes a total of $575
billion and $521 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 two components
are included in the baseline:
1. A $534 billion and $480 billion reduction in non-defense
budget authority and outlays, respectively, needed to comply
with the discretionary spending caps set by section 101 of the
BCA.
2. A $41 billion reduction in both budget authority and
outlays to non-Medicare and non-defense mandatory programs
necessary to comply with the automatic-enforcement procedure
(i.e. sequester) mandated by the BCA.
FUNCTION 930: GOVERNMENT-WIDE SAVINGS

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

Function 930 includes various policies that produce
government-wide budget effects in multiple functions rather
than in a single, specific budget function. The resolution
calls for spending $25.9 billion and $20.1 billion in budget
authority and outlays, respectively, in fiscal year 2015. The
ten-year totals for budget authority and outlay savings are
-$501.8 billion and -$396.0 billion, respectively.

Illustrative Policy Options

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Abiding by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. The total
base discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2015
assumed in the resolution is $1,013.6 billion--the same level
set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA). The resolution
offers approximately $26 billion in fiscal year 2015 non-
defense discretionary savings in several budget functions
should Congress choose to enact additional deficit reduction
next year. Because these additional savings would cause the
resolution to display a lower total base discretionary level
than contemplated by the BBA, $26 billion in non-defense
discretionary spending is added back to Function 930 in order
to make the total budget-resolution base discretionary level
match the amount specified in the BBA.
Federal-Employee Attrition. The budget includes
discretionary savings by assuming a reduction in the federal
civilian workforce through attrition, whereby the
administration would be permitted to hire one employee for
every three who leave government service. National-security
positions would be subject to exemption.
Elimination of Student-Loan Repayment for Government
Employees. The budget assumes discretionary savings by
eliminating the repayment by the government of student loans
for federal employees.
Reform Civil Service Pensions. The policy described in the
Income Security chapter of this report would increase the share
of federal retirement benefits funded by the employee. This
policy has the effect of reducing the personnel costs for the
employing agency. The budget assumes savings from a reduction
in agency appropriations associated with the reduction in
payments that agencies make into the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund for federal-employee retirement.

MANDATORY SPENDING

Program Integrity. This budget assumes program integrity
savings by assuming that Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs)
and Supplemental Security Income Redeterminations are fully
funded and that additional steps are taken to reduce improper
payments in the Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance
programs. By ensuring that all benefits are targeted towards
the appropriate households, this budget will reduce fraud and
improper payments in these programs. This could save up to $27
billion over ten years.
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 intra-
budgetary (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

All transactions within Function 950 are recorded as
mandatory. The resolution calls for -$95.6 billion in budget
authority and outlays in fiscal year 2015 (with the minus sign
indicating receipts into the Treasury). Over ten years, budget
authority and outlays total -$1.1 trillion.
On-budget amounts are -$78.6 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2015, and -$935.3 billion in budget
authority and outlays over ten years.
Off-budget amounts are -$17.0 billion in budget authority
and outlays in fiscal year 2015, and -$201.4 billion in budget
authority and outlays over ten years.

Illustrative Policy Options

Federal Fleet Sales. The President's Fiscal Commission
recommended several ways to achieve 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.
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. Complex procedural requirements, lack of
organization, and delayed data reporting provide agencies very
little incentive to dispose of unneeded properties and very few
repercussions for holding onto these properties indefinitely.
According to the most recent Federal Real Property Report, from
fiscal year 2012, the federal government owns or leases over
360,000 buildings and 485,000 structures. Of the buildings in
the federal government's portfolio, non-defense buildings
accounted for at least 148,000 of the total.
The government's track record for real-estate asset sales
has been poor. The fiscal year 2012 report shows that of the
23,663 assets the federal government disposed of in that year,
6,066, or 25.6 percent, were disposed of via demolition. Only
515, or 2.2 percent, were disposed of through a sale. Many
assets were simply given away at below-market value or even for
free.
The Committee urges the Office of Management and Budget to
pursue 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. Currently, the federal government owns nearly
650 million acres of land--almost 30 percent of the land area
of the United States. 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--excluding National Parks,
wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and wild and scenic rivers.
FUNCTION 970: OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY
OPERATIONS/GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Function Summary

This function includes funding for the prosecution of
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism and
other closely related activities.

Summary of Committee-Reported Resolution

This resolution calls for $85.4 billion in budget authority
and $52.6 billion in new outlays in fiscal year 2015. These
amounts are the same as the President's request. This function
accommodates all of the funding requested by the Department of
State for the incremental, non-enduring civilian activities in
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. However, because troop levels
beyond the end of 2014 are undecided, this budget includes the
same $79.4 billion placeholder for the Department of Defense as
the President's budget. The fact that this function includes a
temporary placeholder is not an invitation for the funding
budgeted in this function to be used as a reserve fund for
other activities not related to the war.
The budget resolution includes authority for the chairman
of the Budget Committee to adjust the relevant levels and
allocations for war-related spending to account for a future
budget request from the President consistent with the decisions
that are ultimately made on troop levels. In making any
adjustments, the Budget Committee will be vigilant that the
OCO/GWOT cap adjustment is not abused as a means of evading the
statutory caps on discretionary spending.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 allows the discretionary
caps to be automatically increased for funding designated for
OCO/GWOT, which has created a loophole that could be used to
circumvent discretionary funding caps. For FY 2014, Congress
and the President enacted an appropriations bill that provided
$7.4 billion more than the Administration requested for OCO.
Abuse of the OCO/GWOT cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole
that undermines the integrity of the budget process. The Budget
Committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with
respect to the use of the OCO/GWOT designation in the FY 2015
budget process, and it will oppose increases above the levels
the Administration and our military commanders say are needed
to carry out operations unless it can be clearly demonstrated
that such amounts are war-related.
Defense Activities. The United States and the Government of
Afghanistan have negotiated a Bilateral Security Agreement,
which is currently awaiting approval by the Afghan government.
The outgoing president of Afghanistan has refused to sign the
agreement, leaving the ultimate disposition of the agreement to
be determined by the next president, who will be elected in
April. Until the agreement is concluded, the U.S. Government
has been unable to determine what the troop level will be after
2014 and therefore what funding will be needed.
Civilian Activities. This budget fully funds the $5.9
billion request 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.
However, the Committee notes concern regarding past,
present, and future use of OCO/GWOT funds for civilian efforts:
In past legislation, including the Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2014, OCO/GWOT has been used to fund
accounts that the Committee does not view as critical to
efforts related to the global war on terrorism, for example
Education and Cultural Exchange Programs. Funding for these
programs should be provided within their respective base
budgets.
Wasteful spending of war funding, especially for
Afghanistan reconstruction efforts, is unacceptable. The
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has
highlighted several recent examples, including multi-million-
dollar infrastructure projects that have never been used, nor
will be used for the intended purpose, if at all. The Committee
will continue to closely monitor the use of OCO/GWOT funds to
ensure taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and efficiently
in achieving our strategic goals overseas. Continued reports of
waste, fraud, and/or abuse will be taken into consideration as
OCO/GWOT funding levels are determined going forward.
The administration's decision to expand the scope
of programs eligible for OCO/GWOT funding to include not only
the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but
also Syria, Africa, and other areas of conflict, could lead to
potential abuse of the OCO/GWOT designation. OCO/GWOT was
originally intended to fund only extraordinary, and thus
temporary, costs of U.S. operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan. While this budget fully supports U.S. missions in
other conflict areas, it does not recommend expanding OCO's
purpose and believes such missions should be funded in the
relevant base budget accounts in Function 150.
REVENUE

----------

A world-class tax system should be simple, fair, and
promote (rather than impede) economic growth. The U.S. tax code
fails on all three counts--it is notoriously complex, patently
unfair, and highly inefficient. The tax code's complexity
distorts decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to
slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job creation.
This budget proposes to solve this problem by calling for a
reformed tax code that is simpler, fairer, and pro-growth.

Challenge

The current tax code is needlessly complex. It is estimated
that individuals, families, and employers spend over 6 billion
hours and over $160 billion a year trying to negotiate a
labyrinth of special rules, deductions and tax schedules. Over
the past decade alone, there have been more than 4,400 changes
to the tax code, more than one per day. Many of the major
changes over the years have involved carving out special
preferences, exclusions, or deductions for various activities
or groups. These loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion per
year. To put that figure in perspective, that is nearly the
same amount that we collected in individual income taxes last
year. Many of the deductions and preferences in the system are
mainly used by a relatively small class of mostly higher-income
individuals.
The large amount of tax preferences that pervade the code
ends up narrowing the tax base. A narrow tax base requires much
higher tax rates to raise a given amount of revenue. Standard
economic theory shows that high marginal tax rates dampen the
incentives to work, save, and invest, which reduces economic
output and job creation. Lower economic output, in turn, mutes
the intended revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates
The top tax rate has actually risen and fallen dramatically
throughout U.S. history, with little effect on tax revenue as a
share of the economy. For instance, the top U.S. tax rate has
been as high as 90 percent and as low as 28 percent, but
income-tax revenue has remained fairly steady despite these
sharp rate swings. It turns out that the biggest driver of
revenue to the federal government isn't higher tax rates, but
economic growth. And the lion's share of economists point out
that a tax system with a broad tax base and low rates are keys
to fostering economic growth and competitiveness.
One important hallmark of the U.S. economy is the
importance of smaller, unincorporated businesses. Roughly half
of U.S. active business income and half of private-sector
employment are derived from business entities (such as
partnerships, S corporations, and sole proprietorships) that
are taxed on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows
through to the tax returns of the individual owners and is
taxed at the individual-rate structure rather than at the
corporate rate. Small businesses, in particular, tend to choose
this form for federal tax purposes, and the top federal rate on
such small-business income reaches 44.6 percent. For these
reasons, sound economic policy requires lowering marginal rates
on these pass-through entities.
The U.S. corporate income tax rate (including federal,
state, and local taxes) sums to just over 39 percent, the
highest rate in the industrialized world. This tax discourages
investment and job creation, distorts business activity, and
puts American businesses at a competitive disadvantage against
foreign competitors. Yet the tax itself raises relatively
little revenue--only 10 percent of the total federal revenue
take comes from taxing corporate income. Any tax that raises
little revenue and creates a lot of economic distortions is
particularly ripe for reform.
Elevated corporate tax rates hinder American
competitiveness by making the U.S. a less desirable destination
for investment and jobs. Business location and investment
decisions are becoming ever more sensitive to country tax rates
as global integration increases. Foreign investment is
important to an economy because it is a key source of funding
to finance innovation and jobs. To enhance their
competitiveness, many countries have been lowering business
taxes. But the U.S. risks falling behind as it maintains its
high tax rate while other countries lower theirs. By deterring
potential investment, the U.S. corporate tax restrains economic
growth and job creation. The U.S. tax rate differential with
other countries also fosters a variety of complicated
multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the tax,
which have the effect of moving the tax base offshore,
destroying American jobs, and decreasing corporate revenue.
The structure of U.S. international taxation is also out of
sync with the international standard used by the majority of
other countries, putting U.S. businesses operating abroad at a
competitive disadvantage. Most countries operate under a so-
called ``territorial'' system of international taxation,
whereby their businesses operating abroad are only subject to
the tax of the country where they do business. The U.S. has an
antiquated ``worldwide'' system of international taxation,
whereby U.S. multinationals operating abroad pay both the
foreign-country tax and U.S. corporate taxes when profits are
repatriated. They are essentially taxed twice. This puts them
at an obvious competitive disadvantage. Reforming the U.S. tax
code to a more competitive international system would boost the
competitiveness of U.S. companies operating abroad, and it
would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.

Solution: Pro-Growth Tax Reform

Given the many problems with the current system, Congress
should enact legislation that provides for a comprehensive
reform of the U.S. tax code to promote economic growth, create
American jobs, and increase wages. This can be achieved through
revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform that--
simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses and reduces the amount of time
and resources necessary to comply with tax laws;
substantially lowers tax rates for individuals,
with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25 percent
and consolidating the current seven individual income-tax
brackets into two brackets with a first bracket of 10 percent;
repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent; and
transitions the tax code to a more competitive
system of international taxation.
Economists have shown that lowering overall rates and
broadening the tax base will promote economic growth and
support job creation by the private sector.
This resolution calls on comprehensive tax reform and lays
out some principles, but it does not embrace any particular
plan. There are many good ideas on that front--growth-oriented
tax plans that could strengthen the economy and support the
nation's funding priorities.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman David Camp has proposed a
comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform plan that would lower
individual and corporate tax rates and remove a number of
distortions in the code. The Joint Committee on Taxation has
analyzed this plan and determined that it would increase real
GDP by between 0.1 percent and 1.6 percent depending on the
economic model used.
Congressman Burgess has also introduced a plan to
dramatically simplify the tax code by offering individuals and
businesses the option to pay a single flat tax on their income
instead of navigating the maze of existing tax provisions. His
plan would also repeal estate and gift taxes.
In addition, Congressman Woodall has submitted a
fundamental tax-reform plan for consideration by the Ways and
Means Committee that would eliminate taxes on wages,
corporations, self-employment, capital gains, and gift and
death taxes in favor of a personal-consumption tax that would
provide the economic certainty that American businesses,
entrepreneurs, and taxpayers desire.
Congress should consider these and the full myriad of pro-
growth plans as it moves toward implementing the tax reform
called for under this budget.
DIRECT SPENDING TRENDS
AND REFORMS

----------

Background

Direct spending (also known as mandatory spending) remains
the fastest growing part of the spending-driven debt crisis the
nation faces. As part of the rules of the 113th Congress, the
House adopted a new reform to require the budget resolution to
display certain information on direct spending, split between
those programs that are means-tested and all other programs.
CBO reports that total non-interest mandatory spending in
fiscal year 2013 was $2.3 trillion and will grow to over $4
trillion by 2024, reflecting an average annual growth rate of
5.4 percent--much faster than both CBO's projection of 2013
nominal economic growth of 3.3 percent and CBO's longer-term
projection of economic growth of 4.1 percent. Within overall
non-interest mandatory spending, the entitlements of Medicare
and Social Security are projected to continue growing much
faster than the economy as a whole, with Social Security
expected to grow from $813 billion in 2013 to $1,514 billion in
2024 and Medicare expected to grow from $585 billion in 2013 to
$1,087 billion in 2024.
Over the next decade, the major means-tested entitlements
are expected to grow by 5.4 percent per year--from $694 billion
in 2015 to $1,083 billion in 2024. Not only are these programs
expected to grow in the future, but they have grown
significantly over the past 40 years. The Congressional
Research Service calculated that spending on low-income
assistance programs was $2.66 billion in inflation-adjusted
dollars in 1962, or approximately 2.6 percent of total federal
outlays and 0.5 percent of GDP. Just over the past ten years,
major means-tested entitlement programs have grown 6.8 percent
per year, from $354 billion in 2005 to a projected $639 billion
in 2014.
There are a number of reasons for this growth. Most
recently, the recession caused a significant amount of growth
in spending on low-income programs. This spending is expected
to recede as economic growth picks up. However, spending
remains at elevated levels for several programs--most notably,
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP
(formerly known as food stamps). Over the past ten years, the
SNAP program grew at 12.5 percent annually, ballooning from $29
billion in 2004 to $83 billion in 2013. While this amount is
projected to fall over the next ten years, it remains at
elevated levels compared to prerecession projections. There are
a number of reasons for the continued growth in SNAP outside of
the recent economic downturn and subsequent slow recovery. Both
the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills included several programmatic
expansions to benefits and eligibility. More importantly,
however, two changes allowing state governments to game the
eligibility and benefit process have greatly expanded the
program. The first, categorical eligibility allows states to
make an individual automatically eligible for SNAP benefits,
regardless of the traditional SNAP eligibility criteria, if
they receive a non-cash benefit from the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program. The intent behind
categorical eligibility is to simplify the process for both the
applicant and the administering agency. However, as states have
expanded the use of this procedure into non-cash services, it
has vastly increased the amount of individuals on the SNAP
program.
Second, states have begun exploiting a loophole referred to
as ``heat and eat.'' Because of a quirk in the law governing
SNAP benefits, states have been providing individuals with $1
or $5 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program checks in order
to artificially increase their SNAP benefit checks. The most
recent Farm Bill partially addressed this issue, requiring
states to provide $20 to recipients.
Other programs have also seen large increases. The
Supplemental Security Income was created as a needs-based
program that provides cash benefits to aged, blind, or disabled
persons with limited income and assets. When the program began,
the majority of payments went toward the aged; however, as the
program matured, a much greater percentage of beneficiaries
were under age 18 or between the ages of 18-64. Over the past
decade, spending on SSI has grown by 6.9 percent per year.
The largest means-tested program in the federal budget is
Medicaid, the federal-state low-income health program.
Medicaid--and its related Children's Health Insurance Program
(CHIP)--has grown from $187 billion in 2005 to a projected $312
billion in 2014. Going forward, CBO projects federal Medicaid
and CHIP spending to nearly double over the next ten years,
from $343 billion in fiscal year 2015 to $580 billion in fiscal
year 2024. The primary reason for this significant spending
growth is the President's health-care law, which calls for
major expansions in the Medicaid program beginning in 2014. The
President's health-care law, however, does nothing to remedy
Medicaid's perverse funding structure that gives states
incentives to expand, not save, nor does it alter the access
issues facing beneficiaries as providers refuse to participate
in a system that severely under-reimburses them for their
services. 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. Because of the flawed incentives in
this program, Medicaid grew at 5.4 percent a year over the past
ten years, and it is projected to grow at an astounding 6.8
percent a year over the next ten years. This level of growth is
clearly unsustainable.

FY 2015 BUDGET

The fiscal year 2015 budget addresses both non-means-tested
and means-tested direct spending. Most importantly, it
addresses the primary drivers of our debt and deficits: our
health programs. For Medicare, this budget advances policies to
put seniors, not the federal government, in control of their
health-care decisions. Those in or near retirement would see no
changes, while future retirees 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 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. Putting seniors in charge of
how their health-care dollars are spent will force providers to
compete against each other on price and quality. This market
competition will act as a real check on widespread waste and
skyrocketing health-care costs.
For Medicaid, this budget converts 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. Instead,
each state would have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a
Medicaid program that fit the needs of its unique population.
Moreover, this budget repeals the Medicaid expansions in the
President's health-care law, relieving state governments of its
crippling one-size-fits-all enrollment mandates.
For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, this
budget also converts the current one-size-fits-all program into
a flexible allotment tailored to meet each state's needs,
indexed for the Thrifty Food Plan and growth in the eligible
population. Additionally, it builds on the reforms and lessons
learned from the 1996 welfare-reform bill, which required
rigorous work incentives and time limits on receipt.
Additionally, in keeping with a recommendation from the
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, this
budget calls for federal employees--including members of
Congress and their staff--to make greater contributions toward
their own retirement.
As Congress works to address high unemployment and weak
economic growth, this budget is premised on the belief that the
prospect of upward mobility should be in the reach of every
American, and that priority must be given to maximizing the
effectiveness of anti-poverty programs across federal, state,
and local governments. Congress should work to remove the
barriers and obstacles that prevent the most vulnerable
Americans from taking advantage of economic and educational
opportunities and from moving up the ladder of opportunity to
join the middle class. By balancing the budget, implementing
comprehensive tax reform, and reforming means-tested
entitlement programs, this resolution is designed to accomplish
exactly these goals.

TABLE 10.--HISTORICAL MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
[Outlays by fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Projected annual
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 growth 2005-
2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Programs:
Health Care Programs:
Medicaid........................................................ 176 182 181 191 201 251 273 275 251 265 298 5.4%
Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidies\a\......................... 0 0 11 17 17 19 21 26 20 22 24 10.0%
Health insurance subsidies...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 n.a
Children's Health Insurance Program............................. 5 5 5 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 14 11.8%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................................... 181 187 197 213 225 277 302 309 279 297 352 6.9%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Security:
SNAP............................................................ 29 33 35 35 39 56 70 77 80 83 80 10.9%
Supplemental Security Income.................................... 34 38 37 36 41 45 47 53 47 53 54 4.8%
Earned income and child tax credits............................. 42 49 52 54 75 67 77 78 77 79 82 6.9%
Family support and foster care\b\............................... 31 31 30 31 32 33 35 33 30 32 31 0.2%
Child nutrition................................................. 12 13 14 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 5.6%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................................... 147 163 168 170 202 217 247 260 254 266 268 6.2%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans' Pensions................................................ 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 5.2%
Pell Grants\c\.................................................... 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 14 12 16 13 n.a
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Means-Tested Programs............................... 331 354 369 386 431 501 557 589 550 584 639 6.8%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Means-Tested Programs\d\...................................... 1,015 1,094 1,188 1,242 1,349 1,787 1,553 1,646 1,710 1,753 1,766 5.7%
Social Security
Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Medicare (excluding Medicare Part D Subsidy)
Federal Civilian and Military Retirement Programs
Veterans Programs (excluding Veterans' pensions)
Agriculture programs
Troubled Asset Relief Program
Deposit Insurance
All other mandatory programs not included in the means-tested
list above
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mandatory Outlays....................................... 1,346 1,448 1,556 1,628 1,780 2,288 2,110 2,235 2,260 2,338 2,405 6.0%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum:
Pell Grants (Discretionary)....................................... 13 13 13 13 15 13 20 21 21 17 18 3.6%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: The average annual growth rate over the 2005-2014 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount recorded in 2004 through the amount projected for 2014. Data on spending for
benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as discretionary but generally include administrative costs classified as mandatory.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; n.a. = not applicable.

* = between zero and $500 million.

a. The average annual growth rate reflects the program's growth from its inception in 2006 through 2014.
b. Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and various programs that involve payments to states for child support enforcement and family support, child care entitlements, and research
to benefit children.
c. Includes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award level set in the appropriation act plus mandatory spending that, by
formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
d. Does not include offsetting receipts. List provided by House Budget Committee based on CBO's most recent Budget and Economic Outlook.

TABLE 11.--PROJECTED MEANS-TESTED AND NON MEANS-TESTED DIRECT SPENDING
[Outlays by fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
annual
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 growth 2015-
2024
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Means-Tested Outlays:
Health Care Programs:
Medicaid.................. 298 328 368 393 413 437 461 487 515 543 574 6.8%
Medicare Part D Low-Income 24 26 30 31 32 37 40 44 51 53 54 8.3%
Subsidies................
Health insurance 15 41 75 95 104 108 115 122 128 135 143 24.9%
subsidies\a\.............
Children's Health 14 15 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -8.6%
Insurance Program........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 352 410 481 525 555 588 622 659 700 737 775 8.2%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Income Security:
SNAP...................... 80 80 79 78 76 76 75 75 74 74 74 -0.8%
Supplemental Security 54 55 61 59 55 62 64 66 74 71 67 2.1%
Income...................
Earned income and child 82 84 87 88 89 78 80 81 82 84 85 0.4%
tax credits\b\...........
Family support and foster 31 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 0.6%
care\c\..................
Child nutrition........... 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 3.9%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................ 268 272 281 279 277 273 277 282 292 291 291 0.8%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans' Pensions.......... 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 3.2%
Pell Grants\c\.............. 13 6 7 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -3.1%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Means-Tested 639 694 774 818 848 877 916 958 1,009 1,046 1,083 5.4%
Programs...............
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Means-Tested Programs\d\ 1,766 1,846 1,955 2,035 2,124 2,266 2,399 2,546 2,736 2,851 2,994 5.4%
Social Security
Medicare Eligible Retiree
Health Care Fund
Medicare (excluding
Medicare Part D Subsidy)
Federal Civilian and
Military Retirement
Programs
Veterans Programs
(excluding Veterans'
pensions)
Agriculture programs
Troubled Asset Relief
Program
Deposit Insurance
All other mandatory
programs not included in
the means-tested list
above
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Mandatory Outlays. 2,405 2,540 2,729 2,853 2,972 3,144 3,315 3,504 3,744 3,897 4,077 5.4%
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum:
Pell Grants 18 27 29 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 3.8%
(Discretionary)\e\.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: The projections shown here are the same as those reported in Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2014 to
2024 (February 2014). The average annual growth rate over the 2015-2024 period encompasses growth in outlays from the amount projected for 2014 to the
amount projected for 2024. Projections on spending for benefit programs in this table exclude administrative costs that are classified as
discretionary but generally include administrative costs classified as mandatory.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

a. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 of The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (February 2014) because it does not include payments
to reflect the average increase from the amount projected for 2014 to the amount projected for less healthy enrollees, reinsurance (amounts paid to
plans that enroll individuals who end up with high costs), and risk corridors (amounts paid to health insurance plans whose actual costs for medical
claims exceed expected costs). According to CBO's projections, that spending will be more than offset by corresponding collections. Spending for
grants to states to establish exchanges is also excluded.
b. Differs from the amounts reported in Table 3-2 of The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024 (February 2014) because it does not include other tax
credits.
c. Includes Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and various programs that involve payments to states for child support enforcement and family
support, child care entitlements, and research to benefit children.
d. Includes mandatory spending designed to reduce the discretionary budget authority needed to support the maximum award level set in the appropriation
act plus mandatory spending that, by formula, increases the total maximum award above the amount set in the appropriation act.
e. Does not include offsetting receipts. List provided by House Budget Committee based on CBO's most recent Budget and Economic Outlook.
f. The discretionary baseline does not represent a projection of expected costs for the discretionary portion of the Pell Grant program. As with all
other discretionary programs, the budget authority is calculated by inflating the budget authority appropriated for fiscal year 2014. Outlays for
future years are based on those projected amounts of budget authority and on the budget authority provided in 2014.

THE LONG-TERM BUDGET OUTLOOK

----------

The growing probability of a debt crisis is the most urgent
challenge we face today. And the source of the crisis is the
drift, under both parties, to expand the size of government. To
avert a future debt crisis, we need to stop this encroachment
and to revive community in American civil society.
This budget turns the tide. It makes $5.1 trillion in
spending reductions over the next ten years. This budget
reforms government spending programs responsibly. It protects
key priorities while eliminating waste. And it avoids sudden
and arbitrary cuts to current services, such as those the
country would experience in a debt crisis.
These reductions are hardly draconian. Over the years,
Congress has put two-thirds of the budget on auto-pilot, and
spending in those areas grows each year. The Congressional
Budget Office has said the current laws and policies cannot be
sustained. However, any effort to restrain the growth in this
spending is cast as ``cut.''
Under current policy, the federal government will spend
$47.8 trillion over the next ten years. Under this proposal, it
will spend roughly $42.6 trillion. And this budget does not
make sudden cuts. Instead, it increases spending at a more
manageable rate. For instance, on the current path, spending
will rise by an annual average of 5.2 percent. Under this
budget, it will rise by only 3.5 percent.
Washington cannot keep spending money it does not have. So
this budget achieves balance in 2024 by bringing spending down
below 19 percent of GDP by 2024. In the country's entire
history, Congress has never balanced the budget when spending
was higher than 18.7 percent of GDP.
To achieve this outcome, it puts in place fundamental
reforms to protect and strengthen Medicare by gradually
transitioning the program to a premium-support system. Along
with Medicaid and other spending reforms, these changes are
critical to putting the nation on sound financial footing going
forward.
According to analysis by CBO, the spending path assumed in
this budget will result in a balanced budget in ten years and a
growing surplus that will lead to a sharp reduction in the
national debt. CBO says a small budget surplus of 0.1 percent
of GDP in 2025 will eventually grow to 1.8 percent of GDP by
2040. At the same time, debt held by the public will decline
from over 73 percent of GDP today to 54 percent of GDP in 2025
to just 18 percent of GDP by 2040--a glide path to fully paying
off the national debt.
Over the long term, the budget assumes revenue follows
CBO's extended baseline and is allowed to grow from 18.4
percent of GDP in 2024 to 19 percent of GDP by 2035 and then
remain at that share of the economy through 2040.
The United States has dealt with financial problems in the
past. In 1997, a Democratic president and a Republican Congress
passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, which inaugurated four
years of balanced budgets. This budget follows that model. It
incorporates ideas from both parties to address the most
pressing issue of the day: our national debt.
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. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015.
Subsection (a) establishes the budgetary levels for fiscal
year 2015 and each of the nine years following that budget
year, fiscal years 2016 through 2024. For a concurrent
resolution on the budget, this is required by section 301(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The term ``budget year'' means, with respect to a session
of Congress, the fiscal year of the Government that starts on
October 1 of the calendar year in which that session begins and
is set out in section 250(c)(12) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The years following the
budget year are termed ``outyears'' and are so defined in
section 250(c)(13) of that Act.
For the budget year, fiscal year 2015, 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 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 within the jurisdiction of the
subcommittees.
Allocations are also given to authorizing committees, with
spending authority. In addition to an allocation for fiscal
year 2015, the authorizing committees receive an allocation of
spending authority over the 10-year period provided for by the
concurrent resolution on the budget and may not spend more than
the allocation for the budget year or over the 10-year period.
Subsection (b) sets out the table of contents of the
resolution.

Title I--Recommended Levels and Amounts

Section 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
As required by section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, this section establishes the recommended levels for
revenue, the reduction in revenue provided for in the
resolution, total new budget authority, total budget outlays,
surpluses or deficits, debt subject to the statutory limit, and
debt held by the public. 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
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 United
States Postal Service operations.
In general, the debt subject to statutory limit aggregates
refer 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. Major functional categories.
Also required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, section 102 establishes the budgetary levels for
each major functional category for fiscal year 2015, the budget
year, and for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2024.
These major 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
930 Government-Wide Savings
950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts
970 Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism

Title II--Recommended Long-Term Levels

Section 201. Long-term budgeting.
Section 201sets out recommended budgetary levels for
certain budget aggregates for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035,
and 2040 as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the
United States as follows:
Federal Revenues
Fiscal Year 2030: 18.8 percent
Fiscal Year 2035: 19.0 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 19.0 percent
Budget Outlays
Fiscal Year 2030: 18.5 percent
Fiscal Year 2035: 17.9 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 17.2 percent
Deficits
Fiscal Year 2030: -0.3 percent
Fiscal Year 2035: -1.1 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: -1.8 percent
Debt
Fiscal Year 2030: 43.0 percent
Fiscal Year 2035: 31.0 percent
Fiscal Year 2040: 18.0 percent

Title III--Reserve Funds

Section 301. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Section 301 permits the Chairman 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 fully repeals the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) and the
health-care-related provisions of 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. These
adjustments would not be available for measures that only
offered a partial repeal, such as a repeal of certain sections
of these laws. The reserve fund is intended to apply to the
health care provisions and would not apply to the repeal of the
education-related provisions of the reconciliation act referred
to above.
A measure repealing the health care laws must solely
achieve that purpose and may not include language which is
extraneous to that purpose, whether such language has a
budgetary effect or not. In addition, the repeal must be
permanent and may not include a sunset date.
Multiple measures may take advantage of the reserve fund,
as long as each meets the parameters outlined, until such
repeal is enacted.
An amendment (or a motion to recommit), if it qualifies
under the terms of this reserve fund, may be offered to an
unrelated measure, but should such a measure as amended be
returned to the House as a conference report or an amendment
between the Houses, no adjustments would be made if that
measure contained text unrelated to the purpose of this reserve
fund which is to repeal the laws referred to above.
A measure receiving an adjustment under the terms of this
reserve fund may be open for amendment, subject to the special
rule providing for its consideration, but the amendment, if it
does not meet the terms outlined in this section, must be
compliant with the Budget Act and the Rules of the House
without regard to the adjustments made to the underlying
measure.
Section 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010
health care laws.
Section 302 permits the Chairman 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 reforms or replaces the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148)
or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
(Public Law 111-152), as long as the measure is deficit-neutral
for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. Those public
laws are the health care bills enacted in 2010.
For purposes of this section, if a bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report fulfills the purpose of
reforming or replacing these health care laws and is deficit
neutral in the applicable period, then legislative text not
related to these purposes may be included as long as the entire
measure meets these two requirements.
Section 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare
provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Section 303 permits the Chairman 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 Medicare
spending cuts in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(Public Law 111-148) or the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), as long as the
measure is deficit-neutral for the period of fiscal years 2015
through 2024.
A measure that repeals only part of these Medicare spending
reductions is also eligible for these adjustments. A series of
bills, joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports may
receive adjustments under this section, only limited by the
cumulative amount of the Medicare spending reductions included
in the public laws referenced, as estimated by the Chairman of
the Committee on the Budget.
Once the limit is reached through enacted measures, no more
adjustments may be made under this reserve fund. The amount
necessary to repeal the Medicare spending cuts is a cap on the
adjustments that may be made under this section, but as
measures are considered in the House that meet these terms, the
amount is not reduced until such measure fulfilling this
purpose is enacted.
Section 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth
rate of the Medicare program.
Section 304 permits the Chairman 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 does not
increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2015 through
2024.
Section 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Section 305 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for bills,
joint resolutions, amendments or conference reports the House
considers that reform the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
long as such a measure does not increase the deficit in the
period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
Since 1997, the Rules of the House of Representatives (now
Rule XIII, clause 3(h)(2)), have required the publication of a
macroeconomic-impact analysis from the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT) of legislation amending the tax code. This
section is designed to facilitate comprehensive, fundamental
tax reform that significantly broadens the tax base and lowers
tax rates (see the Revenue chapter of this report for
additional details). Reform of this sort could have significant
economic effects. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget
will consider the JCT macroeconomic-impact analysis in
determining if the conditions in this section have been met.
Section 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Section 306 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to the Committee on Ways and Means and to adjust other
budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution for legislation
that implements a trade agreement, as long as such a measure
does not increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years
2015 through 2024.
Section 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Section 307 permits the Chairman 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 Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget may adjust the allocations and aggregates of this
concurrent resolution if the measure does not increase the
deficit in the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024. This
allows the Committee on Ways and Means to report a bill that
reduces revenue below the level provided for in the concurrent
resolution on the budget but only if it decreases outlays by an
equal or greater amount in the applicable period.
Section 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and
schools.
Section 308 provides for a deficit-neutral reserve fund to
accommodate the extension of the Secure Rural Schools and
Community Self Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393)
in order to provide the federal government, local counties, and
industry the time necessary to enact, implement, and begin
performing sustained yield harvests of federal timber lands on
which local counties are financially dependent. The plan
assumed by this reserve fund is based on the best available
science, provides for active forest management to improve the
health of the resource, creates strong local family-wage job
markets, and provides rural counties with fiscal independence
from federal payments owed to them because of a lack of timber
harvests on federal lands.
Section 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation
Section 309 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority and to
adjust other budgetary enforcement levels in this resolution
for any bill or joint resolution to maintain the solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund, as long as such a measure does not
increase the deficit in the period of fiscal years 2015 through
2024.
Section 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and
increase opportunity and upward mobility.
Section 310 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to revise the allocations of spending authority provided
to applicable committees and adjust other budgetary enforcement
levels in this resolution for a measure reforming policies and
programs to reduce poverty and increase opportunity and upward
mobility as long as such a measure neither adversely impacts
job creation nor increases the deficit in the period of fiscal
years 2015 through 2024.

Title IV--Estimates of Direct Spending

Section 401. Direct spending.
Subsection (a) notes the average and estimated average rate
of growth in means-tested direct spending for the 10-year
periods before and after fiscal year 2015 respectively. It also
proposes reforms to the means-tested category of direct
spending.
Subsection (b) notes the average and estimated average rate
of growth in non-means-tested direct spending for the 10-year
periods before and after fiscal year 2015 respectively. It also
proposes reforms to the non-means-tested category of direct
spending.
This section is required under the Separate Orders of H.
Res. 5 (113th Congress), which implements the Rules of the
House of Representatives and is a requirement for the
consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget for the
113th Congress. See section designated ``Direct Spending Trends
and Reforms'' within this report for more information on
Section 401.

Title V--Budget Enforcement

Section 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Subsection (a) prohibits any general or continuing
appropriation providing for advance appropriations that do not
fall into certain specified exceptions.
Subsection (b) provides 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 2016. It
allows advance appropriations of up to $58.662 billion for
fiscal year 2016 for Veterans Medical Services, Veterans
Medical Support and Compliance, and Veterans Medical Facilities
accounts of the Veterans Health Administration.
It also allows up to $28.781 billion for the programs
referred to in subsection (b).
Subsection (d) defines advance appropriation as any new
discretionary budget authority provided in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report making general or
continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2016.
Section 502. Concepts and definitions.
Section 502 permits the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to adjust the levels and allocations in this budget
resolution upon enactment of legislation changing concepts or
definitions.
Section 503. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate
budgetary levels.
Subsection (a) sets out a procedure to facilitate the
consideration of legislation subjecting direct spending to
annual appropriations. Under current law, there are impediments
to reclassifying direct spending as discretionary spending
since once the direct spending is eliminated, effectively the
purpose is eliminated as well.
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 Chairman 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 2015.
This rule 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 (b) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to adjust the aggregates, allocations, and budgetary
levels in this resolution for Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism to account for any new information
included in the President's budget submission for fiscal year
2015.
The levels included in this concurrent resolution on the
budget reflect the total level of discretionary budget
authority, prior to any authorized adjustments, provided for in
the spending limits in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted under
section 251A of that Act). The discretionary spending limits
for fiscal year 2015 are set in the fiscal year 2015 Sequester
Preview Report, which was submitted on March 10, 2014.
Subsection (c) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to adjust the levels and allocations in this
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect technical and
economic assumptions in the most recent baseline published by
the Congressional Budget Office.
Subsection (d) authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on
the Budget to determine the levels and adjustments provided for
in this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 504. Limitation on long-term 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 2025.
Subsection (b) explains that there are four consecutive
ten-year periods as referred to in subsection (a) that would be
as follows:
Fiscal years 2025 through 2034;
Fiscal years 2035 through 2044;
Fiscal years 2045 through 2054;
Fiscal years 2055 through 2064.
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 House Committee on Appropriations 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 Chairman 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, as long as such measure does not
increase the deficit in fiscal year 2015 and in the period of
fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
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,
this 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 Chairman of the Committee on the Budget has made
adjustments in the allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate budgetary levels 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.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) provides specific authority for the Chairman
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 that generally
incorporates a more realistic market risk factor.
Subsection (c) requires that, whenever the Congressional
Budget Office prepares an estimate of the cost of legislation
with a cost related to a housing or residential-mortgage
program under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, the
Director must also provide an estimate of the ``fair value'' of
the assets and liabilities affected.
Subsection (d) allows the Chairman of the Committee on the
Budget to use the supplemental estimates to determine
compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and other
budgetary enforcement controls.
Section 508. Transfers from the general fund of the Treasury to the
Highway Trust Fund that increase public indebtedness.
Section 508 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.
Section 509. Separate allocation for overseas contingency operations/
global war on terrorism.
Subsection (a) provides for a separate section 302(a)
allocation under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and is
set out in this report in allocation tables, to the Committee
on Appropriations for overseas contingency operations and the
global war on terrorism (OCO/GWOT). For purposes of enforcing
the point of order set out in section 302(f) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the ``first fiscal year'' and
the ``total of fiscal years'' refer to fiscal year 2015 only.
This separate allocation is the exclusive allocation for OCO/
GWOT under section 302(a).
Subsection (a) also 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 designated will be
counted toward the separate OCO/GWOT allocation and not to the
general section 302(a) allocation.
Subsection (b) provides that the procedure of adjusting the
general 302(a) allocation under section 314 of the Budget Act
for this purpose does not apply, as it is unnecessary with the
special allocation.
Section 510. Exercise of rulemaking powers.
This section provides for the general application of the
text of this concurrent resolution on the budget.

Title VI--Policy Statements

Section 601. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on promoting economic
growth and job creation assumed by this concurrent resolution
on the budget.
Section 602. Policy statement on tax reform.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on pro-growth tax reform
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 603. Policy statement on Replacing the President's health care
law.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on replacing the
President's health care law assumed by this concurrent
resolution on the budget.
Section 604. Policy statement on Medicare.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is to protect those in or 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 this concurrent
resolution on the budget for the parameters of future Medicare
reforms.
Section 605. Policy statement on Social Security.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on Social Security assumed
by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Subsection (c) states the policy on the Disability
Insurance program assumed by this concurrent resolution on the
budget.
Section 606. Policy statement on higher education affordability and
workforce development opportunity.
Subsection (a) sets out findings on higher education.
Subsection (b) states the policy on higher education
affordability assumed by this concurrent resolution on the
budget.
Subsection (c) sets out findings on workforce development.
Subsection (d) states the policy on workforce development
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 607. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the
cancellation of unobligated balances.
Subsection (a) sets out 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 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.
Section 608. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is to identify any savings that can be
achieved through greater productivity and efficiency gains in
the operation and maintenance of House services and resources.
Section 609. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the
reduction of unnecessary and wasteful spending.
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.
Section 610. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.
Section 610 states that the committees of jurisdiction
should review all unauthorized programs funded through annual
appropriations to determine if the programs are operating
efficiently and effectively and reauthorize only those programs
that in the committees' judgment should continue to receive
funding.
Section 611. Policy statement on Federal regulatory policy.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states the policy on Federal regulation
assumed by this concurrent resolution on the budget.
Section 612. Policy statement on trade.
Subsection (a) sets out findings.
Subsection (b) states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is to pursue international trade,
global commerce, and a modern and competitive U.S.
international tax system in order to promote job creation in
the United States.
Section 613. No Budget, No Pay.
Section 613 states that the policy of this concurrent
resolution on the budget is that Congress should agree to a
concurrent resolution on the budget every year pursuant to
section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Section
613 further states that if by April 15, a House of Congress has
not agreed to a concurrent resolution in the budget, the
payroll administrator of that House should carry out this
policy in the same manner as the provisions of Public Law 113-
3, the No Budget, No Pay Act of 2013.
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 2015), and the 10-year period
(fiscal years 2015 through 2024). 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 first fiscal year
and at least the four 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 2015 through 2024.
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 2015 are measured against the
level for that year included in the fiscal year 2015 budget
resolution and also the 10-year period of fiscal year 2015
through 2024.

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
2015 that commences on October 1, 2014, and a 10-year total for
fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
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 2015, 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 113th Congress first met on January 3, 2014, for
the purposes of this concurrent resolution on the budget, the
budget year is fiscal year 2015.
In general, bills, conference reports, joint resolutions,
and 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.

TABLE 12.--ALLOCATION OF SPENDING AUTHORITY TO HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Discretionary Action:
BA....................................................... 1,013,628
OT....................................................... 1,145,213
Global War on Terrorism:
BA....................................................... 85,357
OT....................................................... 52,580
Current Law Mandatory:
BA....................................................... 792,819
OT....................................................... 781,191
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE 13.--RESOLUTION BY AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE
[On-budget amounts in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 2015-2024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 91,867 899,235
OT.................................. 90,908 895,879
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -2,813 -207,910
OT.................................. -2,556 -207,260
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 89,054 691,325
OT................................ 88,352 688,619
===============================
Armed Services:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 155,752 1,800,993
OT.................................. 155,609 1,799,840
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 155,752 1,800,993
OT................................ 155,609 1,799,840
===============================
Financial Services:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 15,472 113,699
OT.................................. 4,917 -59,392
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -7,546 -70,509
OT.................................. -6,933 -70,353
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 7,926 43,190
OT................................ -2,016 -129,745
===============================
Education & Workforce:
Current Law:
BA.................................. -7,217 -595
OT.................................. -7,507 2,483
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -18,271 -203,318
OT.................................. -6,378 -185,221
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ -25,488 -203,913
OT................................ -13,885 -182,738
===============================
Energy & Commerce:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 394,347 5,241,142
OT.................................. 388,554 5,232,008
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -43,979 -1,887,802
OT.................................. -43,452 -1,886,232
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 350,368 3,353,340
OT................................ 345,102 3,345,776
===============================
Foreign Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 26,172 234,004
OT.................................. 25,639 230,621
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 26,172 234,004
OT................................ 25,639 230,621
===============================
Oversight & Government Reform:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 109,538 1,293,151
OT.................................. 107,591 1,269,038
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -12,266 -173,394
OT.................................. -12,266 -173,394
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 97,272 1,119,757
OT................................ 95,325 1,095,644
===============================
Homeland Security:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 2,035 23,688
OT.................................. 1,997 24,077
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 2,035 23,688
OT................................ 1,997 24,077
===============================
House Administration:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 42 375
OT.................................. 49 222
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -33 -285
OT.................................. -40 -132
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 9 90
OT................................ 9 90
===============================
Natural Resources:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 5,719 61,568
OT.................................. 6,777 66,392
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -700 -20,909
OT.................................. -597 -20,306
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 5,019 40,659
OT................................ 6,180 46,086
===============================
Judiciary:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 19,977 104,365
OT.................................. 9,304 104,805
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -11,576 -59,331
OT.................................. -499 -57,645
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 8,401 45,034
OT................................ 8,805 47,160
===============================
Transportation & Infrastructure:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 71,941 725,565
OT.................................. 17,463 190,273
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -50,987 -167,500
OT.................................. -55 -1,080
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 20,954 558,065
OT................................ 17,408 189,193
===============================
Science, Space & Technology:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 101 1,010
OT.................................. 99 1,008
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 101 1,010
OT................................ 99 1,008
===============================
Small Business:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 0 0
OT................................ 0 0
===============================
Veterans Affairs:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 2,155 88,910
OT.................................. 2,322 90,556
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. 0 0
OT.................................. 0 0
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 2,155 88,910
OT................................ 2,322 90,556
===============================
Ways & Means:
Current Law:
BA.................................. 1,001,620 15,431,316
OT.................................. 1,001,253 15,434,824
Resolution Change:
BA.................................. -38,060 -1,211,987
OT.................................. -37,860 -1,211,787
-------------------------------
Total:
BA................................ 963,560 14,219,329
OT................................ 963,393 14,223,037
------------------------------------------------------------------------

STATUTORY CONTROLS OVER
THE BUDGET

----------

Since 1985, a series of statutory budget controls has been
superimposed on the congressional budget process through the
enactment of, and subsequent amendments to, the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA). This Act
has been added and changed a succession of times and generally
serves as the vehicle for statutory controls over the budget,
but not exclusively so.

BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF 1985

The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (BBEDCA) initially was intended to reduce deficits by
establishing annual maximum deficit limits. These limits were
enforced through ``sequestration'' which involved automatic
across-the-board spending reductions required to be ordered by
the President if the deficit targets were missed. The orders
under the terms of BBEDCA occur within 15 days after the end of
a session of Congress. Sequestration remained an enforcement
procedure for statutory budget controls through at least fiscal
year 2001.

BUDGET ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA) significantly
revised BBEDCA (the BEA is included as Title XIII of Public Law
101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990). It
replaced the maximum spending limits originally in BBEDCA with
annual limits on discretionary spending and controls over
increases in direct spending or decreases in revenues, termed
``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO).
OBRA 1990, as amended, established separate limits on
appropriations for defense, international affairs, and domestic
discretionary appropriations through fiscal year 1993, and a
single limit on all appropriations for fiscal years 1994 and
1995.
Under PAYGO, if the cumulative effect of legislation
enacted through the end of a session of Congress increased the
deficit, the amount of that deficit increase for a fiscal year
following that session would cause a sequestration of spending
by that amount.

OMNIBUS BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1993

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993)
extended a single discretionary limit through fiscal year 1998.
Any breach of the cap would cause a sequestration (again an
across-the-board cut in all nonexempt discretionary programs
under the cap). These spending limits were held harmless for
changes in inflation, emergencies, estimating differences, and
changes in concepts and definitions. OBRA 1993 also extended
the pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures for legislation
enacted through fiscal year 1998.

BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 1997) again revised
the level of discretionary spending limits and extended them
through fiscal year 2002. As amended by the OBRA 1993, these
controls would have expired at the end of fiscal year 1998. BBA
1997 modified the discretionary spending limits for fiscal year
1998 and extended through fiscal year 2002. Similarly, the
PAYGO requirements were extended through fiscal year 2002. BBA
1997 also made many technical changes in both the congressional
budget process and the sequestration procedures that enforce
the discretionary spending limits and PAYGO requirements.
The BBA established separate limits on defense and non-
defense discretionary spending for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
These limits were combined into a single limit on discretionary
spending in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Separate
discretionary spending limits were intended to prevent Congress
and the President from using savings in one category to offset
an increase in another.
BBA 1997 repealed automatic adjustments in the caps for
changes in inflation and estimating differences between OMB and
CBO on budget outlays. It retained adjustments for emergencies,
estimating differences in budget authority, continuing
disability reviews and added adjustments for the International
Monetary Fund, international arrearages, and an Earned Income
Tax Credit compliance initiative.
These adjustments are made in the President's final
sequestration report issued 15 days after the end of a session
of Congress.

STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010

No further significant congressional action was taken on
re-establishing statutory controls on spending and revenue
until 2010, when on February 10 of that year, the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 was signed as part of Public Law 111-
139, which raised the statutory limit on the public debt.
It was similar to the expired pay-as-you-go law, and
included references to certain sections of the BBEDCA, but it
did not bring that law back into force. It did amend sections
of that Act such as the sequestrable base. It did not establish
new discretionary spending limits for any period of time.

BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

Enacted on August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011
(BCA) authorized an increase in the public debt limit. Added to
this increase were statutory controls on spending, primarily in
the form of making BBEDCA permanent in its entirety and re-
establishing the discretionary spending limits for fiscal years
2012 through 2021 in section 251(c) of that Act. These
discretionary spending limits for fiscal years 2012 and 2013
were divided into security and non-security categories. The
remaining years were set as a single discretionary general
category.
These initial spending limits were replaced and their
definitions changed though, since the BCA also included
additional procedures that had the effect of altering the caps
as set out in section 251(c) of BBEDCA, in particular by
extending the security/non-security categories through the end
of the period.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the
discretionary spending caps of the BCA would reduce the
deficit, including savings from debt service, by $917 billion
over the 10 fiscal years covering 2012 through 2021.
The BCA also established a Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction that was tasked with reporting a bill to
reduce the federal deficit by an additional $1.5 trillion over
a 10-year period ending in fiscal year 2021. Legislation from
the Joint Committee would have been considered under procedures
limiting amendment and debate. Under the terms of the BCA, if
legislation from the Joint Committee reducing the deficit by at
least $1.2 trillion were not enacted, then a procedure would be
set in motion to reduce spending by adjusting the discretionary
caps downward and calculating an amount of reductions in direct
spending necessary to achieve the $1.2 trillion (or a portion
thereof if legislation from the Joint Committee achieving some
deficit reduction was enacted).
The Joint Committee was unable to report any proposal
reducing the deficit by any amount, and no legislation to that
purpose was enacted by the required January 15, 2012 deadline.
On this date, not only did the Joint Committee cease to exist,
the automatic spending reduction process was triggered.
The process that began on January 15, 2012 had the
following ramifications: The statutory discretionary caps were
replaced by new caps with new definitions of security and
nonsecurity--now effectively defense and nondefense, though the
previous terms are still used. These categories have replaced
the discretionary general category through 2021.
The process has two components: sequestration and
discretionary spending limits reduction. In order to achieve
the $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, spending reductions
will occur absent a change in law. OMB is charged with
calculating the amount of spending reduction required to
achieve the specified deficit reduction.
Since the Joint Committee did not achieve any deficit
reduction, the calculation begins with a spending reduction of
the full $1.2 trillion from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal
year 2021. According to the BCA formula, that number is reduced
by 18 percent to account for the reduced cost of debt service
attributable to the lower level of spending. The remaining
amount is divided by nine to account for each of fiscal years
2013 through 2021. This amount is then divided by two so that
it is evenly distributed between reductions in defense and
nondefense accounts.
The spending reductions are further divided between direct
spending and discretionary spending within the defense and
nondefense accounts.
The implementation of the spending reductions is distinct
from the calculation of the amounts. Once the amount is
calculated, the BCA requires reductions through sequestration
and reductions to the revised discretionary spending limits.
The sequestration order affected both discretionary and
mandatory spending for fiscal year 2013. This means that
discretionary amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 were
sequestered by the calculated amount without regard for the
amount appropriated--i.e., it was not sequestered as a function
of the discretionary spending limit for that fiscal year. In
addition, for all fiscal years 2013 through 2021, a direct
spending sequester of nonexempt accounts is ordered.
This is distinct from the spending reductions for the
discretionary spending limits for fiscal year 2014 through
fiscal year 2021--these reductions occur through revising the
spending limits downward for each of those fiscal years.

AMERICAN TAXPAYER RELIEF ACT OF 2012

As part of an agreement to make permanent most tax policies
first enacted in 2001 and 2003 but set to expire at the end of
2012, the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA) included
certain budget process provisions. ATRA reduced the BCA fiscal
year 2013 sequestration by $24 billion--from $109.33 billion to
$85.33 billion for that fiscal year.
It postponed the BCA sequester (under section 251A of
BBEDCA) by two months, from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013.
It also postponed the BBEDCA sequester (a separate
sequestration under section 251(a) of BBEDCA which normally
would occur 15 days after the end of a session of Congress)
until March 27, 2013. This sequester under section 251(a) of
BBEDCA enforces the spending limit categories rather than the
BCA which required a sequester for fiscal year 2013 by a
nominal amount--and applied regardless of where spending is
relative to the spending limits.
It also reset the fiscal year 2013 and 2014 discretionary
spending limit categories, lowering the total by $4 billion and
$8 billion respectively.
The fiscal year 2013 BCA sequester was ordered by the
President, as required by law, on March 1, 2013.

BIPARTISAN BUDGET ACT OF 2013

As a result of the budget conference negotiations between
Chairman Ryan and Chairman Murray, the Bipartisan Budget Act of
2013 (BBA 13) amended section 251 of BBEDCA to increase the
limits on discretionary spending for fiscal years 2014 and
2015. The BBA 13 agreement provided $63 billion in sequester
relief over two years, split evenly between defense and non-
defense programs. In fiscal year 2014, defense discretionary
spending was set at $520.5 billion, and non-defense
discretionary spending was set at $491.8 billion. In fiscal
year 2015, defense discretionary spending was set at $521.3
billion, and non-defense discretionary spending was set at
$492.4 billion.
The sequester relief was fully offset by reductions in
mandatory spending elsewhere in the budget. The agreement
included dozens of specific deficit-reduction provisions, with
mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling approximately
$85 billion. This included $28 billion in reductions stemming
from a provision requiring the President to sequester the same
percentage of mandatory budgetary resources in 2022 and 2023 as
will be sequestered in 2021 under current law.
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 and the
Senate. 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.
While legislation may be subject to a point of order,
budget-related enforcement is not self-enforcing. Any Member of
the House may raise a point of order against any tax or
spending bill that breaches 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 May 15.
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.
Section 314(f)
This section, established by the Budget Control Act of
2011, prohibits the consideration of any bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause
the statutory spending category limits set out in section
251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (as adjusted by procedures set out in section 251A of
that Act) to be exceeded. This budget resolution includes
language that would prevent this section's application if the
appropriation measure is not in violation of the section 302(a)
allocation.

BUDGET-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE

In addition to enforcement controls in the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, as applied through the concurrent
resolution on the budget, there are also other controls that
are found in the Rules of the House of Representatives and in
the Orders of 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 proposition related to
the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct spending,
and new entitlement authority.
Section 3 of the Separate Orders of House Resolution 5 of the 113th
Congress
House Resolution 5 adopted the rules from the 112th
Congress and incorporated additional provisions related to the
budget process.
Section 3(d)(3) 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
amendment increasing spending relative to the underlying bill
must include an offset of an equal or greater value.
ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR
ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS

----------

ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

(Subject to a General Limit of $28,781,000,000)

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

VETERANS ACCOUNTS IDENTIFIED FOR ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

(Subject to a Separate Limit of $58,662,202,000)

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 2015.
On April 2, 2014 the Committee met in open session, a
quorum being present.
Dr. Price 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 2015. The Committee on
the Budget took the following votes:
1. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen,
Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Jefferies, Pocan, Lujan
Grisham, and Doggett to increase discretionary non-defense
spending at the pre-sequester level set in the Budget Control
Act to make more investments in education, workforce training,
scientific research, public health, energy efficiency, and
manufacturing by decreasing funding for Overseas Contingency
Operations
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
920 by $80 billion in fiscal year 2016 and outlays by the
following amounts: $44.800 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$20.400 billion for fiscal year 2017, $7.920 billion for fiscal
year 2018, $2.880 billion for fiscal year 2019, and $2.800
billion for fiscal year 2020.
The amendment would reduce budget authority in Function 970
by $13.333 billion for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year
2020 and by $13.335 billion for fiscal year 2021.
Outlays in Function 970 would be reduced by the following
amounts: $8.213 billion for fiscal year 2016, $11.240 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $12.386 billion for fiscal year 2018,
$12.866 billion for fiscal year 2019, $13.200 billion for
fiscal year 2020, $13.201 billion for fiscal year 2021, $4.987
billion for fiscal year 2022, $1.960 billion for fiscal year
2023, $0.813 billion for fiscal year 2024, and $0.333 billion
for fiscal year 2025.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 19 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. An amendment offered by Representatives Yarmuth, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Pocan, Lujan
Grisham, C rdenas, Blumenauer, Schrader, Doggett and Kildee to
increase discretionary and mandatory budget authority and
outlays for Function 700 to reflect the President's budget and
establish a Veterans Job Corps. The amendment makes all
discretionary programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs
subject to advance appropriations.
The amendment would increase discretionary budget authority
for Function 700 by $1.657 billion for fiscal year 2016.
Outlays for Function 700 would increase by the following
amounts: $0.833 billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.470 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $0.185 billion for fiscal year 2018, and
$0.060 billion for fiscal years 2019 and 2020.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for
Function 700 by $1.000 billion for fiscal year 2015. Mandatory
outlays for Function 700 would increase by the following
amounts: $0.050 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.237 billion
for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and $0.238 billion for fiscal
years 2018 and 2019.
The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, closing loopholes in the international
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals,
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business
expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. An amendment offered by Representatives Blumenauer, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan,
Huffman, and C rdenas to establish a deficit-neutral reserve
fund for a new surface transportation authorization (highway
bill). The amendment would preclude transfers from the general
fund of the Treasury into the Highway Trust Fund unless such
transfers are offset by revenue increases elsewhere.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. An amendment offered by Representatives C rdenas, Van
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Jeffries, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, Blumenauer, and Schrader to
adjust revenue and Function 920 levels to reflect adoption of
H.R. 15, the House companion to the Senate's Comprehensive
Immigration Reform bill.
The amendment would increase aggregate levels of revenue by
the following amounts: $2.1 billion for fiscal year 2015, $11.5
billion for fiscal year 2016, $28.0 billion for fiscal year
2017, $39.1 billion for fiscal year 2018, $45.0 billion for
fiscal year 2019, $47.7 billion for fiscal year 2020, $55.3
billion for fiscal year 2021, $65.0 billion for fiscal year
2022, $77.7 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $87.6 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays
for Function 920 by the following amounts: $4.6 billion for
fiscal year 2015, $6.8 billion for fiscal year 2016, $14.0
billion for fiscal year 2017, $19.8 billion for fiscal year
2018, $24.6 billion for fiscal year 2019, $26.6 billion for
fiscal year 2020, $32.2 billion for fiscal year 2021, $37.4
billion for fiscal year 2022, $44.4 billion for fiscal year
2023, and $51.4 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment also expresses the sense of the House on
immigration reform.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Lee,
Jeffries, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, Doggett, and Kildee
expressing a sense of the House on the importance of raising
the minimum wage.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. An amendment offered by Representatives Jeffries, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, McDermott, Pocan, C rdenas,
and Kildee to extend unemployment insurance.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
600 by $5.750 billion for fiscal year 2015. Outlays for
Function 600 would change by the following amounts: $5.735
billion for fiscal year 2015, -$0.260 billion for fiscal year
2016, -$0.155 billion for fiscal year 2017, -$0.200 billion for
fiscal year 2018, -$0.235 billion for fiscal year 2019, -$0.220
billion for fiscal year 2020, -$0.200 billion for fiscal year
2021, -$0.130 billion for fiscal year 2022, -$0.035 billion for
fiscal year 2023, and $0.025 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would also reduce budget authority and
outlays for Function 750 by $3.542 billion each for fiscal year
2024.
The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, closing loopholes in the international
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals,
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business
expense deductions.
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
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van
Hollen, Yarmuth, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Pocan,
Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, and Doggett to increase Medicaid
funding.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and
outlays each by the following amounts: $31 billion for fiscal
year 2016, $47 billion for fiscal year 2017, $62 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $71 billion for fiscal year 2019, $80 billion
for fiscal year 2020, $93 billion for fiscal year 2021, $106
billion for fiscal year 2022, $118 billion for fiscal year
2023, and $124 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment also expresses a sense of the House that the
expansion of Medicaid both reduces rates of adverse health
effects and benefits state budgets. The amendment is offset
with tax increases including higher taxes on oil companies,
changing the depreciation schedules for certain equipment,
closing loopholes in the international corporate tax system,
and raising taxes on high-income individuals.
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
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. An amendment offered by Representatives Lee, Van Hollen,
Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Moore, Castor, McDermott, Pocan, and
Doggett expressing a sense of the House on a National Strategy
to Eradicate Poverty and Increase Opportunity.
Chairman Ryan offered a substitute amendment, which
Representative Lee rejected.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. An amendment offered by Representatives Lujan Grisham,
Van Hollen, Pascrell, Moore, Castor, McDermott, Jeffries,
Pocan, Blumenauer, and Doggett expressing a sense of the House
relating to Medicare benefits for seniors and persons with
disabilities.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. An amendment offered by Representatives Castor, Van
Hollen, Yarmuth, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), McDermott, Pocan, Lujan
Grisham, Blumenauer, Doggett, and Kildee relating to funding
for the National Institutes of Health.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for
Function 550 by the following amounts: $2 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $2.181 billion for fiscal year 2016, $2.363 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $2.552 billion for fiscal year 2018,
$2.747 billion for fiscal year 2019, $2.936 billion for fiscal
year 2020, $3.139 billion for fiscal year 2021, $3.362 billion
for fiscal year 2022, $3.600 billion for fiscal year 2023, and
$3.846 billion for fiscal year 2024.
Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following
amounts: $1.006 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.664 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $2.030 billion for fiscal year 2017,
$2.269 billion for fiscal year 2018, $2.536 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $2.722 billion for fiscal year 2020, $2.915 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $3.121 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$3.342 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $3.574 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, closing loopholes in the international
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals,
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business
expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 21 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries, Pocan, and Doggett
to increase spending on the Earned Income Tax Credit making it
available to childless workers paid for by an increase in
taxes.
The amendment would increase budget authority and outlays
for Function 600 each by the following amounts: $5.200 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $5.200 billion for fiscal year 2017,
$5.200 billion for fiscal year 2018, $5.100 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $5.200 billion for fiscal year 2020, $5.300 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $5.300 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$5.400 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $5.500 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, closing loopholes in the international
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals,
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business
expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 17
ayes and 21 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. An amendment offered by Representatives Ryan (OH), Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham,
C rdenas, Schrader, and Doggett to increase mandatory spending
in Function 500 to reject the elimination of annual
inflationary increases in the maximum Pell grant for the next
ten years.
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by the following amounts: $6.505 billion for fiscal year
2015, $7.349 billion for fiscal year 2016, $9.805 billion for
fiscal year 2017, $9.653 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.851
billion for fiscal year 2019, $10.01 billion for fiscal year
2020, $9.802 billion for fiscal year 2021, $9.874 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $9.948 billion for fiscal year 2023, and
$10.02 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would increase outlays for Function 500 by
the following amounts: $6.428 billion for fiscal year 2015,
$6.732 billion for fiscal year 2016, $8.004 billion for fiscal
year 2017, $9.739 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.708 billion
for fiscal year 2019, $9.892 billion for fiscal year 2020,
$9.952 billion for fiscal year 2021, $9.824 billion for fiscal
year 2022, $9.893 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $9.967
billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by
repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 21 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR X
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, Pocan, and Doggett to increase
mandatory budget authority and outlays in Function 550 to
ensure Medicaid beneficiaries have access to primary care.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and
outlays for Function 550 by $5.4 billion each year for the
period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by
repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 21 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. An amendment offered by Representatives Huffman, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Pocan, and C rdenas relating to
funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).
The amendment would increase budget authority for Function
500 by the following amounts: $1.433 billion for fiscal year
2015, $3.045 billion for fiscal year 2016, $4.859 billion for
fiscal year 2017, $6.900 billion for fiscal year 2018, $9.195
billion for fiscal year 2019, $11.777 billion for fiscal year
2020, $14.681 billion for fiscal year 2021, $17.948 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $21.624 billion for fiscal year 2023, and
$37.231 billion for fiscal year 2024.
Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following
amounts: $0.721 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.938 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $3.467 billion for fiscal year 2017,
$5.239 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.296 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $9.610 billion for fiscal year 2020, $12.213 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $15.141 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$18.435 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $27.909 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations and reforming the tax
code by repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. An amendment offered by Representatives Schrader, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Castor, McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham,
C rdenas, and Blumenauer to increase spending for early
childhood programs.
The amendment would increase revenue by eliminating tax
deductions for oil production and U.S. businesses with
international operations, changing the depreciation schedules
for certain equipment, closing loopholes in the international
corporate tax system, raising taxes on high-income individuals,
and reforming the tax code by repealing certain business
expense deductions.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority for
Function 500 by $1.300 billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.246
billion for fiscal year 2016, $5.784 billion for fiscal year
2017, $7.581 for fiscal year 2018, $8.956 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $9.880 billion for fiscal year 2020, $10.797 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $10.258 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$9.348 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $7.607 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
Outlays for Function 500 would increase by the following
amounts: $0.130 billion for fiscal year 2015, $1.235 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $3.110 billion for fiscal year 2017,
$5.456 billion for fiscal year 2018, $7.360 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $8.773 billion for fiscal year 2020, $9.787 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $10.560 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$10.275 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $9.356 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment also increases mandatory budget authority for
Function 550 by the following amounts: $0.500 billion for
fiscal year 2015, $0.500 billion for fiscal year 2016, $1.000
billion for fiscal year 2017, $1.000 billion for fiscal year
2018, $1.500 billion for fiscal year 2019, $1.500 billion for
fiscal year 2020, $2.000 billion for fiscal year 2021, $2.000
billion for fiscal year 2022, $2.500 billion for fiscal year
2023, and $2.500 billion for fiscal year 2024.
Outlays for Function 550 would increase by the following
amounts: $0.020 billion for fiscal year 2015, $0.115 billion
for fiscal year 2016, $0.400 billion for fiscal year 2017,
$0.575 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.900 billion for fiscal
year 2019, $1.075 billion for fiscal year 2020, $1.400 billion
for fiscal year 2021, $1.575 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$1.900 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $2.075 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. An amendment offered by Representatives Doggett,
McDermott, Jeffries, and Pocan relating to corporate
compensation. The amendment would reform the tax code by
repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment would increase recommended levels of revenue
for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 by the following amounts:
$3.5 billion for fiscal year 2015, $6 billion for fiscal year
2016, $6.1 billion for fiscal year 2017, $6.1 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $5.7 billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.3
billion for fiscal year 2020, $4.9 billion for fiscal year
2021, $4.6 billion for fiscal year 2022, $4.3 billion for
fiscal year 2023, and $4 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would decrease the deficits for fiscal years
2015 through 2024 by the following amounts: $3.5 billion for
fiscal year 2015, $6 billion for fiscal year 2016, $6.1 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $6.1 billion for fiscal year 2018, $5.7
billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.3 billion for fiscal year
2020, $4.9 billion for fiscal year 2021, $4.6 billion for
fiscal year 2022, $4.3 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $4
billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 12
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. An amendment offered by Representatives Kildee, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Pocan, and Doggett relating to
taxes for certain high income individuals.
The amendment would increase the recommended levels of
revenue for fiscal years 2015 through 2024 and decrease the
deficit by the following amounts: $16 billion for fiscal year
2015, $3 billion for fiscal year 2016, $9 billion for fiscal
year 2017, $10.5 billion for fiscal year 2018, $11.5 billion
for fiscal year 2019, $12.5 billion for fiscal year 2020, $13.5
billion for fiscal year 2021, $15 billion for fiscal year 2022,
$16.5 billion for fiscal year 2023, and $17.5 billion for
fiscal year 2024.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. An amendment offered by Representatives Pocan, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, McDermott, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas,
Blumenauer, Schrader, and Kildee relating to student loans.
The amendment establishes a deficit-neutral reserve fund
for student loan refinancing.
The amendment also increases mandatory budget authority and
outlays for Function 500. Mandatory budget authority would
increase by the following amounts: $3.075 billion for fiscal
year 2015, $5.265 billion for fiscal year 2016, $5.505 billion
for fiscal year 2017, $5.72 billion for fiscal year 2018,
$5.895 billion for fiscal year 2019, $6.045 billion for fiscal
year 2020, $6.29 billion for fiscal year 2021, $6.44 billion
for fiscal year 2022, $6.6 billion for fiscal year 2023, and
$6.855 billion for fiscal year 2024.
Outlays would increase by the following amounts: $1.92
billion for fiscal year 2015, $3.95 billion for fiscal year
2016, $4.725 billion for fiscal year 2017, $4.92 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $5.08 billion for fiscal year 2019, $5.22
billion for fiscal year 2020, $5.445 billion for fiscal year
2021, $5.58 billion for fiscal year 2022, $5.715 billion for
fiscal year 2023, and $5.85 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by
repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 13
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 18
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen,
Pascrell, McDermott, Jeffries, Pocan, Huffman, and Blumenauer
creating a point of order against the budget as it relates to
repealing President's health care law.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 14
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 19
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. An amendment offered by Representatives Pascrell, Van
Hollen, Castor, McDermott, Pocan, and Blumenauer expressing a
sense of the House rejecting an increase in taxes for the
middle class.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. An amendment offered by Representatives C rdenas, Van
Hollen, Moore, McDermott, Lee, and Pocan relating to juvenile
justice programs.
The amendment would reduce the savings in Function 920 to
provide funding for juvenile justice programs. Budget authority
would be reduced by $0.125 billion for fiscal year 2016.
Outlays would be reduced by the following amounts: $0.063
billion for fiscal year 2016, $0.035 billion for fiscal year
2017, $0.014 billion for fiscal year 2018, $0.005 billion for
fiscal year 2019, and $0.005 billion for fiscal year 2020.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by various business tax reforms.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. An amendment offered by Representative Lee eliminating
all funding for fiscal years 2016 through 2021 for Overseas
Contingency Operations.
The amendment would decrease budget authority for Function
970 by $29.946 billion each year for the period of fiscal years
2016 through 2021.
The amendment would decrease outlays for Function 970 by
the following amounts: $17.770 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$26.763 billion for fiscal year 2017, $28.799 billion for
fiscal year 2018, $29.404 billion for fiscal year 2019, $29.703
billion for fiscal year 2020, $29.647 billion for fiscal year
2021, $11.200 billion for fiscal year 2022, $4.402 billion for
fiscal year 2023, and $1.827 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 15
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. An amendment offered by Representatives Van Hollen,
McDermott, Lee, Pocan, Lujan Grisham, and Blumenauer relating
to Overseas Contingency Operations.
The amendment would limit fiscal year 2015 allocations for
Overseas Contingency Operations to the levels in the
President's budget request for Overseas Contingency Operations.
Chairman Ryan agreed to work with the minority on this
amendment and to incorporate applicable language in the
Committee report. Representative Van Hollen then withdrew his
amendment.
24. An amendment offered by Representatives Moore, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, Ryan (OH), Castor, McDermott, Lee, Jeffries,
Pocan, Lujan Grisham, C rdenas, and Kildee relating to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The amendment would increase mandatory budget authority and
outlays for Function 600 each by the following amounts: $1
billion for fiscal year 2015, $4 billion for fiscal year 2016,
$4 billion for fiscal year 2017, $3 billion for fiscal year
2018, $19 billion for fiscal year 2019, $19.8 billion for
fiscal year 2020, $20.7 billion for fiscal year 2021, $21.2
billion for fiscal year 2022, $21.8 billion for fiscal year
2023, and $22.5 billion for fiscal year 2024.
The amendment would adjust the aggregate levels of revenue
by eliminating tax deductions for oil production and U.S.
businesses with international operations, changing the
depreciation schedules for certain equipment, closing loopholes
in the international corporate tax system, raising taxes on
high-income individuals, and reforming the tax code by
repealing certain business expense deductions.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. An amendment offered by Representatives McDermott, Van
Hollen, Pascrell, and Pocan relating to Medicare.
The amendment expresses a sense of the House declaring that
benefits provided under the President's health care law for
seniors, including the provisions related to Medicare Part D,
should not be repealed.
The amendment was not agreed to by a roll call vote of 16
ayes and 22 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. Dr. Price made a motion that the Committee adopt the
aggregates, function totals, and other appropriate matter, with
any amendments.
The motion offered by Dr. Price was agreed to by voice
vote.
Chairman Ryan called up the Concurrent Resolution on the
Budget for fiscal year 2015 incorporating the aggregates,
function totals, and other appropriate matter as previously
agreed.
27. Dr. Price 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 Dr. Price was agreed to by a roll
call vote of 22 ayes and 16 noes.

ROLLCALL VOTE NO. 25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name & Answer Name & Answer
State Aye No Present State Aye No Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN, X VAN X
PAUL HOLLEN
(WI) (MD)
(Chairma (Ranking
n) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRICE X YARMUTH X
(GA) (KY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARRETT X PASCRELL X
(NJ) (NJ)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMPBELL X RYAN, TIM X
(CA) (OH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALVERT X MOORE X
(CA) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLE (OK) X CASTOR
(FL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCLINTOC X McDERMOTT X
K (CA) (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LANKFORD X LEE (CA) X
(OK)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACK X JEFFRIES X
(TN) (NY)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIBBLE X POCAN X
(WI) (WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLORES X LUJAN X
(TX) GRISHAM
(NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROKITA X HUFFMAN X
(IN) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOODALL X CARDENAS X
(GA) (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKBURN X BLUMENAUE X
(TN) R (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUNNELEE X SCHRADER X
(MS) (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RIGELL X DOGGETT X
(VA) (TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARTZLER X KILDEE X
(M0) (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALORSKI X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MESSER X .........
(IN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICE (SC) X .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAMS X .........
(TX)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUFFY X
(WI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Price 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.
AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

----------

During consideration of the budget resolution, the
Committee considered 25 amendments. Fifteen of those amendments
proposed to increase revenues (taxes) and increase spending.
Frequently, the same assumptions were made with respect to the
revenue increases. In total, the revenue increases proposed in
these 15 amendments amounted to $1.5 trillion to offset
additional spending proposed in the amendments. In addition,
the amendments the Committee defeated would have the effect of
hampering one or more of the following goals in resolution:
reducing spending, balancing the budget, advancing tax reform,
reforming and strengthening federal programs, increasing
defense spending and promoting economic growth. The rationale
for rejecting some of these amendments follows.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO INCREASED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland offered an
amendment that would have increased non-defense discretionary
spending. This spending was intended to be offset by a
reduction in funding for the Overseas Contingency Operations
(OCO) account. The Committee defeated this amendment because it
was a prime example of ``stimulus economics''--the belief that
more borrowing and spending (pitched as ``investment'') will
somehow lead to greater prosperity. After four successive years
of trillion-dollar deficits, fueled by a borrow-and-spend
economic philosophy, and roughly $6.6 trillion in new debt
since the President took office, the economy and the job market
have not taken off as promised. Furthermore, the resources to
pay for this amendment's expansion in government spending were
purported to come from an account that contains no funds. As
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has noted on several
occasions, ``There are no funds in the Treasury set aside'' for
OCO. Representative Scott Garrett of New Jersey submitted into
the record a letter from CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf that
discusses in some detail the problems with capping OCO spending
as an offset. Therefore, this amendment would have simply led
to an increase in government spending and larger deficits.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS SPENDING

Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky offered an
amendment that would increase veterans-related discretionary
and mandatory spending, including creating a Veterans Job
Corps, and called for making all discretionary programs at the
Department of Veterans Affairs subject to advance
appropriations. The amendment was defeated because the budget
resolution already fully funds the President's fiscal year 2015
discretionary request, makes no cuts to veterans' benefits, and
exceeds the President's discretionary budget request by $9
billion over the budget window. Further, this budget matches
the President's advance appropriation request for veteran
medical care for fiscal year 2016. In regards to the new
mandatory Job Corps proposal, Republicans were concerned about
the lack of details regarding the proposal, which the Committee
on Veterans Affairs did not recommend including in the budget
due to similar concerns. For these reasons, the Committee
defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO INCREASING REVENUE
TO THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon offered an
amendment creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide
for increased spending on surface-transportation programs and
higher receipts for the Highway Trust Fund. The amendment would
allow the reauthorization of surface-transportation programs
for a period of six years, covering fiscal years 2015--2020, to
be offset by higher revenues. The Committee defeated this
amendment. The budget resolution already includes a deficit-
neutral reserve fund for the reauthorization of surface-
transportation programs (Sec. 309). Moreover, the budget
resolution does not lock the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee into the narrow parameters of this amendment but
instead allows for a surface-transportation reauthorization
covering any length of time, provided that it does not increase
the deficit. This approach was taken by the 2013 House budget,
which paved the way for the current surface-transportation
authorization (MAP-21).

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAMS

Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an
amendment to provide additional spending for juvenile justice
programs. This spending increase would be offset by increases
in taxes on businesses. The Committee defeated this amendment.
The budget resolution assumes no cuts to juvenile justice
programs. It does, however, call for consolidating and
streamlining Department of Justice (DOJ) grants to eliminate
unnecessary overlap and duplication. Grantees such as juvenile
justice programs will benefit from more accountable, less
fragmented DOJ grant administration. Moreover, the budget
resolution calls for comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform.
Tax policy changes of this sort should be considered in the
context of comprehensive, revenue-neutral tax reform.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE MINIMUM WAGE

Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment
calling for an increase in the minimum wage. The Committee
defeated this amendment because of concerns about the effects
the policy would have on employment. According to the
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this policy would
eliminate 500,000 jobs. Furthermore, the Washington Post has
reported that the Obama administration worried that it would
``spark * * * negative effects on employment.'' Finally, in a
literature survey, independent economists David Neumark and
William Wascher found that most research found a negative
effect on employment due to increases in the minimum wage.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO EMERGENCY
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York offered an
amendment calling for an extension of Emergency Unemployment
Compensation. The Committee defeated this amendment because it
would increase taxes by over $50 billion in taxes over the next
decade. Such selective tax increases would make comprehensive
tax reform harder to accomplish--the purpose of which is to
eliminate loopholes and broaden the base so that rates may be
lowered to stimulate economic growth. The proposed policy could
lead to ``emergency and temporary'' unemployment expansions
becoming permanent and also ignores growing evidence that
extended unemployment insurance may inhibit economic growth and
increase the unemployment rate.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO POVERTY

Representative Barbara Lee of California offered an
amendment calling for a national strategy to eliminate poverty.
The amendment, as drafted, proposed a number of
counterproductive policies, policies that would have hurt
economic growth and eliminated jobs. Poverty is a serious
problem that needs to be addressed. During the mark-up the
majority worked to find agreement on an amendment with
Representative Lee. Unfortunately, she rejected alternate
language suggested by the majority that she had previously
authored and that had passed the House of Representatives in
2008. The Committee defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO NUTRITION ASSISTANCE

Representative Gwen Moore of Wisconsin offered an amendment
calling for an increase in spending of $137 billion for food
stamps. The Committee defeated this amendment. The food-stamp
program has increased nearly threefold over the past decade,
from $29 billion in 2004, to $83 billion in 2013. While much of
this increase is due to the recent recession, the SNAP program
has also seen a number of expansions in the program, most
notably categorical eligibility--and the Department of
Agriculture has concluded that SNAP enrollment has become
disconnected from changes in the real economy. For these
reasons, the Committee defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE TAX TREATMENT OF
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas offered an amendment
that would limit the dollar amount of each employee's salary a
publicly-traded company can deduct as a business expense.
Currently, the deduction cap applies only to covered employees,
namely the CEO and other three highest-paid executive officers,
excluding the chief financial officer. Additionally, under
current law performance-based and commission-based pay do not
count towards the cap.
The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee
supports comprehensive tax reform, including reforms that would
address the corporate tax code. The Tax Foundation estimates
that our current statutory corporate income-tax rate of 35
percent is the highest in the industrialized world, which puts
American businesses at a disadvantage and discourages job
creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. However, this
amendment does not provide the comprehensive tax reform this
country needs. Rather, it would further complicate the code to
raise taxes on one select group of individuals by about $50
billion over ten years. The budget resolution calls for pro-
growth tax reform that would address the real problems with our
tax code--namely the unnecessary complexity and high rates that
threaten economic growth. For these reasons, the Committee
defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

Representative Tony Cardenas of California offered an
amendment to increase revenue and Function 920 levels to
reflect adoption of H.R. 15, a bill significantly similar to
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary-reported version of S.
744, a comprehensive immigration-reform bill.
The Committee defeated this amendment. The Committee
rejected the sweeping changes made in H.R. 15 and its Senate
companion, an over one-thousand-page bill. Rather, the
Committee advocates for a step-by-step process that begins with
border security and interior enforcement. The House committees
of jurisdiction have been and continue working to reform our
broken immigration system. For those reasons, the Committee did
not support the inclusion of H.R. 15 in this budget resolution.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO MEDICAID

Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey offered an
amendment to increase Medicaid funding. The amendment is offset
with a variety of tax increases.
The Committee defeated this amendment. This budget proposes
to spend $3.5 trillion over the next decade on Medicaid and
Other Health programs. It increases spending on the program
every year from fiscal year 2016 onward. According to CBO,
Medicaid is growing at an average annual rate of 9 percent over
the next five years. This budget proposes simply to slow the
growth in spending and give states more flexibility so they can
design the programs around their people's needs. Spending
growth at that rate is simply unsustainable. But the problem
with Medicaid isn't just that it spends too much. It's also not
giving patients the access to health care that they need.
Moreover, the President's health-care law forces millions of
Americans into this broken system. This budget repeals those
expansions, empowers states with the flexibility and resources
to design innovative programs that are more responsive to their
citizens' needs than a one-size-fits-all federal program, and
creates the space to replace the President's health care law
with true, patient-centered reforms that will better serve
Medicaid patients. For these reasons, the Committee did not
agree to this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO MEDICARE

Representative Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico offered
an amendment to increase Medicaid funding and to include in the
Chairman's Mark a Sense of the House praising the effects of
the President's health-care law on Medicare and opposing
premium support.
The Committee defeated this amendment. Because of rising
health costs and demographic changes, CBO projects that the
Medicare program will be bankrupt in 2026. The status quo is
unacceptable. The President's health-care law only made the
problem worse. By raiding Medicare to pay for a new
entitlement, it ensured that 40 percent of Medicare providers
will go out of business according to the Medicare Trustees.
In contrast, the Medicare reforms contained in the budget
save and strengthen the Medicare guarantee. The Republican
budget slows Medicare spending--but it does so by transitioning
to a new Medicare program for future generations. Those in and
near retirement have the same program as they have today, with
no changes to the current benefit structure. The traditional
fee-for-service program would permanently remain an option--for
all seniors, current and future--in the Republican budget.
Future seniors would choose from a list of Medicare-approved
private plans competing with the fee-for-service program so
seniors have a range of plans, regardless of health status or
pre-existing conditions. High-income seniors get less support;
low-income seniors get more. And new evidence from the
Congressional Budget Office shows that premium-support-style
reforms can both reduce costs to seniors and the federal
government. The real threat to the Medicare guarantee is the
status quo. And doing nothing--or worse, trying to ration
care--represents the greatest threat to seniors' health
security. For these reasons, the Committee defeated this
amendment.

AN AMENDMENT TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC JOBS AND PROVIDE
A NATIONAL INVESTMENT IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

Representative Kathy Castor of Florida offered an amendment
to increase Function 550 mandatory budget authority by $28.7
billion and mandatory outlays by $25.2 billion. It assumes this
additional funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The amendment offsets the new spending by increasing taxes.
The Committee defeated this amendment. The Chairman's Mark
assumes no cuts to NIH and reflects strong support for NIH's
core mission to invest in basic biomedical research as a key
investment to uncover new knowledge that can lead to better
health and disease cures for everyone. However, it is
imperative taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Recent news
reports that taxpayer funds entrusted to the National
Institutes of Health are being spent to support a variety of
questionable projects, including grants examining ``Public
Health Education and Campaigns in China'' and a study asserting
a link between the Tea Party and the tobacco industry. Every
agency that supports public health and research, including HHS,
collectively must work to ensure all these resources are spent
in the most effective manner to avoid duplication and waste and
to coordinate the activity toward collective public-health or
research goals and objectives. For these reasons, the Committee
defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO PELL GRANTS

Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio offered an amendment to
increase spending on the Pell grant program with the costs
offset with a variety of taxes increases. The Committee
defeated this amendment.
Pell Grants are a critical source of financial aid that has
helped increase access to higher education for millions of low-
income students. But reckless spending hikes have jeopardized
the program's ability to keep its promises. Program costs have
skyrocketed since fiscal year 2008, and the program faces a big
financial shortfall in fiscal year 2016. If left unaddressed,
it could cause severe cuts to eligibility and/or award amounts.
While this amendment refuses to make the tough decisions needed
to put Pell Grants on a sustainable path, the Chairman's mark
puts the program on a sustainable path with a number of
commonsense reforms. It takes Pell off autopilot while
maintaining the current maximum award of $5,730 for each year
of the next decade. Moreover, it rolls back several recent
expansions of the program to ensure that Pell stays focused on
those in most need and does not spur higher tuition.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS IN MEDICAID

Representative Jim McDermott of Washington offered an
amendment increasing spending for Medicaid. The amendment would
increase Medicaid payments for those primary providers who
treat Medicaid patients only in those states that have expanded
their Medicaid programs according to the regulations under the
President's health-care law. Those primary-care providers who
treat Medicaid patients in states that have not expanded their
Medicaid payments would not benefit from this provision.
Moreover, the amendment does not address the access problems
that enrollees currently face. The budget resolution would
instead put states in charge of their own Medicaid program so
they can design solutions that best meet the unique needs of
their own constituents. The committee defeated the amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT

Representative Jared Huffman of California offered an
amendment to increase spending to fund the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at 40 percent of the average
per pupil expenditure for special education, the maximum amount
authorized under the law. It offsets the cost of this spending
by raising taxes in a variety of ways. The Committee defeated
this amendment.
The Chairman's mark assumes no reductions to IDEA, and it
reflects strong support for IDEA's core mission to support the
education of children with disabilities. IDEA is funded
annually through the appropriations process. The Committee
believes funding for this critical program should remain
subject to annual review, providing the chance for Congress to
make changes and ensure priorities are being met. The
Appropriations Committee will have the opportunity to examine
IDEA spending and, within the parameters set by this budget,
set appropriate funding levels. For these reasons, the
Committee defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

Representative Kurt Schrader of Oregon offered an amendment
to increase funding for early childhood programs. It offsets
the costs of this increased spending by raising taxes in a
variety of ways. The Committee defeated this amendment.
The federal government currently supports 45 different
programs costing at least $14.2 billion annually with the
purpose of supporting or providing early childhood care and
education programs for children under the age of five. Yet, in
everything, including education, the measure of success should
not be the amount of taxpayer money spent. It must be assessed
in how effectively the money is spent and the outcomes of the
particular program. One of the largest early childhood
education programs is Head Start, a nearly $9 billion per year
program that has been shown to provide little to no benefit for
cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of
its participants. This maze of programs and lack of sustained
results are a disservice to vulnerable children, and it is
irresponsible to add yet another layer of spending before these
existing programs are fixed. For these reasons, the Committee
did not support inclusion of this amendment in the Chairman's
Mark.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO STUDENT LOANS

Representative Mark Pocan of Wisconsin offered an amendment
to increase spending on student loans. The amendment offsets
these costs by raising taxes in a variety of ways. The
Committee defeated this amendment.
The Committee agrees student debt is a growing problem. In
fact, the Chairman's Mark contains a policy statement
expressing its concern at the rapid rate of tuition growth.
However, the best solution to alleviating the burden of student
debt is to increase the return to education by restoring strong
economic growth. This budget promotes pro-growth policies,
policies that un- and under-employed recent college graduates
need. Moreover, the federal government already provides a
variety of loan-repayment plans to help students manage their
debt. This budget adopts a modest reform proposed by the
President's Fiscal Commission that would require undergraduate
students to assume more responsibility for the costs of their
loans. It also rolls back expansions to the income-based
repayment program that many suggest are disproportionately
benefiting graduate and professional students. This budget's
reforms to student financial aid will ensure critical programs
are sustained and available to the people who need them most,
rather than fueling tuition inflation. For these reasons, the
Committee defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATING TO THE ACCOUNTING OF REPEAL
OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland offered an
amendment creating a point of order against future legislation
that subsequently repeals portions of the President's health-
care law. The underlying resolution calls for the full repeal
of the health law. It repeals more than $2 trillion in new
spending under the President's health-care law. It repeals over
a trillion in tax increases as part of comprehensive, revenue-
neutral tax reform. It ends the health law's raid on Medicare
and instead keeps those savings with in the Medicare program
while also creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund to replace
those savings. The amendment would provide a roadblock to
addressing the fundamental flaws with the President's
healthcare law. For these reasons, the committee defeated the
amendment.

AN AMENDMENT TO HELP WITH PRESCRIPTION
DRUG COSTS FOR SENIORS

Representative Jim McDermott of Washington offered an
amendment stating the sense of the House that the President's
health-care law included provisions that reduced prescription-
drug costs for seniors who fall in the ``donut hole'' in the
Part D program. The President's health-care law is flawed and
needs to be repealed and replaced. In this instance, according
to the Congressional Budget Office, the provisions in the
President's health-care law that changed the structure of the
Part D program would have the effect of increasing
prescription-drug costs for all seniors. For these reasons, the
committee defeated this amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO TAX PREFERENCES
FOR CERTAIN TAXPAYERS

Representative Dan Kildee of Michigan offered an amendment
that would have reduced or eliminated certain tax preferences
for those with adjusted gross income (AGI) in excess of $1
million annually. The Committee defeated this amendment as the
measure would harm the economy and do little to reduce the
deficit. It may be politically expedient to go after certain
groups deemed unpopular, but the majority of non-corporate
small businesses pay taxes under the individual income-tax
system. Therefore, these individual tax hike proposals end up
impacting the successful small business that are the engines of
job creation in our economy. Small businesses generate 60 to 80
percent of net new jobs annually and employ about half of all
private-sector employees, according to the Small Business
Administration. For these reasons, the Committee defeated this
amendment.

AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE DISTRIBUTIONAL
IMPACT OF TAX REFORM

Representative Bill Pascrell of New Jersey offered an
amendment expressing the sense of the House that the budget
should not allow taxes to be raised on the middle class. The
Committee defeated this amendment. This budget resolution does
not call for tax increases on anyone, whatever their income
level. The budget resolution calls for fundamental tax reform
that broadens the tax base and lowers tax rates. The tax code
is littered with special credits, deductions and loopholes,
which sum to over $1 trillion annually and are
disproportionately used by upper-income individuals. The budget
resolution advocates cleaning out these loopholes so that tax
rates can be lowered for all taxpayers. This amendment would
hamper the tax-reform process by blocking the examination of
the entire universe of tax preferences. In addition, section
602 includes a policy statement, calling for pro-growth tax
reform that would make the code simpler and fairer. For these
reasons, the Committee defeated this amendment.
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 two-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

----------

2015 Republican Budget Slows Economic Growth,
Widens Income Inequality, and Dims the American Dream

Our budgets are a reflection of our vision for America.
They reveal our priorities. They demonstrate what we value and
what we don't. They are about fundamental choices for the
future direction of our nation.
The President has presented a budget for fiscal year 2015
that will help boost job growth, sharpen America's competitive
edge, and expand opportunity. The Republican budget before us
does exactly the opposite. Of all the reckless budgets our
Republican colleagues have introduced, this one is the worst
for America. Many will argue that this budget should not be
taken seriously because it will go nowhere in the Senate. But
the public should take it very seriously, because it tells
people exactly what Republicans in Congress would do if they
had the power to impose their will on the country.
At its core, this budget rigs the rules for wealthy special
interests at the expense of everyone else. It cuts the tax
rates for multi-millionaires by one-third while it guts vital
investments in our children's futures, squeezes the middle
class, and violates important commitments to our seniors.
The Republican budget is a boon to our economic
competitors, providing perverse tax incentives to ship American
jobs overseas while shortchanging investments in jobs here at
home. It makes historically reckless cuts in areas that help
power our economy--education, scientific research, innovation,
advanced manufacturing, and diverse energy sources. All told,
it cuts non-defense discretionary spending by a staggering $791
billion below the already unsustainable sequester level. That
takes those investments to almost 40 percent lower as a share
of the economy than at any time in the last 50 years.
At a time when we should be modernizing our infrastructure,
this budget slashes the transportation budget by a whopping $52
billion this year alone, stopping new projects and throwing
construction workers off their jobs. It will condemn the United
States to a pot-holed road of economic decline. And it rejects
one measure that, according to the Congressional Budget Office,
could immediately unleash more economic activity and grow our
economy--comprehensive immigration reform.
The saddest part of this budget is that is casts a dark
shadow over the American Dream--it violates the fundamental
promise that every hard-working American should have a fair
shot at success. Our kids' education is vital to a bright
future for all of us. At a time when we should be investing
more in education, the Republican budget's unallocated cut
would proportionately slash funding for education and job
training by over $145 billion. According to the
Administration's estimates, this cut to education funding would
mean that Title I, which helps ensure that students can meet
challenging academic standards, would be unable to support the
equivalent of about 8,000 schools, potentially resulting in
29,000 fewer teachers and their aides. Special education would
take a big hit.
After cutting appropriations available for education by
$145 billion, the Republican budget goes further and cuts
current policy support for higher education by another $205
billion. Students who want to go to college will have a tough
time unless they are born into well-to-do families. This budget
eliminates the one guaranteed source of Pell Grants, starts
charging students interest on their loans while in college,
discontinues the college tuition tax credits, and reverses new
efforts to relieve the debt burden on many students.
Instead of addressing the lack of upward mobility, rung by
rung, this budget knocks steps off the ladder of opportunity.
If you are to the manor born, cheers. For everyone else, this
budget is a punch in the gut.
Take seniors for our next example. Those on Medicare will
immediately pay more for diagnostic screenings and other
preventative health services. Those with high prescription drug
costs will see the donut hole re-opened and prices will
skyrocket--seniors with high drug costs will pay nearly $1,200
more per year. Millions of seniors in nursing homes will be
especially hurt by the reckless cuts to Medicaid. Over two-
thirds of the base Medicaid program supports the elderly and
the disabled and this budget slashes the Medicaid budget in its
last year by a full 25 percent--in addition to repealing the
Affordable Care Act expansion of the program. At the same time,
the budget ends the current Medicare guarantee, forcing seniors
who stay in fee-for-service care to face large premium
increases. On top of all this, the Republican budget keeps the
Medicare sequester cut on health providers in place to the tune
of $140 billion.
Middle class families are also hit, and will see their tax
burden increase to finance windfall tax breaks for the very
rich. It ignores the reality exemplified by Ways and Means
Chairman Camp's tax reform plan that demonstrates that we
cannot have a revenue-neutral plan that lowers the top tax rate
to 25 percent without raising rates for those making less.
While Chairman Camp's bill has a top rate of 35 percent, this
budget calls for a top rate for millionaires of 25 percent.
Financing this tax break for the wealthy will mean an average
tax increase of $2,000 for middle class families with children.
This budget reserves perhaps its cruelest blow to those
seeking to climb out of poverty and into the middle class. It
reveals that Republicans' post-election talk about seriously
addressing poverty issues was just that--talk. During the last
election, Governor Romney stated that he wasn't focused on
helping the 47 percent of struggling Americans, and this
Republican budget sets out to prove it. It absolutely decimates
safety net programs--like SNAP and Medicaid--designed to stop
people from falling into deep poverty.
Just last year, after much debate, Congress reduced the
Republican Farm Bill's cut to food and nutrition support from
$40 billion to $8 billion. But this budget would now slash $137
billion, meaning millions of kids will be hungrier. It is
premised on the false and pernicious notion that providing
struggling families with minimal food and nutrition support
saps their will to work. This is apparently the new Republican
jobs plan--just take away food and nutrition support, and jobs
will sprout up and people will flock to work. Give children
dignity by taking away school lunch programs. Slash Medicaid
because poor people are just lolling around in Medicaid
hammocks. It is no wonder that faith groups have criticized
past Republican budgets as failing to meet basic moral
standards.
Our Republican colleagues say these bitter austerity
measures are needed to reduce the deficit. But if that is
really their paramount concern, why do they refuse to close a
single special interest tax break to reduce the deficit?
Republicans say they do not want to pass on debts to future
generations, but will not end a single break for the Koch
brothers and other special interests. Instead, they place all
the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, kids,
seniors, and hard-working Americans who make their living
earning wages rather than on profits on tax-preferred hedge
funds and stock options.
Despite these austerity measures, the truth is that this
budget does not balance. It is a total fraud for Republicans to
claim that this budget balances in ten years at the same time
they have voted over 50 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act
(ACA). Why? Because this budget includes all of the ACA's
Medicare savings and revenue, which together amount to about $2
trillion. Without these Obamacare provisions, the Republican
budget falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of balance
in year ten. The truth is that Republicans do not repeal the
entire Affordable Care Act--just all the benefits of the law,
like the tax credits that make insurance more affordable and
the provisions that allow younger people to stay on their
parents policies until age 26. The Republicans keep all the ACA
budget savings. They cannot have it both ways: either they
support all the revenue and savings in the ACA or their budget
does not come close to balancing.
The Republican budget is a deeply pessimistic vision of
America. It will result in slower economic growth and widening
income inequality. It will further empower entrenched special
interests while dimming the American Dream for everyone else.
We can do so much better, and this is a debate we should take
to the country.

Chris Van Hollen.
John A. Yarmuth.
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Tim Ryan.
Gwen Moore.
Kathy Castor.
Jim McDermott.
Barbara Lee.
Hakeem S. Jeffries.
Mark Pocan.
Michelle Lujan Grisham.
Jared Huffman.
Tony Cardenas.
Earl Blumenauer.
Kurt Schrader.
Lloyd Doggett.
Daniel Kildee.
113th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. CON. RES. 96

Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal
year 2015 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal
years 2016 through 2024.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress determines and declares that
this concurrent resolution establishes the budget for fiscal
year 2015 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2016 through 2024.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2015.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

Sec. 201. Long-term budgeting.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

Sec. 301. Reserve fund for the repeal of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the reform of the 2010 health
care laws.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund related to the Medicare
provisions of the 2010 health care laws.
Sec. 304. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the sustainable growth rate
of the Medicare program.
Sec. 305. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for reforming the tax code.
Sec. 306. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for trade agreements.
Sec. 307. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for revenue measures.
Sec. 308. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for rural counties and schools.
Sec. 309. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for transportation.
Sec. 310. Deficit-neutral reserve fund to reduce poverty and increase
opportunity and upward mobility.

TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

Sec. 401. Direct spending.

TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 501. Limitation on advance appropriations.
Sec. 502. Concepts and definitions.
Sec. 503. Adjustments of aggregates, allocations, and appropriate
budgetary levels.
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. 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 STATEMENTS

Sec. 601. Policy statement on economic growth and job creation.
Sec. 602. Policy statement on tax reform.
Sec. 603. Policy statement on replacing the President's health care law.
Sec. 604. Policy statement on Medicare.
Sec. 605. Policy statement on Social Security.
Sec. 606. Policy statement on higher education and workforce development
opportunity.
Sec. 607. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the cancellation
of unobligated balances.
Sec. 608. Policy statement on responsible stewardship of taxpayer
dollars.
Sec. 609. Policy statement on deficit reduction through the reduction of
unnecessary and wasteful spending.
Sec. 610. Policy statement on unauthorized spending.
Sec. 611. Policy statement on Federal regulatory policy.
Sec. 612. Policy statement on trade.
Sec. 613. No budget, no pay.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2015 through 2024:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal
revenues are as follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $2,533,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,676,038,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,789,423,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $2,890,308,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,014,685,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,148,637,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,294,650,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,456,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,626,518,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $3,807,452,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate
levels of Federal revenues should be changed
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $0.
Fiscal year 2016: $0.
Fiscal year 2017: $0.
Fiscal year 2018: $0.
Fiscal year 2019: $0.
Fiscal year 2020: $0.
Fiscal year 2021: $0.
Fiscal year 2022: $0.
Fiscal year 2023: $0.
Fiscal year 2024: $0.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the
appropriate levels of total new budget authority are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $2,842,226,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,858,059,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,957,321,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,059,410,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,210,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,360,435,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,460,524,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,587,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,660,151,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $3,706,695,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the
appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $2,920,026,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $2,889,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $2,949,261,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $3,034,773,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $3,185,472,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $3,320,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $3,433,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $3,577,963,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $3,632,642,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $3,676,374,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the
enforcement of this concurrent resolution, the amounts
of the deficits (on-budget) are as follows:
Fiscal year 2015: -$386,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: -$213,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: -$159,838,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: -$144,466,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: -$170,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: -$172,290,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: -$138,741,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: -$121,617,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: -$6,124,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $131,078,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--The appropriate levels
of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $18,304,357,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $18,627,533,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $19,172,590,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $19,411,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $19,773,917,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $20,227,349,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $20,449,374,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $20,822,448,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $20,981,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $21,089,365,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate
levels of debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2015: $13,213,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016: $13,419,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017: $13,800,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018: $13,860,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019: $14,080,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020: $14,427,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021: $14,579,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022: $14,940,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023: $15,080,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024: $15,176,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2015 through 2024 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$528,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $566,503,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$573,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $573,064,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$597,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $584,252,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$611,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $593,795,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$624,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $611,902,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$638,697,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $626,175,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$653,001,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $640,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$669,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $661,181,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$687,393,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $672,922,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$706,218,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $685,796,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,029,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,734,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,976,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,229,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$41,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,822,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$42,513,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,553,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,497,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$44,004,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$45,271,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $41,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$46,287,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $42,667,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$47,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,624,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$28,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,240,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,113,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,750,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,350,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$30,413,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,938,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,096,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,782,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,174,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$32,493,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,870,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,210,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,576,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,955,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,304,000,000.
(4) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$4,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,751,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$3,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,416,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$2,048,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,400,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,762,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,192,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,788,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,278,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$1,851,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,384,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
-$16,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
-$1,018,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
-$1,914,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$2,188,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
-$6,113,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$6,699,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$34,289,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,311,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$34,491,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,747,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$35,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$33,047,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,316,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$36,859,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,779,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,169,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,877,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$36,428,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,379,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$38,979,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,749,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$39,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,733,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,592,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,752,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,556,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$22,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,313,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,527,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,992,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$18,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$18,654,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,970,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,008,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,440,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$19,764,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,249,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,017,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,516,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$20,635,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,131,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
-$3,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$14,762,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
-$4,518,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$18,633,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
-$7,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$23,217,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
-$7,385,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$24,136,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
-$6,658,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$28,258,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
-$3,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$26,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
-$4,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$20,982,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
-$4,794,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$23,197,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
-$5,073,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$24,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
-$5,118,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$25,793,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$34,713,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,659,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$68,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,907,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$74,454,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $75,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$75,978,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $77,558,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$77,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $78,163,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$78,373,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $79,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$79,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $80,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$80,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $81,409,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$81,829,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $82,872,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$83,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,024,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$14,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,608,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,303,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,425,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,269,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,292,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,414,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,840,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,841,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,283,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,008,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,421,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,679,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,658,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,408,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$15,954,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,490,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$16,302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,910,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social
Services (500):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$73,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$82,372,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $84,521,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$86,699,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,137,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$89,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,808,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$85,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$86,555,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $87,130,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$87,749,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $88,403,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$89,167,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $89,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$90,661,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $91,360,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$92,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,926,000,000.
(11) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$419,799,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,573,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$367,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $370,205,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$377,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $375,839,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$376,732,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $377,346,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$390,437,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $390,404,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$415,814,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $405,309,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$419,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $418,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$433,512,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $432,149,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$449,181,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,991,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$472,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $471,312,000,000.
(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$519,196,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $519,407,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$558,895,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $558,964,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$570,144,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $570,341,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$590,695,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $591,117,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$651,579,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $651,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$692,307,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $692,644,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$737,455,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $738,042,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$815,257,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $817,195,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$836,296,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $837,883,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$859,011,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $866,262,000,000.
(13) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$505,729,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $505,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$487,645,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $490,122,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$489,766,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,105,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$492,129,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $484,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$493,996,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $490,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$512,717,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $508,689,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$520,016,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$529,438,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $529,111,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$530,839,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $525,624,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$525,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $515,225,000,000.
(14) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$31,442,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,517,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$34,245,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $34,283,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$37,133,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,133,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$40,138,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $40,138,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$43,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $43,383,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$46,747,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $46,747,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$50,255,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $50,255,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$53,941,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $53,941,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$57,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $57,800,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$58,441,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,441,000,000.
(15) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$153,027,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $152,978,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$164,961,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $164,807,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$163,858,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $163,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$162,388,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $161,646,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$174,305,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $173,499,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$179,269,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $178,380,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$183,571,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $182,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$195,680,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $194,719,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$192,458,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $191,491,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$189,292,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $188,262,000,000.
(16) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$54,011,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $54,250,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $56,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$56,770,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $58,319,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$58,405,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,095,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$60,239,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $60,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$62,146,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,649,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$64,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $63,734,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$66,967,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,411,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$69,031,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,455,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$71,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,568,000,000.
(17) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,710,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,618,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,064,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,826,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$21,587,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,674,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$23,269,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,973,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$24,040,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,582,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$24,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,331,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$25,556,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,139,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$26,353,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,939,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,097,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,691,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$27,912,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,491,000,000.
(18) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$365,987,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $365,987,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$416,238,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $416,238,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$482,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $482,228,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$553,820,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $553,820,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$611,852,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $611,852,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$659,310,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $659,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$693,159,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $693,159,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
$723,805,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $723,805,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
$751,215,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $751,215,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
$770,124,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $770,124,000,000.
(19) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
-$36,364,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$22,676,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
-$47,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$36,706,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
-$51,416,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$45,014,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
-$54,566,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$49,571,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
-$56,672,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
-$61,825,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$58,102,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
-$64,552,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$61,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
-$66,871,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,946,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
-$68,992,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,322,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
-$65,972,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$64,338,000,000.
(20) Government-wide savings (930):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$25,904,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,052,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
-$14,151,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$1,701,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
-$30,525,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$17,482,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
-$38,302,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$27,789,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
-$46,446,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$35,547,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
-$55,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$44,608,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
-$63,060,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$53,317,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
-$75,189,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$64,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
-$87,334,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$75,209,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
-$117,125,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$96,353,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
-$78,632,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$78,632,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
-$83,652,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$83,652,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
-$83,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$83,974,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
-$84,602,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$84,602,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
-$91,824,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$91,824,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
-$93,787,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$93,787,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
-$98,176,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$98,176,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority,
-$101,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$101,529,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority,
-$105,731,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$105,731,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority,
-$113,422,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$113,422,000,000.
(22) Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on
Terrorism (970):
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority,
$85,357,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $52,580,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $37,823,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,585,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,893,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,032,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority,
$29,946,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,647,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $11,200,000,000.
Fiscal year 2023:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $4,402,000,000.
Fiscal year 2024:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,827,000,000.

TITLE II--RECOMMENDED LONG-TERM LEVELS

SEC. 201. LONG-TERM BUDGETING.

The following are the recommended revenue, spending, and
deficit levels for each of fiscal years 2030, 2035, and 2040 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: 18.8 percent.
Fiscal year 2035: 19.0 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 19.0 percent.
(2) Budget outlays.--The appropriate levels of
total budget outlays are not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 18.5 percent.
Fiscal year 2035: 17.9 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 17.2 percent.
(3) Deficits.--The appropriate levels of deficits
are not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: -0.3 percent.
Fiscal year 2035: -1.1 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: -1.8 percent.
(4) Debt.--The appropriate levels of debt held by
the public are not to exceed:
Fiscal year 2030: 43.0 percent.
Fiscal year 2035: 31.0 percent.
Fiscal year 2040: 18.0 percent.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS

SEC. 301. 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 concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that only consists of a full repeal
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health
care-related provisions of the Health Care and Education
Reconciliation Act of 2010.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE REFORM 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 concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that reforms or replaces the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015
through 2024.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATED TO THE MEDICARE
PROVISIONS 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 concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, that repeals all or part of the
decreases in Medicare spending included in the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, if such measure would not
increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015
through 2024.

SEC. 304. 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 concurrent 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 for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

SEC. 305. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR REFORMING THE TAX CODE.

In the House, if the Committee on Ways and Means reports a
bill or joint resolution that reforms the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may revise
the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in
this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects of any
such bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, if such measure would not increase
the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

SEC. 306. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR TRADE AGREEMENTS.

In the House, the chair of the Committee on the Budget may
revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels in this concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that implements a trade agreement, but only if such
measure would not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal
years 2015 through 2024.

SEC. 307. 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 concurrent resolution for the budgetary effects
of any bill or joint resolution reported by the Committee on
Ways and Means, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, that decreases revenue, but only if such measure would
not increase the deficit for the period of fiscal years 2015
through 2024.

SEC. 308. 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 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 requires sustained yield timber harvests
obviating the need for funding under Public Law 106-393 in the
future and would not increase the deficit or direct spending
for the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2019, or the period
of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

SEC. 309. 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 2015 through 2024.

SEC. 310. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE POVERTY AND INCREASE
OPPORTUNITY AND UPWARD MOBILITY.

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
reforms policies and programs to reduce poverty and increase
opportunity and upward mobility, but only if such measure would
neither adversely impact job creation nor increase the deficit
over the period of fiscal years 2015 through 2024.

TITLE IV--ESTIMATES OF DIRECT SPENDING

SEC. 401. DIRECT SPENDING.

(a) Means-tested Direct Spending.--
(1) For means-tested direct spending, the average
rate of growth in the total level of outlays during the
10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is 6.8
percent.
(2) For means-tested direct spending, the estimated
average rate of growth in the total level of outlays
during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal year
2015 is 5.4 percent under current law.
(3) The following reforms are proposed in this
concurrent resolution for means-tested direct spending:
(A) In 1996, a Republican Congress and a
Democratic president reformed welfare by
limiting the duration of benefits, giving
States more control over the program, and
helping recipients find work. In the five years
following passage, child-poverty rates fell,
welfare caseloads fell, and workers' wages
increased. This budget applies the lessons of
welfare reform to both the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.
(B) For Medicaid, this budget assumes the
conversion of the Federal share of Medicaid
spending into a flexible State 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. Instead, each State would have the
freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid
program that fits the needs of its unique
population. Moreover, this budget assumes the
repeal of the Medicaid expansions in the
President's health care law, relieving State
governments of its crippling one-size-fits-all
enrollment mandates.
(C) For the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program, this budget assumes the
conversion of the program into a flexible State
allotment tailored to meet each State's needs.
The allotment would increase based on the
Department of Agriculture Thrifty Food Plan
index and beneficiary growth. Such a reform
would provide incentives for States to ensure
dollars will go towards those who need them
most. Additionally, it requires that more
stringent work requirements and time limits
apply under the program.
(b) Nonmeans-tested Direct Spending.--
(1) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the
average rate of growth in the total level of outlays
during the 10-year period preceding fiscal year 2015 is
5.7 percent.
(2) For nonmeans-tested direct spending, the
estimated average rate of growth in the total level of
outlays during the 10-year period beginning with fiscal
year 2015 is 5.4 percent under current law.
(3) The following reforms are proposed in this
concurrent resolution for nonmeans-tested direct
spending:
(A) For Medicare, this budget advances
policies to put seniors, not the Federal
Government, in control of their health care
decisions. Those in or near retirement will see
no changes, while future retirees would be
given a choice of private plans competing
alongside the traditional fee-for-service
Medicare program. 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 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. Putting seniors in charge of how
their health care dollars are spent will force
providers to compete against each other on
price and quality. This market competition will
act as a real check on widespread waste and
skyrocketing health care costs.
(B) In keeping with a recommendation from
the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform, this budget calls
for Federal employees--including Members of
Congress and congressional staff--to make
greater contributions toward their own
retirement.

TITLE V--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 501. LIMITATION ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--In the House, except as provided for in
subsection (b), any bill or joint resolution, or 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
concurrent resolution or the joint explanatory statement of
managers to accompany this concurrent resolution under the
heading ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations''.
(c) Limitations.--For fiscal year 2016, the aggregate level
of advance appropriations shall not exceed--
(1) $58,662,202,000 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) $28,781,000,000 in new budget authority for all
programs identified pursuant to subsection (b).
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any new discretionary budget authority
provided in a bill or joint resolution, or amendment thereto or
conference report thereon, making general appropriations or any
new discretionary budget authority provided in a bill or joint
resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year
2016.

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
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
concurrent resolution accordingly.

SEC. 503. ADJUSTMENTS OF AGGREGATES, ALLOCATIONS, AND APPROPRIATE
BUDGETARY LEVELS.

(a) Adjustments of Discretionary and Direct Spending
Levels.--If a committee (other than the Committee on
Appropriations) reports a bill or joint resolution, or
amendment thereto or 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 2015 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.
(b) Adjustments to Fund Overseas Contingency Operations/
Global War on Terrorism.--In order to take into account any new
information included in the budget submission by the President
for fiscal year 2015, the chair of the Committee on the Budget
may adjust the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
budgetary levels for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War
on Terrorism or the section 302(a) allocation to the Committee
on Appropriations set forth in the report of this concurrent
resolution to conform with section 251(c) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as adjusted
by section 251A of such Act).
(c) Revised Congressional Budget Office Baseline.--The
chair of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate budgetary levels
to reflect changes resulting from technical and economic
assumptions in the most recent baseline published by the
Congressional Budget Office.
(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 2015 and the period of
fiscal years 2015 through fiscal year 2024 shall be determined
on the basis of estimates made by the chair of the Committee on
the Budget and such chair may adjust such applicable levels of
this concurrent 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 four consecutive ten fiscal-year
periods beginning with fiscal year 2025.

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 report accompanying this
concurrent resolution on the budget or 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 the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate
levels for legislation reported by the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform that reforms the Federal retirement
system, if such adjustments do not cause a net increase in the
deficit for fiscal year 2015 and the period of fiscal years
2015 through 2024.

SEC. 506. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS AND
AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of the allocations,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels made pursuant to this
concurrent 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 concurrent resolution.
(c) Budget Compliance.--The consideration of any bill or
joint resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, for which the chair of the Committee on the Budget
makes adjustments or revisions in the allocations, aggregates,
and other appropriate levels 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) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Costs of Federal housing loans and loan
guarantees are treated unequally in the budget. The
Congressional Budget Office uses fair-value accounting
to measure the costs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but
determines the cost of other Federal loan and loan-
guarantee programs on the basis of the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990 (``FCRA'').
(2) The fair-value accounting method uses discount
rates which incorporate the risk inherent to the type
of liability being estimated in addition to Treasury
discount rates of the proper maturity length. In
contrast, FCRA accounting solely uses the discount
rates of the Treasury, failing to incorporate all of
the risks attendant to these credit activities.
(3) The Congressional Budget Office estimates that
if fair-value were used to estimate the cost of all new
credit activity in 2014, the deficit would be
approximately $50 billion higher than under the current
methodology.
(b) Fair Value Estimates.--Upon the request of the chair or
ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, any estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office for
a measure under the terms of title V of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974, ``credit reform'', as a supplement to such
estimate 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.
(c) Fair Value Estimates for Housing Programs.--Whenever
the Director of the Congressional Budget Office prepares an
estimate pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 of the costs which would be incurred in carrying
out any bill or joint resolution and if the Director determines
that such bill or joint resolution has a cost related to a
housing or residential mortgage program under the FCRA, then
the Director shall also provide an estimate of the current
actual or estimated market values representing the ``fair
value'' of assets and liabilities affected by the provisions of
such bill or joint resolution that result in such cost.
(d) Enforcement.--If the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office provides an estimate pursuant to subsection (b)
or (c), 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.

SEC. 508. 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 or orders of the House of Representatives, a bill or
joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or conference report
thereon, 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/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 2015. Such separate allocation shall be the
exclusive allocation for overseas contingency operations/global
war on terrorism under section 302(a) of such Act. Section
302(c) of such Act shall 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 2015, 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.

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.

TITLE VI--POLICY STATEMENTS

SEC. 601. POLICY STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Although the United States economy technically
emerged from recession nearly five years ago, the
subsequent recovery has felt more like a malaise than a
rebound. Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth over
the past four years has averaged just over 2 percent,
well below the 3 percent trend rate of growth in the
United States.
(2) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did a
study in late 2012 examining why the United States
economy was growing so slowly after the recession. They
found, among other things, that United States economic
output was growing at less than half of the typical
rate exhibited during other recoveries since World War
II. CBO said that about two-thirds of this ``growth
gap'' was due to a pronounced sluggishness in the
growth of potential GDP--particularly in potential
employment levels (such as people leaving the labor
force) and the growth in productivity (which is in turn
related to lower capital investment).
(3) The prolonged economic sluggishness is
particularly troubling given the amount of fiscal and
monetary policy actions taken in recent years to
cushion the depth of the downturn and to spark higher
rates of growth and employment. In addition to the
large stimulus package passed in early 2009, many other
initiatives have been taken to boost growth, such as
the new homebuyer tax credit and the ``cash for
clunkers'' program. These stimulus efforts may have led
to various short term ``pops'' in activity but the
economy and job market has since reverted back to a
sub-par trend.
(4) The unemployment rate has declined in recent
years, from a peak of nearly 10 percent in 2009-2010 to
6.7 percent in the latest month. However, a significant
chunk of this decline has been due to people leaving
the labor force (and therefore no longer being counted
as ``unemployed'') and not from a surge in employment.
The slow decline in the unemployment rate in recent
years has occurred alongside a steep decline in the
economy's labor force participation rate. The
participation rate stands at 63.0 percent, close to the
lowest level since 1978. The flipside of this is that
over 90 million Americans are now ``on the sidelines''
and not in the labor force, representing a 10 million
increase since early 2009.
(5) Real median household income declined for the
fifth consecutive year in 2012 (latest data available)
and, at just over $51,000, is currently at its lowest
level since 1995. Weak wage and income growth as a
result of a subpar labor market not only means lower
tax revenue coming in to the Treasury, it also means
higher government spending on income support programs.
(6) A stronger economy is vital to lowering deficit
levels and eventually balancing the budget. According
to CBO, if annual real GDP growth is just 0.1
percentage point higher over the budget window,
deficits would be reduced by $311 billion.
(7) This budget resolution therefore embraces pro-
growth policies, such as fundamental tax reform, that
will help foster a stronger economy and more job
creation.
(8) Reining in government spending and lowering
budget deficits has a positive long-term impact on the
economy and the budget. According to CBO, a significant
deficit reduction package (i.e. $4 trillion), would
boost longer-term economic output by 1.7 percent. Their
analysis concludes that deficit reduction creates long-
term economic benefits because it increases the pool of
national savings and boosts investment, thereby raising
economic growth and job creation.
(9) The greater economic output that stems from a
large deficit reduction package would have a sizeable
impact on the Federal budget. For instance, higher
output would lead to greater revenues through the
increase in taxable incomes. Lower interest rates, and
a reduction in the stock of debt, would lead to lower
government spending on net interest expenses. According
to CBO, this dynamic would reduce unified budget
deficits by an amount sufficient to produce a surplus
in fiscal year 2024.
(b) Policy on Economic Growth and Job Creation.--It is the
policy of this resolution to promote faster economic growth and
job creation. By putting the budget on a sustainable path, this
resolution ends the debt-fueled uncertainty holding back job
creators. Reforms to the tax code to put American businesses
and workers in a better position to compete and thrive in the
21st century global economy. This resolution targets the
regulatory red tape and cronyism that stack the deck in favor
of special interests. All of the reforms in this resolution
serve as means to the larger end of growing the economy and
expanding opportunity for all Americans.

SEC. 602. POLICY STATEMENT ON TAX REFORM.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) A world-class tax system should be simple,
fair, and promote (rather than impede) economic growth.
The United States tax code fails on all three counts -
it is notoriously complex, patently unfair, and highly
inefficient. The tax code's complexity distorts
decisions to work, save, and invest, which leads to
slower economic growth, lower wages, and less job
creation.
(2) Over the past decade alone, there have been
more than 4,400 changes to the tax code, more than one
per day. Many of the major changes over the years have
involved carving out special preferences, exclusions,
or deductions for various activities or groups. These
loopholes add up to more than $1 trillion per year and
make the code unfair, inefficient, and highly complex.
(3) In addition, these tax preferences are
disproportionately used by upper-income individuals.
(4) The large amount of tax preferences that
pervade the code end up narrowing the tax base. A
narrow tax base, in turn, requires much higher tax
rates to raise a given amount of revenue.
(5) It is estimated that American taxpayers end up
spending $160 billion and roughly 6 billion hours a
year complying with the tax code - a waste of time and
resources that could be used in more productive
activities.
(6) Standard economic theory shows that high
marginal tax rates dampen the incentives to work, save,
and invest, which reduces economic output and job
creation. Lower economic output, in turn, mutes the
intended revenue gain from higher marginal tax rates.
(7) Roughly half of United States active business
income and half of private sector employment are
derived from business entities (such as partnerships, S
corporations, and sole proprietorships) that are taxed
on a ``pass-through'' basis, meaning the income flows
through to the tax returns of the individual owners and
is taxed at the individual rate structure rather than
at the corporate rate. Small businesses, in particular,
tend to choose this form for Federal tax purposes, and
the top Federal rate on such small business income
reaches 44.6 percent. For these reasons, sound economic
policy requires lowering marginal rates on these pass-
through entities.
(8) The United States corporate income tax rate
(including Federal, State, and local taxes) sums to
just over 39 percent, the highest rate in the
industrialized world. Tax rates this high suppress
wages and discourage investment and job creation,
distort business activity, and put American businesses
at a competitive disadvantage with foreign competitors.
(9) By deterring potential investment, the United
States corporate tax restrains economic growth and job
creation. The United States tax rate differential with
other countries also fosters a variety of complicated
multinational corporate behaviors intended to avoid the
tax, which have the effect of moving the tax base
offshore, destroying American jobs, and decreasing
corporate revenue.
(10) The ``worldwide'' structure of United States
international taxation essentially taxes earnings of
United States firms twice, putting them at a
significant competitive disadvantage with competitors
with more competitive international tax systems.
(11) Reforming the United States tax code to a more
competitive international system would boost the
competitiveness of United States companies operating
abroad and it would also greatly reduce tax avoidance.
(12) The tax code imposes costs on American workers
through lower wages, on consumers in higher prices, and
on investors in diminished returns.
(13) Revenues have averaged about 17.5 percent of
the economy throughout modern American history.
Revenues rise above this level under current law to
18.4 percent of the economy by the end of the 10-year
budget window.
(14) Attempting to raise revenue through tax
increases to meet out-of-control spending would damage
the economy.
(15) This resolution also rejects the idea of
instituting a carbon tax in the United States, which
some have offered as a ``new'' source of revenue. Such
a plan would damage the economy, cost jobs, and raise
prices on American consumers.
(16) Closing tax loopholes to fund spending does
not constitute fundamental tax reform.
(17) The goal of tax reform should be to curb or
eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax
rates across the board--not to fund more wasteful
Government spending. Tax reform should be revenue-
neutral and should not be an excuse to raise taxes on
the American people. Washington has a spending problem,
not a revenue problem.
(b) Policy on Tax Reform.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should enact legislation that provides
for a comprehensive reform of the United States tax code to
promote economic growth, create American jobs, increase wages,
and benefit American consumers, investors, and workers through
revenue-neutral fundamental tax reform that--
(1) simplifies the tax code to make it fairer to
American families and businesses and reduces the amount
of time and resources necessary to comply with tax
laws;
(2) substantially lowers tax rates for individuals,
with a goal of achieving a top individual rate of 25
percent and consolidating the current seven individual
income tax brackets into two brackets with a first
bracket of 10 percent;
(3) repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax;
(4) reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent;
and
(5) transitions the tax code to a more competitive
system of international taxation.

SEC. 603. POLICY STATEMENT ON REPLACING THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE
LAW.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The President's health care law has failed to
reduce health care premiums as promised. Health care
premiums were supposed to decline by $2,500. Instead,
according to the 2013 Employer Health Benefits Survey,
health care premiums have increased by 5 percent for
individual plans and 4 percent for family since 2012.
Moreover, according to a report from the Energy and
Commerce Committee, premiums for individual market
plans may go up as much as 50 percent because of the
law.
(2) The President pledged that Americans would be
able to keep their health care plan if they liked it.
But the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office now
estimates 2 million Americans with employment-based
health coverage will lose those plans.
(3) Then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said
that the President's health care law would create 4
million jobs over the life of the law and almost
400,000 jobs immediately. Instead, the Congressional
Budget Office estimates that the law will reduce full-
time equivalent employment by about 2.0 million hours
in 2017 and 2.5 million hours in 2024, ``compared with
what would have occurred in the absence of the ACA.''.
(4) The implementation of the law has been a
failure. The main website that Americans were supposed
to use in purchasing new coverage was broken for over a
month. Since the President's health care law was signed
into law, the Administration has announced 23 delays.
The President has also failed to submit any nominees to
sit on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a panel
of bureaucrats that will cut Medicare by an additional
$12.1 billion over the next ten years, according to the
President's own budget.
(5) The President's health care law should be
repealed and replaced with reforms that make affordable
and quality health care coverage available to all
Americans.
(b) Policy on Replacing the President's Health Care Law.--
It is the policy of this resolution that the President's health
care law must not only be repealed, but also replaced, for the
following reasons:
(1) The President's health care law is a
government-run system driving up health care costs and
forcing Americans to lose their health care coverage
and should be replaced with a reformed health care
system that gives patients and their doctors more
choice and control over their health care.
(2) Instead of a complex structure of subsidies,
``firewalls,'' mandates, and penalties, a reformed
health care system should make health care coverage
portable.
(3) Instead of stifling innovation in health care
technologies, treatments, and medications through
Federal mandates, taxes, and price controls, a reformed
health care system should encourage research and
development.
(4) Instead of instituting one-size-fits-all
directives from Federal bureaucracies such as the
Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Independent Payment Advisory
Board, individuals and families should be free to
secure the health care coverage that best meets their
needs.
(5) Instead of allowing fraudulent lawsuits, which
are driving up health care costs, the medical liability
system should be reformed while at the same time
reaffirming that States should be free to implement the
policies that best suit their needs.
(6) Instead of using Federal taxes, mandates, and
bureaucracies to address those who have trouble
securing health care coverage, high risk pools should
be established.
(7) Instead of more than doubling spending on
Medicaid, which is driving up Federal debt and will
eventually bankrupt State budgets, Medicaid spending
should be brought under control and States should be
given more flexibility to provide quality, affordable
care to those who are eligible.
(8) Instead of driving up health care costs and
reducing employment, a reformed health care system
should lower health care costs, which will increase
economic growth an employment by lowering health care
inflation.

SEC. 604. 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 or near
retirement becomes more pronounced. According to the
Congressional Budget Office--
(A) the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will
be exhausted in 2026 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 percent per
year over the next ten years, and according to
the Congressional Budget Office's 2013 Long-
Term Budget Outlook, spending on Medicare is
projected to reach 5 percent of gross domestic
product (GDP) by 2040 and 9.4 percent of GDP by
2088.
(3) The President's health care law created a new
Federal agency called the Independent Payment Advisory
Board (IPAB) empowered with unilateral authority to cut
Medicare spending. As a result of that law--
(A) IPAB will be tasked with keeping the
Medicare per capita growth below a Medicare per
capita target growth rate. Prior to 2018, the
target growth rate is based on the five-year
average of overall inflation and medical
inflation. Beginning in 2018, the target growth
rate will be the five-year average increase in
the nominal GDP plus one percentage point,
which the President has twice proposed to
reduce to GDP plus one-half percentage point;
(B) the fifteen unelected, unaccountable
bureaucrats of IPAB will make decisions that
will reduce seniors access to care;
(C) the nonpartisan Office of the Medicare
Chief Actuary estimates that the provider cuts
already contained in the Affordable Care Act
will force 15 percent of hospitals, skilled
nursing facilities, and home health agencies to
become unprofitable in 2019; and
(D) additional cuts from the IPAB board
will force even more health care providers to
close their doors, and the Board should be
repealed.
(4) 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 or 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 or near retirement.
(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 maintain traditional fee-for-
service as an option.
(4) Medicare will provide additional assistance for
lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater
health risks.
(5) Medicare spending is put on a sustainable path
and the Medicare program becomes solvent over the long-
term.

SEC. 605. 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, the Disability Insurance Trust
Fund will be exhausted and program revenues
will be unable to pay scheduled benefits.
(B) In 2033, the combined Old-Age and
Survivors and Disability Trust Funds will be
exhausted, and program revenues will be unable
to pay scheduled benefits.
(C) With the exhaustion of the Trust Funds
in 2033, benefits will be cut nearly 25 percent
across the board, devastating those currently
in or near retirement and those who rely on
Social Security the most.
(3) The recession and continued low economic growth
have exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis facing
Social Security. The most recent CBO projections find
that Social Security will run cash deficits of $1.7
trillion over the next 10 years.
(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) The Disability Insurance program provides an
essential income safety net for those with disabilities
and their families. According to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO), between 1970 and 2012, the number
of people receiving disability benefits (both disabled
workers and their dependent family members) has
increased by over 300 percent from 2.7 million to over
10.9 million. This increase is not due strictly to
population growth or decreases in health. David Autor
and Mark Duggan have found that the increase in
individuals on disability does not reflect a decrease
in self-reported health. CBO attributes program growth
to changes in demographics, changes in the composition
of the labor force and compensation, as well as Federal
policies.
(6) If this program is not reformed, families who
rely on the lifeline that disability benefits provide
will face benefit cuts of up to 25 percent in 2016,
devastating individuals who need assistance the most.
(7) In the past, Social Security has been reformed
on a bipartisan basis, most notably by the ``Greenspan
Commission'' which helped to address Social Security
shortfalls for over a generation.
(8) Americans deserve action by the President, the
House, and the Senate to preserve and strengthen Social
Security. It is critical that bipartisan action be
taken 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 of 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 sustainably solvent. This resolution
assumes reform of a current law trigger, such that:
(1) 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 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 shall, no 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.
Recommendations provided to the President must be
agreed upon by both Public Trustees of the Board of
Trustees.
(2) Not later than December 1 of the same calendar
year in which the Board of Trustees submit their
recommendations, the President shall promptly submit
implementing legislation to both Houses of Congress
including his recommendations necessary to achieve a
positive 75-year actuarial balance and a positive
annual balance in the 75th year. The Majority Leader of
the Senate and the Majority Leader of the House shall
introduce the President's legislation upon receipt.
(3) 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.
(4) Legislation submitted by the President shall--
(A) protect those in or near retirement;
(B) preserve the safety net for those who
count on Social Security the most, including
those with disabilities and survivors;
(C) improve fairness for participants;
(D) reduce the burden on, and provide
certainty for, future generations; and
(E) secure the future of the Disability
Insurance program while addressing the needs of
those with disabilities today and improving the
determination process.
(c) Policy on Disability Insurance.--It is the policy of
this resolution that Congress and the President should enact
legislation on a bipartisan basis to reform the Disability
Insurance program prior to its insolvency in 2016 and should
not raid the Social Security retirement system without reforms
to the Disability Insurance system.

SEC. 606. POLICY STATEMENT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY.

(a) Findings on Higher Education.--The House finds the
following:
(1) A well-educated workforce is critical to
economic, job, and wage growth.
(2) 19.5 million students are enrolled in American
colleges and universities.
(3) Over the last decade, tuition and fees have
been growing at an unsustainable rate. Between the
2002-2003 Academic Year and the 2012-2013 Academic
Year--
(A) published tuition and fees for in-State
students at public four-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
5.2 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation;
(B) published tuition and fees for in-State
students at public two-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
3.9 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation; and
(C) published tuition and fees for in-State
students at private four-year colleges and
universities increased at an average rate of
2.4 percent per year beyond the rate of general
inflation.
(4) Over that same period, Federal financial aid
has increased 105 percent.
(5) This spending has failed to make college more
affordable.
(6) In his 2012 State of the Union Address,
President Obama noted that, ``We can't just keep
subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of
money.''.
(7) American students are chasing ever-increasing
tuition with ever-increasing debt. According to the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student debt more
than quadrupled between 2003 and 2013, and now stands
at nearly $1.1 trillion. Student debt now has the
second largest balance after mortgage debt.
(8) Students are carrying large debt loads and too
many fail to complete college or end up defaulting on
these loans due to their debt burden and a weak economy
and job market.
(9) Based on estimates from the Congressional
Budget Office, the Pell Grant Program will face a
fiscal shortfall beginning in fiscal year 2016 and
continuing in each subsequent year in the current
budget window.
(10) Failing to address these problems will
jeopardize access and affordability to higher education
for America's young people.
(b) Policy on Higher Education Affordability.--It is the
policy of this resolution to address the root drivers of
tuition inflation, by--
(1) targeting Federal financial aid to those most
in need;
(2) streamlining programs that provide aid to make
them more effective;
(3) maintaining the maximum Pell grant award level
at $5,730 in each year of the budget window; and
(4) removing 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 and
competency-based learning.
(c) Findings on Workforce Development.--The House finds the
following:
(1) Over ten million Americans are currently
unemployed.
(2) Despite billions of dollars in spending, those
looking for work are stymied by a broken workforce
development system that fails to connect workers with
assistance and employers with trained personnel.
(4) According to a 2011 Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report, in fiscal year 2009, the Federal
Government spent $18 billion across 9 agencies to
administer 47 Federal job training programs, almost all
of which overlapped with another program in terms of
offered services and targeted population.
(5) Since the release of that GAO report, the
Education and Workforce Committee, which has done
extensive work in this area, has identified more than
50 programs.
(3) Without changes, this flawed system will
continue to fail those looking for work or to improve
their skills, and jeopardize economic growth.
(d) Policy on Workforce Development.--It is the policy of
this resolution to address the failings in the current
workforce development system, by--
(1) streamlining and consolidating Federal job
training programs as advanced by the House-passed
Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills
Act (SKILLS Act); and
(2) empowering states with the flexibility to
tailor funding and programs to the specific needs of
their workforce, including the development of career
scholarships.

SEC. 607. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE
CANCELLATION OF UNOBLIGATED BALANCES.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) According to the most recent estimate from the
Office of Management and Budget, Federal agencies were
expected to hold $739 billion in unobligated balances
at the close of fiscal year 2014.
(2) These funds represent direct and discretionary
spending made available by Congress that remains
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 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 continue to make it a
high priority to review unobligated balances and identify
savings for deficit reduction.

SEC. 608. POLICY STATEMENT ON RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER
DOLLARS.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The budget for the House of Representatives is
$188 million less than it was when Republicans became
the majority in 2011.
(2) The House of Representatives has achieved
significant savings by consolidating operations and
renegotiating contracts.
(b) Policy on Responsible Stewardship of Taxpayer
Dollars.--It is the policy of this resolution that:
(1) The House of Representatives must be a model
for the responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources
and therefore must identify any savings that can be
achieved through greater productivity and efficiency
gains in the operation and maintenance of House
services and resources like printing, conferences,
utilities, telecommunications, furniture, grounds
maintenance, postage, and rent. This should include a
review of policies and procedures for acquisition of
goods and services to eliminate any unnecessary
spending. The Committee on House Administration should
review the policies pertaining to the services provided
to Members and committees of the House, and should
identify ways to reduce any subsidies paid for the
operation of the House gym, barber shop, salon, and the
House dining room.
(2) No taxpayer funds may be used to purchase first
class airfare or to lease corporate jets for Members of
Congress.
(3) Retirement benefits for Members of Congress
should not include free, taxpayer-funded health care
for life.

SEC. 609. POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION THROUGH THE REDUCTION
OF UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL SPENDING.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) The Government Accountability Office (``GAO'')
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) In 2011, 2012, and 2013 the Government
Accountability Office issued reports showing excessive
duplication and redundancy in Federal programs
including--
(A) 209 Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics education programs in 13
different Federal agencies at a cost of $3
billion annually;
(B) 200 separate Department of Justice
crime prevention and victim services grant
programs with an annual cost of $3.9 billion in
2010;
(C) 20 different Federal entities
administer 160 housing programs and other forms
of Federal assistance for housing with a total
cost of $170 billion in 2010;
(D) 17 separate Homeland Security
preparedness grant programs that spent $37
billion between fiscal year 2011 and 2012;
(E) 14 grant and loan programs, and 3 tax
benefits to reduce diesel emissions;
(F) 94 different initiatives run by 11
different agencies to encourage ``green
building'' in the private sector; and
(G) 23 agencies implemented approximately
670 renewable energy initiatives in fiscal year
2010 at a cost of nearly $15 billion.
(4) The Federal Government spends about $80 billion
each year for approximately 800 information technology
investments. GAO has identified broad acquisition
failures, waste, and unnecessary duplication in the
Government's information technology infrastructure.
Experts have estimated that eliminating these problems
could save 25 percent - or $20 billion - of the
Government's annual information technology budget.
(5) GAO has identified strategic sourcing as a
potential source of spending reductions. In 2011 GAO
estimated that saving 10 percent of the total or all
Federal procurement could generate over $50 billion in
savings annually.
(6) Federal agencies reported an estimated $108
billion in improper payments in fiscal year 2012.
(7) Under clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, each standing committee must
hold at least one hearing during each 120 day period
following its establishment on waste, fraud, abuse, or
mismanagement in Government programs.
(8) According to the Congressional Budget Office,
by fiscal year 2015, 32 laws will expire, possibly
resulting in $693 billion in unauthorized
appropriations. Timely reauthorizations of these laws
would ensure assessments of program justification and
effectiveness.
(9) 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.

SEC. 610. POLICY STATEMENT ON UNAUTHORIZED SPENDING.

It is the policy of this resolution that the committees of
jurisdiction should review all unauthorized programs funded
through annual appropriations to determine if the programs are
operating efficiently and effectively. Committees should
reauthorize those programs that in the committees' judgment
should continue to receive funding.

SEC. 611. POLICY STATEMENT ON FEDERAL REGULATORY POLICY.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Excessive regulation at the Federal level has
hurt job creation and dampened the economy, slowing our
recovery from the economic recession.
(2) In the first two months of 2014 alone, the
Administration issued 13,166 pages of regulations
imposing more than $13 billion in compliance costs on
job creators and adding more than 16 million hours of
compliance paperwork.
(3) The Small Business Administration estimates
that the total cost of regulations is as high as $1.75
trillion per year. Since 2009, the White House has
generated over $494 billion in regulatory activity,
with an additional $87.6 billion in regulatory costs
currently pending.
(4) The Dodd-Frank financial services legislation
(Public Law 111-203) resulted in more than $17 billion
in compliance costs and saddled job creators with more
than 58 million hours of compliance paperwork.
(5) Implementation of the Affordable Care Act to
date has added 132.9 million annual hours of compliance
paperwork, imposing $24.3 billion of compliance costs
on the private sector and an $8 billion cost burden on
the states.
(6) The highest regulatory costs come from rules
issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
these regulations are primarily targeted at the coal
industry. In September 2013, the EPA proposed a rule
regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new coal-fired
power plants. The proposed standards are unachievable
with current commercially available technology,
resulting in a de-facto ban on new coal-fired power
plants. Additional regulations for existing coal plants
are expected in the summer of 2014.
(7) Coal-fired power plants provide roughly forty
percent of the United States electricity at a low cost.
Unfairly targeting the coal industry with costly and
unachievable regulations will increase energy prices,
disproportionately disadvantaging energy-intensive
industries like manufacturing and construction, and
will make life more difficult for millions of low-
income and middle class families already struggling to
pay their bills.
(8) Three hundred and thirty coal units are being
retired or converted as a result of EPA regulations.
Combined with the de-facto prohibition on new plants,
these retirements and conversions may further increase
the cost of electricity.
(9) A recent study by Purdue University estimates
that electricity prices in Indiana will rise 32 percent
by 2023, due in part to EPA regulations.
(10) The Heritage Foundation recently found that a
phase out of coal would cost 600,000 jobs by the end of
2023, resulting in an aggregate gross domestic product
decrease of $2.23 trillion over the entire period and
reducing the income of a family of four by $1200 per
year. Of these jobs, 330,000 will come from the
manufacturing sector, with California, Texas, Ohio,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana,
North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Georgia seeing the
highest job losses.
(b) Policy on Federal Regulation.--It is the policy of this
resolution that Congress should, in consultation with the
public burdened by excessive regulation, enact legislation
that--
(1) seeks to promote economic growth and job
creation by eliminating unnecessary red tape and
streamlining and simplifying Federal regulations;
(2) pursues a cost-effective approach to
regulation, without sacrificing environmental, health,
safety benefits or other benefits, rejecting the
premise that economic growth and environmental
protection create an either/or proposition;
(3) ensures that regulations do not
disproportionately disadvantage low-income Americans
through a more rigorous cost-benefit analysis, which
also considers who will be most affected by regulations
and whether the harm caused is outweighed by the
potential harm prevented;
(4) ensures that regulations are subject to an open
and transparent process, rely on sound and publicly
available scientific data, and that the data relied
upon for any particular regulation is provided to
Congress immediately upon request;
(5) frees the many commonsense energy and water
projects currently trapped in complicated bureaucratic
approval processes;
(6) maintains the benefits of landmark
environmental, health safety, and other statutes while
scaling back this administration's heavy-handed
approach to regulation, which has added $494 billion in
mostly ideological regulatory activity since 2009, much
of which flies in the face of these statutes' intended
purposes; and
(7) seeks to promote a limited government, which
will unshackle our economy and create millions of new
jobs, providing our Nation with a strong and prosperous
future and expanding opportunities for the generations
to come.

SEC. 612. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRADE.

(a) Findings.--The House finds the following:
(1) Opening foreign markets to American exports is
vital to the United States economy and beneficial to
American workers and consumers. The Commerce Department
estimates that every $1 billion of United States
exports supports more than 5,000 jobs here at home.
(2) A modern and competitive international tax
system would facilitate global commerce for United
States multinational companies and would encourage
foreign business investment and job creation in the
United States
(3) The United States currently has an antiquated
system of international taxation whereby United States
multinationals operating abroad pay both the foreign-
country tax and United States corporate taxes. They are
essentially taxed twice. This puts them at an obvious
competitive disadvantage.
(4) The ability to defer United States taxes on
their foreign operations, which some erroneously refer
to as a ``tax loophole,'' cushions this disadvantage to
a certain extent. Eliminating or restricting this
provision (and others like it) would harm United States
competitiveness.
(5) This budget resolution advocates fundamental
tax reform that would lower the United States corporate
rate, now the highest in the industrialized world, and
switch to a more competitive system of international
taxation. This would make the United States a much more
attractive place to invest and station business
activity and would chip away at the incentives for
United States companies to keep their profits overseas
(because the United States corporate rate is so high).
(6) The status quo of the current tax code
undermines the competitiveness of United States
businesses and costs the United States economy
investment and jobs.
(7) Global trade and commerce is not a zero-sum
game. The idea that global expansion tends to ``hollow
out'' United States operations is incorrect. Foreign-
affiliate activity tends to complement, not substitute
for, key parent activities in the United States such as
employment, worker compensation, and capital
investment. When United States headquartered
multinationals invest and expand operations abroad it
often leads to more jobs and economic growth at home.
(8) American businesses and workers have shown
that, on a level playing field, they can excel and
surpass the international competition.
(b) Policy on Trade.--It is the policy of this resolution
to pursue international trade, global commerce, and a modern
and competitive United States international tax system in order
to promote job creation in the United States.

SEC. 613. NO BUDGET, NO PAY.

It is the policy of this resolution that Congress should
agree to a concurrent resolution on the budget every year
pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974. If by April 15, a House of Congress has not agreed to a
concurrent resolution on the budget, the payroll administrator
of that House should carry out this policy in the same manner
as the provisions of Public Law 113-3, the No Budget, No Pay
Act of 2013, and place in an escrow account all compensation
otherwise required to be made for Members of that House of
Congress. Withheld compensation should be released to Members
of that House of Congress the earlier of the day on which that
House of Congress agrees to a concurrent resolution on the
budget, pursuant to section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, or the last day of that Congress.